Hi,
Ahahaahahha, this weekend I verified it more accurately with a measuring
lint...
>>Btw, the OM System Lens Handbook names a 0.85 m close focus distance for
>>the 65-200.
...and this distance is about right. When measured from the front of the
lens, the distance is some 65 CM, and consequently when measured from the
back of the camera it is indeed some 85 CM.
>again, and sure enough (unless I'm really crap at estimating distances,
>which I don't think is the case) mine focuses at some 40-50 CM! I'll try
>again tonight to see if I can more accurately measure the actual min.
distance...
Looks like I really am crap at estimating this distance then ;)
Cheers!
Olaf
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Olaf Greve
/\/\ Cambridge Technology Partners, Inc.
/ /_ \ Apollo House, Phone: XX-31-(0)20-5750419
\ / / Apollolaan 15, Fax: XX-31-(0)20-5750500
\/\/ 1077 AB, E-mail: ogreve@xxxxxxx
Amsterdam, http://www.ctp.com
The Netherlands
Personal: http://www.angelfire.com/ca/greve
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olaf Greve
> Sent: Friday, January 29, 1999 11:04 AM
> To: 'olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
> Subject: RE: [OM] Blade Count request for lens page
>
> Hi,
>
> >Hehehe, it weighs only 50 gram more than the 65-200 but gives me 65 mm
> extra
> >focal length. It weighs 125 gram less than the 85-250 and still gives me
> 35
> >mm extra focal length. Yes it weighs 780 gram and has a one touch design.
>
>
> Yes, yesterday after reading your message I checked Farrar's Zuiko lenses
> page and couldn't believe that difference either. I remembered that the
> 85-250 @F5 weighed some 930 grams, so I concluded that a 50-250 @F5 must
> certainly be heavier than that, however, I was wrong :)
>
> Where the actual extra focal length is concerned I think the main
> advantage
> of your lens lies in the additional 50 mm on the telephoto side; the 15 mm
> between 50-65 mm is not all that interesting, as I think it's unlikely
> you'll use the lens a lot for taking 50mm pictures ;)
>
> Hmmm, I guess the main reason why the 65/200 is almost as heavy of your
> lens
> must be the F4 vs. the F5 max. aperture...
>
> >Rumours say that is is one of the best zoom lenses. At least its design
> is
> >more modern than the other two long Zuiko zooms. But of course all three
> are
> >good. They're Zuiks, and Zuiks don't stink.
>
> It sounds interesting, however, I'm quite happy with the 65/200 so I would
> only "upgrade" it if I could get a really good deal on a 50/250. Besides,
> I
> was actually pleasantly surprised by how sharp the 65/200 mm is, the only
> real disadvantage I can think of is its weight which makes it difficult to
> hand hold it steady when taking pictures at lower shutter speeds than,
> say,
> 1/60th...
> Arguably so, the F4 is a limiting factor too, but that actually doesn't
> bother me so much, besides, Olympus fastest fixed 200mm lens is also F4
> (of
> course there's the high-end 180, 250 and 350mm lenses but these are way
> too
> expensive for my likings, and rather heavy too)...
>
> >was right, which I can't imagine. At the botton of the SIF specs there's
> a
> >nasty line: "Specifications subject to change without notice". :-( Oh
> well,
> >at least it's still an F5.
>
> Hehehe, are you sure it's not actually F11 then ? ;))))
>
> >Btw, the OM System Lens Handbook names a 0.85 m close focus distance for
> the
> >65-200.
>
> Interesting, very interesting... Yesterday I considered that my
> recollections of the min. close focus distance might be off, so I tried it
> again, and sure enough (unless I'm really crap at estimating distances,
> which I don't think is the case) mine focuses at some 40-50 CM! I'll try
> again tonight to see if I can more accurately measure the actual min.
> distance...
>
> >Yes I live near Amsterdam (fijn weer eens een Nederlander op de lijst te
> >zien :-) - but I'm really not that anxious to see exact test data (and
> >wouldn't know how to produce them either).
>
> Well, I basically meant comparing results of both lenses rather than
> producing exact test data, as I don't exactly know how to do that
> either...
> BTW: do you know some good places for buying 2nd handed gear near A'dam (a
> while ago I called a fair amount of stores, but none of them had any items
> I'm really looking for)?
>
> >I didn't buy it because its supposed superiority or its collectors value,
>
>
> The "superiority" sounds like a fair argument (why not by the best lens if
> possible?), however, I personally think considering lenses to be
> "collector's items" is just bollocks. These lenses were made to be used,
> not
> to be polished up nicely and stored away behind glass - that would be a
> real
> waste...:)))
>
> >a too large gap in focal length, and because of its reasonable weight and
> >its one-touch design. Two bodies and two lenses covering super wide to
> near
> >super tele :-)
>
> Yes, as a supplement to this zoom I have the 35/70 F4 zoom, that way I can
> cover the 35/200 mm range in F4 by only two lenses, not bad! For the wide
> angle range I have the 24mm F2.8 and the 28mm F3.5. Then, I have two 50mm
> F1.8's and one 135mm F2.8. Some of these lenses used to belong to my
> father,
> but when he went to AF Canon he didn't have a real use for them anymore,
> hence the F3.5 version of the 28mm and the two 50mm's :)))
>
> Cheers!
> Olaf
>
>
> < 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 >
< 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 >
|