Hi all.
On my opinion, ¡ on the same conditions of test ! (my own tests - OM 4 MLU
and diaph. pre fire, over the same complex landscape and over the same
Mira- test of the french magacine Chasseur d´Images) I don´t think that the
Zuiko 200 f 4 mc is best than Zuiko 200 f 5 mc. Maybe the same quality,
maybe some best contrast on the 200 f 4 mc and even in some others
conditions or kind of photography, best the 200 f 5 in "genaral quality" or
my SQF .
Always I´m talking about the two lenses multi coated.
On the Gary ´s tests, there is only one test parallel, the test done on
first time with OM 1n mirror look up.
As I know, The 200 f 5 mc don´t have no one Gary´s test with the OM 2000
or OM 4. And this 200 f 5 mc don´t have a test with the telephoto lens
support. (All we know the 200 f 4 mc yes have theese tests).
We have seen a clair pocess of improvement on the Gary´s tests of the 200 f
4 mc on every time Gary tests this lens with OM 1n overh., OM 2000, OM 4
and with the telephoto lens support. But this process don´t exist over the
200 f 5 mc.
In summary, I think is not a good idea (looking for the truth) to compare
the Gary Reese test of "first generation" (bad conditions) on the 200 f 5
mc vs the tests of "last generation" (very good conditions) on 200 f 4 mc.
(Thanks again and again for your tests Gary).
Ángel Lobo.
Cuenca- Spain.
----------
> De: Joseph <joseph@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> A: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Asunto: [OM] Re: 200mm primes
> Fecha: sábado 11 de diciembre de 1999 13:54
>
> >Are we reading the same data? The 200/5 mounted on the OM-2000 with
> >aperture and mirror pre-fire and proper support is an A-/B+ lens!
>
> Umm, Gary's data shows the single-coated 200/5 only achieving that
> rating at f/16. At wider apertures it is significantly worse. And
Gary's
> data also says that the single-coated one had "moderately low contrast".
> A lens with moderately low contrast and mediocre image quality until
> it is at least 2 stops closed down from (a slow, f/5) wide-open aperture
> is what I would call a fairly mediocre lens (based on Gary's data).
>
> seeing the sharpest aperture of a lens for 35mm at f/16 is usually a
> clue that it isn't a well corrected lens since it is depending on
>
> As I mentioned, I owned the multicoated one and it was contrasty enough
> but soft until well stopped down.
>
> >>Runners up were the 200/4 Zuiko
>
> >Which is also an A-/B+ lens.
>
> the 200/4 is better than both the single and multicoated 200/5's
> at wider apertures, according to Gary's data, and is a contrasty lens.
> most lenses are sharp enough at f/16. top notch color and contrast, and
being
> well corrected at wider apertures is what makes a lens pro quality.
>
> which data were you looking at?
>
> 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 >
< 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 >
|