On Wed, 26 May 1999 18:14:20 -0800, Gary Schloss wrote:
>Furthermore, several people, including yours truly, had mentioned that
>they get very nice results with the various "body + 200mm lens/zoom"
>rigs -- handheld, while the same rigs disappoint when shot from a tripod.
Last week I finally got around to doing some test shots with my 200/4
MC and 200/5 SC.
I normally either use these lenses hand held at shutter speeds of
1/250+, monopod mounted at 1/60+, or tripod mounted for sunsets and
landscapes - very forgiving subjects for sharpness. To date, I've
been very happy with both, and have typically carried the 200/4 to
ball games and low light shoots, and the 200/5 for daytime shooting
or situations where weight and size are a concern. Both have produced
excellent results, very sharp with no noticeable vignetting,
distortion, or other problems.
What I don't do a lot of is shooting subjects up close on a tripod at
1/4 to 1/60, but that's how I decided to test, shooting a brick wall
from 30 feet. I did make one concession to normal use by opting to
shoot print film and judge results from 5X7 prints with a loupe,
deciding that differences not apparent at this level weren't
significant for my use.
Since my OM-4T is visiting John Hermanson, I tested with my OM-1n
using MLU and Varimagnifier, mounted on a Bogen 3021/3030 tripod and
head.
Not surprisingly, both lenses produced comparable results. Both
lenses produced the sharpest results at f/8 and f/16 (I tested wide
open, f/8, f/16, & f/32). The 200/5 was noticeably sharper than the
200/4 at f/8, and was somewhat sharper at f/16, but it was hard to
tell the difference wide open and at 32. The 200/5 had higher
contrast overall.
What was surprising is that ALL of the shots were noticeably soft,
presumably from vibration. My hand held and monopod mounted shots
have always been sharper, and my landscape/sunset shots have never
suffered from lack of sharpness with these lenses. Clearly, the
much-discussed "tripod effect" is stronger than I realized, and I'll
have to adjust my shooting accordingly.
Unfortunately, the results were less clear for the 200/4 vs 200/5.
For tripod mounted shots, there's no question that my 200/5 was
sharper, and that f/8 to f/16 is this lens's optimal range . However,
I'm not sure how much of the 200/4's softness was due to vibration,
so I've done a round of hand held shots at optimum aperture to see if
the difference holds up. I suppose for completeness, I should also do
a few side by side monopod shots- maybe tomorrow...
BBB
-
B.B. Bean - Have horn, will travel
bbbean@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Peach Orchard, MO
http://www.beancotton.com/bbbean.shtml
< 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 >
|