Your tests are worth what tests are worth alright.
However, I have good memories of the lens
At shorter FL
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Phileica/Angels/Engelberg-Angels-01-1140275.jpg.html
<http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Phileica/Angels/Engelberg-Angels-01-1140275.jpg.html>
And longer
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Phileica/Angels/Engelberg-Angels-07-1140271.jpg.html
<http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Phileica/Angels/Engelberg-Angels-07-1140271.jpg.html>
(Click large and look for the spider web)
Both taken on the somewhat limited but valiant L1
You might then want to reconsider.
My main concern as already expressed was the accuracy of the AF, and its speed,
or lack of it.
Amities
Philippe
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Phileica/Angels/Engelberg-Angels-01-1140275.jpg.html
<http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Phileica/Angels/Engelberg-Angels-01-1140275.jpg.html>
> Le 31 déc. 2016 à 12:37, bj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx a écrit :
>
>
>
> I have added 6 more shots of the DZ 50 - 200 ED lens images,
> starting at
>
> http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=21386
>
>
> Remember ( as with all the crop shots) to view large, otherwise the
> information on detail is not accessed.
>
> Unfortunately, with a different
> day, different time of day, and different light, from the first set,
> this lot do not reveal the potential of the lens as well, since there
> was no strong side-light to pick out the details.
>
> The previous DZ
> 50-200 ED @ 200 (http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=21327) is
> clearly better than the f/4 version.
>
> My conclusions have not altered
> however. I wonder what they were smoking when
> <http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/50-200mm-f2.8-3.5-zuiko-digital/review/[1]>
> was written. Incidentally, I did read this, several times, before I
> plonked my money down.
>
> Now I have to decide if I will try and get my
> $550 back through selling it. Won't be an easy task to sell it.
>
> From
> my test, the following yield significantly sharper results;
>
> M 40-150
> (and yet I was previously dissatisfied with the results from this lens -
> but in comparison with its big brother, it is a clear winner)
>
> the OM
> Zuiko 200/4 is a good challenger
>
> the Zuiko 300/4.5 is head and
> shoulders above the DZ 50 - 200
>
> the OM Zuiko 85-250 @ 150 is about
> equal to the DZ 50 - 200, and at 250 it could be superior
>
> the OM Zuiko
> 180/2.8 is equal or better at f/8
>
> and the humble OM Zuiko 135/3.5
> punches above its weight. Unfortunately I don't have the f/2.8 version
> to test.
>
> the Sigma APO 400/5 which I had previously written off as a
> bad job, is surprisingly very sharp in the places where its focus is
> spot on. Even at f/8 the DOF is tiny.
>
> on reviewing the crop 100% DZ
> 50-200 ED @ 200 & f/4 again, I guess I need to give this lens some more
> tests.
>
> Clearly, choosing the autofocus zone is of crucial importance.
>
>
> This has been an interesting test. Viewing the images large on Zone10
> (and where very large moving them around the screen using the keyboard
> arrow keys) has yielded more information than I can get from the images
> on my computer, even on my new big screen.
>
> It's now 37 minutes into
> 2017.
>
> Cheers, Brian
>
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
