Chuck, I have a relatively compact favorite novoflex followfocus lens that I
use a lot that is 240mm and f4 already (and Moose that is a simple old design
very sharp in center,but curved field and soft in corners. I agree that simpler
old long telephoto lens designs often do seem to work surprisingly well. Gary
Reese had results to support that idea)
Chuck I like the idea of F2.8 to control depth of field, but even with modern
sensors if you don't have IS (why I need a A7 ii !),you get nice high shutter
speeds with faster lenses and also great for night photography? If it weren't
for the weight and cost, hey I would go for the F2.0 !
This link has comments that agree with much of what has been said here already
by list members:
http://photo.net/olympus-camera-forum/007oQF
This link includes skip Williams comments, an old member of this list.
Despite limitations users like CH, seem very happy with results, but I guess
the 180/F2.8 main feature now, is it can be had for good price compared to
other slightly better options.
Tim
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
To: usher99@xxxxxxx; Olympus Camera Discussion <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] OM 180mm F2.8 opinions
On 11/29/2014 3:04 PM, Mike Gordon via olympus wrote:
Is all this in a way another throwback to the "need for speed" from film days
as Chuck mentioned?
> At the risk of heresy may I suggest the Cosina Voigtländer SL APO-Lanthar
> 180mm f/4 SL which is available in OM mount.
> One can put it in a pocket and is tack sharp wide open with essentially no
> discernible CA.
A lovely lens, as are its siblings. :-)
> It excels at medium and close distances (Very good, but less impressive at
> infinity) and natively goes to 1:4.
For tack sharp at normal distances, but not for compactness (and not
necessarily for close work, as I haven't tested
that), my ancient, earliest version 200/4 Nikkor just flat whupped both my
200/4 and 200/5, center and edge.
> I love to use it for critters on a bit of extension to keep a large working
> distance. Only thing in that FL range
> more compact is the Zuiko 200/5 which seems to be a bit tough to find in MC
> variety though I haven';t looked in awhile.
Do you think they really exist? I believe I've seen one pic of one example, but
perhaps a prototype or mock-up? Back in
my active OM equipment gathering days, I never saw one for sale.
> Oh, the bokeh on the CV is super at many background distances (not all). Did
> I say it is small?
You did, and it is. :-)
I suppose part of the more complex optical formula (9-7 vs. 5-4) is to allow
the shorter physical length. It's about the
same weight, if you include hood, as the Zuiko 200/4, and the same diameter,
but considerably shorter. As with all
telephotos, the front lens node is in front of the glass, but further in front
than with the Zuiko, and even more than
the Nikkor.
Now that's made me think, and check. The mount to front length of the Nikkor-Q
is about 157 mm. Combined with the
register distance of 46.5 mm, that's over 203 mm, which puts the front node
roughly inside the front element, not out in
front of the physical lens.
Perhaps the lack of much telephoto design is why the lens performs so well with
such a simple optical design?
I can See Clearly Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|