>I disagree. Both Gary's lens tests and my experience show the 200/4
>and 200/5 to be comparable performers. In fact, the single coated
>200/5 perfomed as well as the multi-coated 200/4 when used with
>mirror and aperture pre-fire and proper support.
The 200/5 I had was too soft in the corners wide open and at f/5.6 for
me to be all that excited about it. the 200/4 I had was usable at all
apertures. This is with prefire on a later OM body. Generally, Olympus
has refused to update their old telephoto designs, so most of them are
very average.
>> I don't think using a filter on a $75-100 lens is cost
>>effective either.
>No? You'd rather replace a $100 lens than a $20 filter? I don't
>understand your logic.
Because I'll be replacing that $20 filter several times over the life
of the $100 lens. Moreover, I would only leave a high quality multicoated
filter on the front of a lens all the time, and if I want a brass rim
filter that will hold the glass absolutely perpendicular to the lens axis
for a long time, we're talking about $35 for a B&W MC UV filter. I'll end
up replacing that 2 or 3 times over the life of the lens. Onthe other hand,
I'd probably replace a $22.50 Hoya MC UV filter 4 times over the life
of the lens. I'd rather just buy two lenses, but I suppose some people
would prefer to buy filters.
I do use filters when I shoot, and when you start removing UV filters and
placing them somewhere while you install another filter, they get wear and
tear. They have a short life when used this way, depending on your
standards for image quality.
Joseph
< 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 >
|