I have both the 200/4 and the 200/5. The 200/5 gets carried in the bag
more, but the 200/4 is used more when that focal length is needed. The
200/4 is still acceptable with my (Tokina) 2X tele-converter. I
wouldn't try a converter with the 200/5. The additional mass of the
200/4 seems to make it easier to handhold. Finally, the 200/4 is
usually less expensive than the 200/5.
I do not have the 180/2.8, but I lust for one in my heart.
Bill Stanke
"Barry B. Bean" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 12:39:23 -0700, Daniel J. Mitchell wrote:
>
> > Do people have preferences for one over the other?
>
> I love my 200/5. The size and weight compared to the 200/4 more than
> make up for the 1/3 stop difference, and I don't see a noticeable
> difference in image quality between the two.
>
> I should note, however, that I also have the 180/2.8, so that I can
> choose between small and slow or big and fast. The 200/5 gets thrown
> into the travel bag, and the 180/2.8 gets thrown into the bag for
> sports, low light, and portraits.
> -
> B.B. Bean bbbean@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Bean & Bean Cotton Co
> http://www.beancotton.com
> Peach Orchard, MO
>
> < 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 >
|