They've been discussed here a time or two before. There seem to be two
camps. One group finds the 200/4 superior and are willing to go the
'heavier, 55mm route'. The other group is more favorable to small and light
and 49mm filters. I own both, but on the rare occasions I go for a 200mm
tele, I almost always go for the 200/5. Why, you ask? Because it's little.
It's about the same size as the 70-150/4 and I think takes wonderful
pictures. Is the 200/4 better? Perhaps, but I really like the 200/5.
I think it is the same comparison between the fast and slow wide-angles.
Are the fast ones better? Well, they're faster. Probably better in a
measurable way. But I like little and light. Of course, I'm a confusing
guy. I love the 24/2.8, but in the 21, there is something indescribable
about the 21/2.
Oh well. Buy them all!
Tom
Just came to think...I've actually never seen one of subj. Neither new
nor second hand nor in the hands of some other zuikoholic. I don't seem to
recall it being discussed on the list either.
This strikes me as a bit odd, considering that it should not really be an
"exotic" lens (as e.g. the 250/2).
I wonder why this is? In one of the german photo books (by
Frantz...something...) I have, it's being used as almost a "standard
tele", but I've never come across one anywhere in the real world.
Anyone have this lens? What's the verdict? Is it worth the price (what is
the price, actually) etc....
Of course.....never having seen one, I'm starting to lust for having
one...sighs....I've got two 200/4 - how would I justify a 200/5 to the
CDFO?....
--
-------------------------------------------
Thomas Heide Clausen
< 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 >
|