On 8/4/2019 7:43 PM, Mike Gordon via olympus wrote:
Gorilla Moose writes:
<<My ancient Nikkor-Q 200/4 is much larger and heavier than the OM 200/4, let
alone the diminutive 200/5, but the Nikkor whuped them both, center and edge, on a 5D.
Have the CV Apo Lanthar 180/4 in OM mount. Sharp as a tack under most
circumstances. I would bet it would whup all the above in most situations. It
also goes 1:4 natively and performs nicely on extension. It is new ver Z. 180
Oly would have made.
Yeah, the Oly has CA problems, as CH reminds us. :-)
It is quite small.
Aha! I thought I'd compared these before:
SL APO-Lanthar 180mm f/4 SL Nikkor-Q Auto 1:4 f =20cm Zuiko
200/4 Zuiko 200/5
Optical construction 9 elements in 7 groups 4-4 5-4
Number of aperture blades 9 6 8
min. focus distance 1.2 m 3 m 2.5 m
Max Magnification 1:4 ~1:12 1:10
Dimensions 66 x 79 72.5 x 163 67 x 127
62 x 105
Weight 485 g 630 g 510 g
Filter size 49 mm (non-rotating) 52 mm 55 mm
Hood barrel-shaped (snap-on) Sliding, built-in
Sliding, built-in Sliding, built-in
Focal length 180 200 200
Mount to focal plane 46 46.5 46
Lens length 79 163
Front of lens to front node. 55 -9.5 27
The trade-offs are pretty clear. The Nikkor isn't even what we think of as a telephoto design, with the front node
inside the lens barrel. Creating a telephoto design requires more elements to maintain good optical performance, as the
node moves forward (or as the glass moves back). The more complex design (with computer aided design and more recent
glass choices) of the C-V allows it to be both small and good.
I've got more than enough gear to carry on our upcoming trip, so if you want a shoot out, the C-V will have to come
Here's the competition. <http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=15147>
And the next one to the right.
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/