Looking at Canon's published MTF curves, it's hard to see that the 200/2.8
has any advantage over Canon's 70-200/4 other than one stop on the aperture.
The MTF of the 200/2 falls off a cliff at the edge (max open aperture?) but
otherwise looks good.
I haven't seen either the 200/2.8 or 200/2 but the Zuiko 180/2 puts the
Canon 300/4 L to shame for the aesthetics of the lens itself.
The Zuiko 180/2 was clearly meant to be tripod mounted with its permanently
attached tripod foot. Yet the focal length is too short for most wildlife.
So where does it fit with high ISO digital cameras? Perhaps portraits and
landscapes which for most photographers don't really need AF. I don't find
either of the Canon 200mm L prime lenses particularly compelling. The zoom
would seem to be more useful, but I can't imagine I would trade a Zuiko
180/2 for a Canon 70-200/4 zoom.
Jeff Keller
-----Original Message-----
From: Sawyer, Edward [mailto:Ed.Sawyer@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 6:19 AM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OM] Canon vs. Oly teles, et al
> Anyway, even a comparison between a 180/2.0 and Canon's 200mm f/2.8L
> (A lens I used and loved
> for years) would be great to see. If the Oly 180/2.0 manages to
> perform as good as
> the Canon 200/2.8L it's a perfect lens in my books.
The 180 at 2.8 is likely a match for the canon 200/2.8 @ 2.8 I'd think. I
have the Canon, it's a nice lens no doubt, perhaps the best (only?) bargain
in the L-series lineup for telephotos. The better match up though would be
the 180/2 vs. the 200/2 or 200/1.8. Price-wise that is closer to an even
game.
-Ed
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|