I had the 180/2 for many years, but shot only film. I now have the Canon
80-200/2.8. The issues I had with the OM telephotos, especially the 350/2.8,
was the focus would develop play over time making focus a real pain. I
suspect this was due to the lubricants drying up over time. I have no
experience with Canon telephoto primes, but focus is a real problem with
the big OM telephotos.
I liked the OM 180/2 a lot, but more often than not, I would attach a
teleconverter,
which made the lens camera combination a bit unstable on the tripod.
Add to that the fault of the Oly aperture mechanism, as discussed by Moose,
which adds vibration problems with all Oly lens, but especially with
telephotos due to the amount of force required to close the aperture.
To me the usefulness of the 180/2 was for people and hand held shots
at moderate distance. Optical quality aside, what counts for me is the
ability to get the shot, and with today's auto-focus and IS, comparing quality
in this focal range seems a moot point. The IS on the 70-200 makes it a much
more useable lens by comparison, for most situations. Given the focus play
problems with the Oly telephotos, I would not want to go backward from my
Canon 70-200/2.8 IS autofocus. And I had a 180 & 350 for many years.
All this points to having a good viewfinder system, without which focus
is more often at fault than lens sharpness, even with auto-focus. This is
even more important when discussing telephoto and macro lenses.
So if anyone want's to test, the test should include low light shots, potential
flare situations, color rendering, contrast and the percentage of good shots
hand held. The real test is ultimately the system, and here, the aperture
and focus play issue of OM telephotos is a real problem.
I know people have a lot of nostalgia for OM lenses, but "the world has
move on" in the telephoto department.
WayneS
At 10:19 AM 7/23/2009, David wrote:
>Is there any member(s) who are lucky enough to have both? This would be a
>*great*
>question to settle, much more interesting than the wide or normal lenses, in
>fact.
>
>I would actually pay to see a properly done test between Canon 200/2 and
>Zuiko 180/2
>and perhaps even the 250/2.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|