Just a random, untethered thought. Not that the thought itself is
untethered, but maybe the thinker is...
I have the 200/4 Silvernose lens. Actually, I'm on my second one. I
also had a 200/5, a 100-200 and the Soligar 200/2.8. I've also used
Joel's 180/2.8 lens.
Of these, Joel's 180/2.8 was very pleasurable to use because of the
noticable increase in contrast and edgyness when focusing. The 200/4
doesn't quite snap into focus in the same way. But, when stopped down
to normal apertures (F5.6-11), the images are pretty much
indestinguishable from each other. At F4, the 180/2.8 is sharper, but
maybe has more color fringing. The contrast in the shadows was a
little better in the 180/2.8, but I would say that is because of the
coating differences.
The 200/4 is about an ideal lens as it balances size and weight with a
usable wide-open aperture. While I prefer to stop it down one or two
notches, I've done very well with the lens wide-open. The size/weight
of this lens on digital cameras makes it very hand-holdable and very
nicely balanced. That said, I do find that the 200mm focal length is
problematic with the OM bodies, as the aperture arm triggers a lot of
vibration. As occasionaly discussed, the OM-2S is actually about the
best OM body in this regard, because there is a little bit more delay
after the aperture is closed down before the curtain is openned.
AG Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|