Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [OM] 135mm/2.8+2xA

Subject: RE: [OM] 135mm/2.8+2xA
From: jowilcox <jowilcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:35:53 -0600
Arguments have raged through the years about these lenses. Negative reactions 
to Gary's tests of the 200/4 caused him to evaluate the effect of the OM-1's 
aperture stopdown "kick" with longer lenses.  He moved away from using the 
OM-1 for test purposes about that time and also started using some additional 
lens support in some cases.  My former 200/4 certainly produced much better 
images with additional lens support.

Joel W.

>===== Original Message From Andrew Gullen <andrew.gullen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> =====
>Don't tell me that! I heard the 200/5 was a bit of a dog and the 200/4 was
>fairly nice, so I just bought a 200/4.
>
>Gary Reese's tests seem to indicate an approximate draw, with perhaps an
>edge to the 200/4, though it may not be significant.
>
>Andrew
>
>> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:21:26 -0500
>> From: lamadoo@xxxxxxxx
>> ...
>> There's a lot of agreement that the 200/5 is a honey of a lens, and since I
>> can't recommend the 200/4 I had, they're probably right.
>
>
>< 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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz