>Subject: Re: [OM] 200/5
>I'm not sure why the 200/5 is such a burr under your saddle, and I'm
>willing to concede that you didn't like your lens. Maybe you just had
>a bad one. However, a search of the list archives will show that the
>200/5 users here have gotten excellent results from this lens, and
>test results support the conclusion that it is fully comparable to
>the 200/4. Further, its small size and economical price tag make it
>suitable for use when the "quality at all costs" 250/2 isn't an
>option.
I've had both the 200/5 and 200/4 lenses although the 200/4 was just for a
very short time (had to acquire a Mamiya or something). I didn't have the
200/4 long enough to do anything serious with, but I remember that it was a
bear for macro as it weighed too much to stick out on extension. The 200/5
although "good" wasn't good enough. I doubt that there are gobs of
pictures in my files taken with this lens. In fact, a Soligar zoom
(75-260/4.5) was as good.
Why does the 200/5 have a bad rap? I've been thinking about this and it
hit me that the 200/5 is difficult to focus as it is so slow. Most of the
fuzzyness has little to do with the lens and more to do with mis-focusing.
Furthermore, I remember that the 200/5 lacked the "snap" of other lenses
when in focus. This all lead to a lack of confidence in the lens. I shed
only a few tears when it met an untimely death with a broken inner element.
I wouldn't consider using this lens without a 2-series screen. I did enjoy
the 200/5 for backpacking as it was both compact and lightweight.
Ken Norton
Image66
< 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 >
|