>Well there isn't a Zuiko in this range (70-210), speed (F3.5) and quality
>(which is pro-level). The Zuiko 60-200/4 and Cozuiko 70-210/4.5-5.6 are no
>match for the Angénieux.
:Can you verify that this is the case? The 65-200 was rated by Amateur
:Photographer as a "pro spec" lens and capable of top-notch results. If so,
:then the Agenieux must be one stunning optic.
It should be, considering the Angénieux costed about four times as much
(US$.1845 in 1983 according to Robert Monaghan's site) as the Zuiko 65-200
(Hfl.1145 in 1989). But I'm sure the Zuiko lens is a great performer too,
and differences will only be visible when both lenses are well supported
(neither of them have a tripod collar).
I know the two Angénieux zooms (the other one was a 35-70/2.5) were
generally accepted by Leica R users and these people often tend to be a
little critical about their lens choices ;)
The only test I've found of the Angénieux is on Photodo's site, where it
gets a 3.9 rating, which is very good for a zoom lens (it is the same rating
as the Zuiko 100/2 as a matter of fact; the Zuiko 35-80/2.8 gets 'only' a
3.6). But I know these ratings don't tell very much, their tests are
limited. One interesting note is they tested the Nikon AF version of the
Angénieux lens; it's very well possible that the Olympus MF version I have
performs even better. Look for instance at the difference between the AF
version (3) of the Tamron 300/2.8 vs. the MF version (3.8)...
If I visit Las Vegas some day I'll bring the lens along for testing...
hoping it doesn't get lost in a bet ;)
hnz
< 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 >
|