Well, there is no accounting for taste....... :-)
For me proportion combined with the body is important. The 55/1.2 is too
short and fat and the 180/2.8 much too big for optimim esthetic appeal
for me.
I don't have either lens, but wouldn't mind having a 180/2.8 donated.
Too expensive though when I have the 200/4 and 5 for more compact and
lighter uses and the amazing Tamron 80-200/2.8 where speed is more
important than size and weight. Gary's tests seem to indicate that the
200/4 & 5 are roughly equal to the 180/2.8 in resolution, reading
through all the vibration issues. And both the Tamron and Tokina
80-200/2.8s look better at their long ends than the 180/2.8. And
besides, I have them already........ Neither of them is particularly
attractive on an OM, but they work well.
Moose
Mike wrote:
>>....Zuikos I think look best on a '4'.....
>>
>>
>>
>Come on Moose! I'm disappointed in you. Everybody knows those two Zuikos
>be the 55/1.2 and the 180/2.8 ;.)
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|