responding to several comments from various people:
>Well, I already have the 200/4 (it's part of my 55mm set!). The 100-200 seems
>more abundant on the used market than the 200/5 though.
neither the 100-200/5 nor the 200/5 can match the 200/4 in image quality
(I've owned all three lenses in the past), and the 200/4 is pretty good,
but no match for the 200/4 AIS-Nikkor.
the 100-200/5, in addition to being a mediocre lens, suffers from terrible
zoom creep-- the zoom ring will move when the lens is pointed up at a
45 degree angle. both the 200/5 and 100-200/5 were designed as
amateur-oriented lenses. they aren't very sharp wide open, and wide open
is already a slow f/5.
If you're looking for a lightweight telephoto solution, presumably you
aren't carrying a tripod. in this case, do you really expect to shoot
at 200mm handheld (ie at 1/250 shutter speed)? if so, a lens that reaches
200mm might be worth it, but I find i never shoot something longer than
135-150mm handheld, so my lightweight tele solution is the vivitar
70-150/3.8 zoom. lightweight and compact, and very sharp (it's easier
to make a lens with a modest zoom range). it's faster than the f/5
lenses discussed above, and usually sells for around $50 in clean condition.
focuses to 1:4 by itself. has 52mm filter threads, so you can permently
attach a 52->55mm adapter to the lens. (I standardize 35mm optics on
62mm actually).
>So for your 50mm f1.8, you might as well not use a filter since a good
>filter will cost as much (or more) than a replacement lens ($US15 from
indeed I don't. I don't think using a filter on a $75-100 lens is cost
effective either.
>Any one every hear of Aroma filters. It says "Aroma 49mm 1A Japan". Is
>this one worth keeping?
it's just a generic filter. worth keeping if it is in good shape, but
not anything to jump up and down about.
Joseph
< 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 >
|