On Tue, 20 Apr 1999, Joel Wilcox wrote:
<snip>
>The 200/f4 is a very tricky lens, in my opinion. In Zuikoid terms, it's
>longish and heavy-ish on an Oly bod. I get better performance with it
>using a long lens support, which tells me that some sort of shutter
>"resonance" is an issue in degrading image sharpness. If your tripod has
>any inherent defects, you will find them with the help of this lens. I've
>made my peace with this lens, I use it quite a bit, and really do enjoy it,
>but all things being equal, I'd support your decision to go for the the
>200/5, and the last reason would be to get the 49mm filter size. However,
>I've never used the 200/5, so let your own test results be your guide.
Can you explain this a bit more or refer me to someplace that
does? Most of my shots with the 50/1.8 and 28/3.5 so far have been
handheld. I've done a few tele shots with the 75-150/4 and the 2x TC on a
video tripod (for the lack of anything better) I had at home. I do have a
plan on getting a tripod soon, but as this video pod is here, I'm putting
of the real one till later and concentrating on lenses at the moment. I
haven't gotten back the pictures, but the video tripod, a lightweight
Samsonite, was not stable at all with an OM1n, 2x TC and 75-150/4. Also,
i've dropped the 200/5 from consideration after reading advice against it
in favor of the 200/4.
>Good luck building your kit.
Thanks to you and to everyone else who has advised me. This is a
wonderful group :-)
Siddiq
--
"...and lose the chance to hear coz you don't listen."
--/Vertigo/ DuranDuran
< 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 >
|