How does the OM 180 F2.8 stack up weight wise to other legacy glass or even
current lenses?
I find the Canyon 200mm/F2.8 pretty heavy,especially given A7 is a little
lighter than an OM1.
OM 180/F2.8: 700g
Nikon 180/f2.8 ED : 822g
Sigma 180/F2.8 APO currently available 1630g
Canon 200mm/F2.8 (MD ver) 790g, I have
Canon 200mm F2.8 EF USM L series currently avail 820g
Minolta 200mm/F2.8 APO Minolta/Sony Amount 790g
The OM is the lightest.
AG and Chuck recomended against the 2.8 lens, for weight reasons as the small
OM 200mm/F4 is respectable quality, especially if stopped down all the time,so
no vibration, as in an EVF camera. I think for travel they are right, even 700g
is a lot to lug around while traveling.
Now that I have used my 200mm Canyon a bit ,
things I like :
1) it seems sharp at F2.8
2) great narrow depth of field
3) nice really smooth IF makes focusing a breeze
4) focus works well in viewfinder at normal magnification,focus aid helps on
the rear view screen
5) Solid construction and nice slide out locking hood.
things I don't like
1) the weight ,it is quite tiring to hold and shoot with
2) the zoomed in focus aid is difficult to use, because it is so high
magnification and there is slight viewfinder delay which is not noticable
normally, but makes it more difficult when holding heavy lens.
3) Purple fringing ,means extra work in PS
Seems like a real advantage of the similar Nikon 180 ED, is less purple
fringing cost is 300-400 so a bit more expensive?
The Nikon 180mm ED ,F2.8 being ED glass should have less purple fringing than
legacy OM or Canyon
http://matthewdurrphotography.com/2012/06/02/lens-review-nikon-180mm-f2-8-ai-s-ed/
http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/180200mmnikkor/index.htm
Tim
________________________________
From: Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Olympus Camera Discussion <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 8:15 AM
Subject: Re: [OM] OM 180mm F2.8 opinions
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/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|