At 19:28 1/7/01, Chris O'Neill wrote:
1. Anyone shoot with this beastie wanna comment on the quality of its
output? How's the contrast, bokah, etc.?
It's a good lens and a cut above the 75-150/4 zoom. You will notice that
200mm is at the limit of hand held work. It's size and weight make it
easier to hold steady, but still strongly recommend 1/250th or
faster. With the slower transparency films and slower shutter speeds I use
it is on tripod about half the time. Contrast is excellent and resolution
high. Not used as often as the 135/2.8, but it's the one I reach for when
that one isn't quite long enough. I've also used it with the Vivitar auto
extension tubes for a few macros and it works very well. Sold the 75-150/4
after acquiring the 135/2.8 and 200/4 and using them for a short
time. With the 35-105 also, the 75-150 became redundant. Here are a
couple shots done using a 200/4 MC:
http://johnlind.tripod.com/oly/gallery/om50.html
Nope, no extension tubes. You can see the bokeh in this one.
It will pick up aperture shape on strong distinct pinpoint
specular highlights if not wide open, but nearly all lenses do that.
http://johnlind.tripod.com/oly/gallery/om61.html
When the slide is projected, the writing just above the front tire
and brand name on the pair of oil filters can clearly be read!
Used it in this one for "image management" to get top of the background
bluffs above the tractor. I have some other slides . . . not scanned
yet . . . with equal resolution and contrast.
2. Any comments on those prices?
If the glass is in perfect condition, it's a very good price. According to
Farrar's lens page it came SC and MC. It's hard to tell from your
description which it is. I believe the evolution in these was something
like "F.Zuiko" (SC) to "Zuiko MC" to "Zuiko" (also MC). Check the Coating
Survey on Lee Hawkins' site to see if there are enough listed there to
bracket your S/N. It appears the host server for it is down right
now. Personally I would not worry about the SC/MC if your photos with it
are satisfactory compared to what you get with your other lenses.
3. For telephoto shots, I currently use a 75-150/4. If I need a longer
focal length, I add a Kiron 7-element 2X teleconverter. Do I really *need*
the 200/4 lens, and if so why? (Yeah, like *that* has anything to do
with it!)
As a Zuikohobbyist, you ask if you _need_ it? Of course you _need_
it! You must have it . . . to hold it, turn its aperture and focus rings,
slide the lens hood along its smooth barrel, peer into its large front
element, provide it the loving, caring, nurturing home it deserves, and
allow it to find purpose in life by helping you create excellent photographs!
Think about the 75-150/4 you are using. If you want longer than 150mm, you
are no faster than f/8 with the Kiron added, no matter how good it might be
otherwise. You cannot get DOF control very easily at an f/8 aperture. If
that's a consideration, then two stops faster will help greatly.
-- John
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|