Hi Ray,
Get the Vivitar 200/3 if you can. Good in Gary's tests at middle
apertures. Heavier, but pretty compact. A- at f/16, similar to or
better than /4 & /5 at other apertures. Details at bottom
At 2000 August 3 - Thursday 22:13, Ray Moth <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
spoke about *Re: [OM] Zoom questions...* saying
> Tom Scales said:
>
>> I have both the 200/4 and the 200/5 and when I need that length is
>> is invariably the /5 that I take. It is almost exactly the same
>> size and weight as the 75-150 and is very sweet.
>
> Your opion is interesting. Can anyone comment on the relative merits of
> these two lenses? I'm probably going to get one or the other to expand
> my Zuiko prime lens range - I currently have 21/3.5, 28/2.8, 50/1.4,
> 100/2.8. I have referred to Gary Reese's tests of both the 200/4 and
> the 200/5 and both seem quite acceptable, but the /5 is smaller and
> cheaper to buy.
>
> "The trouble with resisting temptation is
> you never know when you'll get another chance!"
"Most of the regrets we have are for what we didn't do, rather than
for what we did." (Because our fantasies are better than the average
of reality.)
Tom
Gary's tests of ~200mm lenses:
Vivitar Series 1 200mm f/3.0 OM-1 with mirror lockup Vignetting = B
Distortion = slight pincushion
Aperture Center Corner
3.0 D D+
4 C C
5.6 B- B-
8 B B
11 B+ B
16 A- A-
22 B+ B+
Notes: moderately high contrast @ f/8, but moderately low contrast
wide open.
50-250mm f/5 Zuiko (multi-coated) OM-1 with mirror lockup and Bogen
Telephoto Lens Support @ 200mm setting Vignetting = B @ f/5, B+ @
f/8, A @ f/11 Distortion = moderate pincushion
Aperture Center Corner
f/5 C- C-
f/8 C+ C
f/11 B- B-
f/16 B+ B
f/22 B B
f/32 B B
Notes: Moderately low contrast with poor resolution at wider
apertures. Dip in SQF grades (versus 250mm) perhaps due to movements
from the automatic diaphram mechanism.
65-200mm f/4 Zuiko (multi-coated) @ 200mm setting Vignetting = B
Distortion = moderate pincushion OM-1 with mirror lockup, pre lens
overhaul
Aperture Center Corner
f/4 B- B-
f/5.6 B B-
f/8 B B
f/11 B B
f/16 B B-
f/22 B B-
f/32 B B-
OM-4 with mirror and automatic diaphram prefire, plus Bogen Telephoto
Lens Support; post lens overhaul
Aperture Center Corner
f/4 B B-
f/5.6 A- B-
f/8 B+ B
f/11 A B
f/16 A- B
f/22 B+ B
f/32 B B-
Notes: Differences with the OM-4 below are significant at full
letter grades only. Moderately high contrast at f/5.6 to f/11.
Significantly reduced contrast at f/22 to f/32.
70-210mm f/4.5~5.6 S Zuiko (multi-coated) OM-2000 with mirror and
aperture prefire @ 210 mm setting Vignetting = B @ f/5.6 Distortion =
moderate pincushion
Aperture Center Corner
f/5.6 B- B
f/8 B B+
f/11 B B
f/16 B B
f/22 B B
Notes: moderately high contrast at the expense of resolution.
100-200mm f/5 S Zuiko (multi-coated) OM-1 with mirror lockup @ 200mm
setting Vignetting = B Distortion = slight pincushion
Aperture Center Corner
5 D D+
8 D+ C-
11 B- C+
16 C C+
22 B B-
32 B- C
Notes: Image probably degraded by internal camera body vibrations
from shutter and automatic diaphragm mechanism.
180mm f/2.0 Zuiko (multi-coated) OM-4T with mirror and diaphragm
prefire (sample 1) Vignetting = B+ @ f/2, A- @ f/2.8 Distortion =
slight pincushion
Aperture Center Corner
f/2 A A-
f/2.8 B+ B
f/4 B+ B+
f/5.6 A- A-
f/8 B+ B+
f/11 B+ B
f/16 A- B+
f/22 A B+
Notes: Extremely high contrast at f/2 and f/22; high contrast at
f/2.8 to f/16.
