Joseph,
Did you compare the 200/4 AIS with the Zuiko 200/4 using a OM body w/
mirror and
aperture prefire, i.e. OM4 or OM2000?
The reason I ask is that using Kodachrome 25 my Zuiko 85/2, 100/2, 135/2.8 now
equal or outclass my 85/2 AIS, 105/2.5 AIS and 135/2.8 AIS Nikkors when tested
on an OM4 Ti. That wasn't the case before, when I tested my Zuikos on an OM1
with mirror up only.
The Nikkors were tested on an F3 body with mirror and aperture prefire. The
135/2.8 AIS Nikkor seems a little sharper using an F2 AS body (also mirroa and
aperture prefire), which is a somewhat more massive body and seems to have a
little lower shock in the shutter escape mechanism than the F3. Still the
Zuiko
135/2.8 outclassed the AIS Nikkor 135/2.8 in repeated tests at full aperture
and f/8.
I don't own any 200's but I am curious about the data point, since my lens
tests seem to consistently rate Zuikos as first rate.
Zuiko 100 At 02:15 AM 12/9/99 -0800, you wrote:
>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 >
>
Kurt Hurley IDS 2000 Product Marketing Manager
Schlumberger T&T - Diagnostic Systems
1601 Technology Drive San Jose CA 95110
email khurley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PH 408-437-5156 FAX 408-437-9031 PG 408-699-4587
|