Hi,
>> Does anyone have some test data (Gary?) for comparing the zoom against
those
>> two fixed length lenses?
>I've been waiting to see this topic raised by someone :-)
So I did you a "favour" there ;)
>The data has been posted for two months at
>http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm
Oops, I should have just checked that before typing the message :)
>I've already shot the 85-250mm f/5 zoom at 180mm and will have that posted
in
>the near future. The 180mm f/2.8 was posted over the last week. Posted
for
>sometime now has been the 100mm f/2.8 with 2X teleconverter and the
100-200mm
>f/5 S Zuiko.
Good stuff!
For me the telephoto ranges are what currently draws my attention (I used to
be more into the wide angles), so this is always interesting. It's good to
see some benchmarks of the various zooms in comparation to the fixed focal
length versions.
>My personal conclusion is that the 65-200 is the way to go for 180-200mm
>focal length shooting, if not 105 to 200mm shooting!
Yes, when looking at your test page I was a bit amazed at the differences in
results between the zoom and the fixed 200mm lenses, of course the numbers
may not tell it all, but the differences are stunning.
Either way, I'm very glad that I bought that zoom lens, as it really
performs well and I use it quite often. The only disadvantage to me is its
weight...
>I suspect that only the 180mm f/2 Zuiko can outperform it at 180-200mm,
among Zuikos. It >could be many moons before we locate a 180mm f/2 to test,
though.
Hehehe, yeah, imagine the price difference between those two lenses.
>The 200mm f/4 Zuiko tests were so underwhelming that I reshot the
>multi-coated lens to make sure I didn't do anything wrong (I didn't) and I
>borrowed a single coated lens to have a "second opinion."
I see I didn't seem to have misunderstood these words then. When I stood
corrected, for a moment I thought I had maybe misread something, but now I
do feel that at least you think these lenses perform poorly. Any way, again,
I have no personal experience with them, so I can't make any comparation
between these lenses and the zoom.
>At this point I have a one word response to the prime versus zoom quality
>argument: "dogma." I wonder what that translates to in the other native
>languages of OM List subscribers?
Well, even if a fixed lens within the zoom range of the 65/200 outperforms
that zoom, I still don't regret having bought it. It's a really nice lens
which allows you to stand a fair bit away from your "objects", so when
taking pictures of people (and big animals) they will not directly notice
they're being photographed and hence will not act unnaturally. Of course you
can also do this with a fixed lens, nut then you'll find _yourself_ moving
around a lot to get the composition as desired, instead of simply moving
that focusing ring.
So, for me the quality differences are not that important given the fact
that the zoom already gives excellent quality. In other words, at least
where this lens is concerned I'm definitely in favour of the ease and broad
applicability of the zoom vs. the maybe marginally higher quality of a fixed
lens. Adding your test results to that, I now feel very happy to see that
it's conceivable that this zoom even performs better than a great many of
the fixed lenses within the same focal range! :)
>I may as well add: what does "flame" translate to? At least I have data to
hide behind if a >flame war breaks out.
You might be contradicted by someone on your statements, but I would be very
surprised if they'd actually flame you for it - that is such an immature
reaction that I don't expect that to happen within this crowd :)
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 >
|