On Thu, 27 May 1999 12:45:29 -0400, Morgan Sparks wrote:
>You're probably correct in using prints for your personal tests if that
>is the format you use.
My thinking was as follows:
1) Gary has already done a slide test, and the results can be seen on
his page. His tests are likely more accurate than mine. My "data" is
offered in addition to those results, and in no way replaces them.
What I was interested in was a substantial quality difference between
the two lenses. If the differences are very minor, then I can make my
lens choice based on speed, size, and weight - all very easily
quantifiable. Likewise, if there were a major difference, it would
show up in prints.
As it turns out, the main thing I learned (which just confirms what
Gary and others have been telling us) is that an unsupported 200mm
lens on an OM-1n is soft focus on the hoof. The difference between
the lens was minor on prints, so I'll continue to choose my lens as I
have been- 200/4 for low light or use with a 2x, and the 200/5 for
all other uses.
Coincidentally, the mailman just brought in a roll of Tri-X I shot
with one of the 200s (I don't recall which) I shot hand held with a
2x convertor. Despite the fact that I was shooting moving targets,
every picture came out sharp as a tack - MUCH sharper than my tripod
shots.
BBB
-
B.B. Bean - Have horn, will travel
bbbean@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Peach Orchard, MO
http://www.beancotton.com/bbbean.shtml
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|