I just looked at Gary Reese's evaluation of the 200/5 Zuiko, both
single-coated and multicoated. I used to own a multicoated one and I
concur with Gary's data that this is not a good lens, as I suggested
previously. His data also describes the single-coated version as having
moderately low contrast. Although I haven't owned this (SC) version, if this
is correct, then I'd consider it to be a mediocre lens as well.
I have owned the following lenses available for OM mount that reach 200mm,
along with a couple zooms that only reach 150mm:
Olympus: 200/4 (MC, 2 samples), 200/5 (MC, 1 sample), 100-200/5 (MC, 1 sample),
65-200/4 (MC, 1 sample), 75-150/4 (SC, 1 sample)
Tamron: 200/3.5 (1 sample), 70-210/3.5-4 (1 sample)
Vivitar: 70-210/3.5 Series 1 (MC, 67mm filter threads, 1 sample),
70-210/3.5 Series 1 (MC, 62mm filter threads, 1 sample),
70-150/3.8 (MC, close-focus version, 1 sample)
200/3 Series 1 (1 sample).
Some were mediocre in quality, some were too heavy or difficult to handle for
consistently sharp pix (on or off tripod), but I was generally never fully
satisfied with many of them. The ones I kept and liked the best are:
Vivitar: 70-210/3.5 Series 1 (62mm filter threads)
70-150/3.8
Runners up were the 200/4 Zuiko and 65-200/4 Zuiko, and Vivitar 200/3. All
of these are fine lenses, but I preferred the vivitar 70-210 for the following
reasons:
1. the 200/4 isn't enough sharper at 200mm or lighter weight than the
70-210/3.5 (62mm filters) to give up the convenience of a zoom. It takes
a careful look to see the difference between these two lenses shot at
200mm and f/4. I'd give the edge to the 200/4 for corner sharpness and
contrast, but they are pretty close. the 200/4 is more flare-resistant
also. I was satisfied with the 200/4, but the 70-210/3.5 vivitar
(62mm filters) is much lighter and more compact than a 200/4 plus 135/2.8
that it replaced (and less expensive to boot).
2. the 65-200/4 is a fine lens, but the focal length adjustment cylinder is
fully extended to focus at 200mm, making the lens a bit front heavy to
the point that I felt this lens would be well served by having a tripod
mount. the vivitar 70-210 has the same cylinder retracted close to the
camera at 210mm, so at the higher magnifications (200mm) where vibrations
are more of a problem, the center of gravity is closer to the camera.
This is a small thing, but it makes the lens handle much more comfortably
on a tripod. Also the Vivitar lens supports close focus at all focal
lengths in the zoom range, instead of just at 65mm like the Zuiko zoom.
I use the Vivitar zoom for closeups (sometimes with a Nikon 5T closeup
lens on the front) set at 210mm when I need working distance for a
closeup shot. The 65-200/4 Zuiko is clearly inferior for this type of
shot as a result.
3. the Vivitar 200/3 is a bit heavy for a prime lens. the extra speed is
nice, but I didn't feel I needed it for the work I do. I might use it for
flower portraits for a stronger separation of flower from background than
is possible shooting at 210/3.5, but I usually do these types of shots at
210/4 anyway.
4. The Tamron lenses above were acceptable, but nothing special.
Some other comments: I found the image quality of the 200/5, 100-200/5, and
75-150/4 Zuikos to be unacceptable. The Vivitar 70-150/3.8 is a real sleeper
in that it is surprisingly quite good, better than any of these compact lenses
certainly, and quite inexpensive on the used market. It makes a great
portrait lens also. It is only slightly larger than a 135/2.8 Zuiko.
Well, such were my experiences. I hope the content was useful enough to
justify the amount of text, but maybe it wasn't.
Cheers,
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 >
|