Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: ZD 18-180 [was e-330, is this what we have been waiting for fro

Subject: [OM] Re: ZD 18-180 [was e-330, is this what we have been waiting for from]
From: Andrew Fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 20:47:35 +1100
It's quite possible that I got a dud - it happens. I worked very hard  
at getting a sharp long image and didn't. I think resting it on the  
crowd barrier at the cricket and taking high shutter speed shots at  
low ISO was as far as I could go! The crowd shots were certainly as  
sharp as I might have wished.
Some of the images here -
http://www.pbase.com/afildes/a_week_with_a_d200__nikkor_18_200mm
-are included for other reasons than their quality. But it gives an  
idea.
It packs a lot into the package but it feels and looks a LOT bigger  
than a 200/4 Zuiko.
If you like that range, then the Sony R1 might suit you!
One test I use is a very subjective response. Basically, how quickly  
did I get decent images and how hard did I have to work at it. It  
took a while with the Nikon. It took longer with the E-500, which I  
don't like much. The E-330, however is very different - I have a lot  
of pix I like quite quickly. I had it on WayneH's OM bellows with the  
80mm Macro today, in B mode and it worked well.
In fact, I have become quite annoyed with Phil Askey's preview on  
dpreview - he seems to be looking for nits to pick to say the least,  
especially with the LCD. At one point he says something like 'If they  
were going to do it, why not do it properly'. I'm beginning to wonder  
if he actually used it in anger! Of course it has flaws but his  
comments on the display seem to ignore the fact that - hell - it  
actually has a preview display and one that works well in most  
situations. It's almost as if they're doing a routine - 'Oh, it's  
Olympus. Right, what we do is admire their efforts but bag the  
results, don't we?'
AndrewF


On 05/02/2006, at 8:00 PM, Winsor Crosby wrote:

>
> I have always been very suspicious, initially of zoom lenses in
> general, and then long zooms. I don't know what the problem was with
> that particular lens or shooting situation, but I have looked at
> enough 100 percent resolution images from that particular model that
> look sharp at any focal length as to consider buying it as a travel
> lens when I have to fly. Its only faults appear to be a little
> excessive barrel distortion at the widest and a little softness at
> the very tips of the corners at some focal length. Softness above 120
> does not seem to be a problem for for that lens if you judge by the
> images or the comments on the Nikon forum at dpreview. And they are a
> cantankerous bunch.  Like you, I thought it was a sop to people used
> to digicams with super zooms, but it appears to be a very nice lens.
> Actually it is not large at all. It weighs one ounce more than the OM
> 200/4 and is 1.2 inches shorter than the 200/4. Oh, and faster at the
> wide end.  I find that pretty amazing.
>
> I agree with Moose too that in the past speed in the lens was more
> necessary in the past when you were limited by the speed of the film
> you had in the camera or or the quality of the high ISO film which
> you could buy. But the camera is part of the equation now. Who cares
> whether the extra 1 to 2 F stops of exposure are obtained with the
> lens or shooting at a higher ISO, at least in most cases?
>
> I am using a 17-55/2.8 zoom  and still getting used to its size and
> weight. Faster lenses are big and heavy. That is not even 4X and is
> only about a stop faster. But the range you mention is the one I
> would have chosen myself except maybe a tad wider 17-120 and maybe
> 3.5 to 4.5 to keep it small.
>
>
>
> Winsor
> Long Beach, California, USA
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 4, 2006, at 10:18 PM, Andrew Fildes wrote:
>
>
>> The Nikon 18-200mm VR that started this is very good in the wide to
>> moderate tele range, say 18-120mm. Then it's downhill. So, to me  it
>> would be more sensible to make a shorter 6X zoom and make it faster.
>> I'm fairly sure that it would cover your needs for relationships in
>> beautiful areas. :)
>>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>



==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

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