OM-4T with mirror and diaphragm prefire (sample 2) Distortion: slight
pincushion
Aperture Center Corner Vignetting Contrast
f/2 B+ B B- mod. high
f/2.8 A- B+ A? mod. high
f/4 A- A- B+ high
f/5.6 A A+ A- very high
f/8 A A A- high
f/11 A+ A- A extr. high
f/16 A- A A very high
f/22 A B+ A very high
200mm f/4 Zuiko (multi-coated) Vignetting = A Distortion = none All
tests shot with the same lens, in 9+ condition. These multiple tests
were done to determine the effects of vibration from shutter travel
and the auto diaphram mechanism.. OM-2000 with mirror and auto
diaphram prefire, lens supported by a Bogen Telephoto Lens Support
Aperture Center Corner
f/4 B B-
f/5.6 B+ B
f/8 A- B
f/11 A- B+
f/16 B+ B+
f/22 B+ B+
f/32 B B-
Notes: Statistically insignificant differences to the OM-4 test
below, perhaps indicating little advantage to a vertical traveling
shutter in the OM-2000.
OM-4 with mirror and auto diaphram prefire, lens supported by a Bogen
Telephoto Lens Support
Aperture Center Corner
f/4 B B-
f/5.6 A- B+
f/8 A- B+
f/11 A A-
f/16 A A-
f/22 B+ B+
f/32 B B-
Notes: Apparently superior results versus using an OM-1 (see below).
Zuiko lenses in this weight and length class need additional support,
as well as mirror and aperture prefiring, to attain their best
results.
OM-1 with mirror lock up, shutter overhaul and Bogen Telephoto Lens
Support
Aperture Center Corner
f/4 C B
f/5.6 B- B
f/8 B B
f/11 B+ B+
f/16 B B+
f/22 B+ B+
f/32 B+ B+
Notes: Test immediately following is with the same camera.
Differences are significant at the 1/3rd grade level (slides
evaluated as pairs). Differences are significant at full letter
grades levels only in comparisons to the OM-4 and OM-1 with untuned
shutter.
OM-1 with mirror lock up and shutter overhaul
Aperture Center Corner
f/4 D C+
f/5.6 C- C
f/8 C C+
f/11 B- B-
f/16 B- B-
f/22 B+ B+
f/32 B B
Notes: Vertical shake evident at f/5.6 (=1/60th sec. exposure) and
f/8 (=1/30th sec. exposure). Test immediately preceeding is with the
same camera. Differences are significant at the 1/3rd grade level
(slides evaluated as pairs). Differences are significant at full
letter grades levels only in comparisons to the OM-4 and OM-1 with
untuned shutter.
OM-1 with mirror lock up and untuned shutter
Aperture Center Corner
f/4 C C
f/5.6 D+ C-
f/8 C- C
f/11 C B-
f/16 C+ B-
f/22 B- B-
f/32 B- B-
Notes: Low mass of OM camera body probably results in camera shake
for shutter speeds of 1/60 to 1/2 sec., in spite of tripod, cable
release and mirror lockup precautions. Better wide open performance
attributable to lack of additional vibration from the automatic
diaphram.
200mm f/4 Zuiko (single-coated) OM-1 with mirror lock up Vignetting =
A-? Distortion = none to very slight pincushion
Aperture Center Corner
f/4 D+ D
f/5.6 D+ C-
f/8 C C
f/11 B- C
f/16 B B-
f/22 B C+
f/32 B C+
Notes: Slightly longer shutter speeds at a given aperture versus the
200mm f/4 multicoated test. Low contrast images.
200mm f/5 Zuiko (single-coated) OM-2000 with mirror and aperture
prefire and Bogen Telephoto Lens Support Vignetting = A Distortion =
slight pincushion
Aperture Center Corner
f/5 B- B-
f/8 B B-
f/11 B+ B
f/16 A- B+
f/22 B+ B
f/32 B B-
Notes: Moderately low contrast.
200mm f/5 Zuiko (multi-coated) OM-1 with mirror lockup Vignetting = A
Distortion = slight pincushion
Aperture Center Corner
f/5 C- C-
f/8 C C
f/11 C+ C
f/16 B- C+
f/22 B- B-
f/32 B B-
Notes: Lens shows high contrast at the expense of lower resolution,
the latter which is probably due to harmonic vibrations from the OM-1
shutter and automatic diaphram mechanism.
------------
Tom Trottier <TomATrottier@xxxxxxxx> ICQ: 57647974
Abacurial Information Technology Consulting
400 Slater St. Suite 415, Ottawa ON Canada K1R 7S7
__o +1 613 291-1168 fax:594-5412 (877)247-8796
_ \< Vote for your favourite Olympus camera at
(+)/'(+) http://www.freevote.com/booth/fav_camera
< 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 >
|