Moose wrote:
> I'm not sure where folks may get the idea that the 200/4 is a
> less than good lens. Optically, it is really first rate.
I'll chorus in on this. I'm on my second 200/4. The first met
death by broken rear element. The second I procurred through a
very sweet trade deal with another list member.
The 200/4 is simply outstanding. Mine is a silvernosed (well
duh, what do you expect?) and not quite as contrasty as the
180/2.8. Their is an odd bokeh/sharpness nuance at certain
aperture/distance combinations which shows up on the E-1, but it
absolutely rocks, otherwise.
In my testing on the E-1, the lens easily outresolves the sensor
between F5.6 and F11. I totally agree with Moose on this one.
The lens is limited by the camera body. The OM body is notorious
for setting up vibrations with certain lens combinations and the
200/4 is one of those lenses. On the E-1, I have absolutely zero
problems with it. I've never had telephoto this good before.
Without a doubt, the 200/4 is one of the "sleeper" lenses in the
line-up. Oh, and the reduced contrast of the lens actually makes
it a little better for digital photography too.
AG
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|