> >The 180/2 is supposed to be quite nice though it's likely not on par
> >with the canon 200/1.8 or 200/2 I'd think.
>
>
> Why would you say that? It's a spectacular piece of glass - almost
> as good as the optically perfect 250/2. It looks like the 250's baby
> brother, especially when they're side-by-side.
Because it's simply not as good, optically. It's not a surprise, Canon has had
more resources and the benefit of more years of modern lens development since
the days of the Oly 180/2, so it would be shocking if their fast 200s were no
better than the Oly 180/2. And of course no lens is optically perfect
(certainly not the 250/2, as nice as it is). The attractive thing of the 250/2
is the speed; sharpness wise the Canon 300/2.8 and 200/2 are better, though not
as fast for the given focal length. Unfortunately the Oly's are rare so not
much cheaper than the Canons. If Oly was making revised versions of these
lenses now, they perhaps might be competitive again, but given their age, they
simply have been surpassed. There's no shame in it.
-Ed
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|