On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 08:36:46PM +0100, Ángel Lobo wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Chris O'Neill <coneill@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2001 8:28 PM
> Subject: [OM] Zuiko 200/4 Lens
> > 3. For telephoto shots, I currently use a 75-150/4. If I need a longer
> > focal length, I add a Kiron 7-element 2X teleconverter. Do I really
> *need*
> > the 200/4 lens, and if so why? (Yeah, like *that* has anything to do
> > with it!)
> > > Regards,
> > Chris
>
> I think is best to carry the Zuiko 65-200 than 75-150 + 200 f 4.
>
> I guess (my own tests) the 200 f 4 is very similar to the 65-200 on 200 mms.
>
> And I guess 65-200 is better than 75-150 on the common range.
>
> The 75-150 is not a good zoom working with a 2X.
>
> Ángel Lobo.
> Cuenca (Spain).
I think this question has a lot to do with personal preference. I vote for the
4/200
towards the 65-200. Sure, performance wise, there is no significant difference
visible. But at least
the MC-Versions of the 5E/4G-prime seems significant brighter than the 14E/11G
zoom.
For me the weight/size difference is crucial. The zoom weights 40% more than
the prime,
And I feel the camera is better balanced with the 4/200 than with the 4/65-200.
Just my 2 cent,...
Frieder Faig
>
>
> < 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 >
>
< 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 >
|