What's your experience with the 200/4? Are you happy with your pictures?
You haven't said and I'm curious. I used it a little but never really
needed the reach much. When I did use it, I never came back with a superbly
sharp picture like I always do with the 100/2.8. Of course if you need a
200, the 100 isn't gonna be a substitute.
I don't have the budget for the big 180s, and don't want to save up a long
time for a focal length I rarely use. In addition, I suspect that the
180/2.8 would also come up lacking as it only has 5 elements (like the
200/4). My prejudice is that 5 elements isn't enough to make a sharp lens
of any focal length. I could be wrong. I'm not schooled as an optical
designer but I feel like I've gathered some expensive opinion.
That's me. What's _your_ two cents?
Lamadoo
From: "Bryan Pilati" <bryan223@xxxxxxx>
> I would like to know what the sudden interest in "bashing" the f/4 lens
is.
> For a long time the opinions were that it was a fine lens and worth
owning,
> and now I see lots of discussion about the f/5 lens being better, blah,
> blah, blah.... I thought all Zuikos were good lenses. It took me a while
> to choose to purchase the f/4 and I based my purchase in part on the
> opinions of this list and other OM sources.
< 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 >
|