The Canon could be better but without a side to side comparison I wouldn't
say the Canon must be better, just like many Zuiko wides are (were) still
highly sought-after.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sawyer, Edward"
>> >The 180/2 is supposed to be quite nice though it's likely not on par
>> >with the canon 200/1.8 or 200/2 I'd think.
>>
>>
>> Why would you say that? It's a spectacular piece of glass - almost
>> as good as the optically perfect 250/2. It looks like the 250's baby
>> brother, especially when they're side-by-side.
>
> Because it's simply not as good, optically. It's not a surprise, Canon has
> had more resources and the benefit of more years of modern lens
> development since the days of the Oly 180/2, so it would be shocking if
> their fast 200s were no better than the Oly 180/2. And of course no lens
> is optically perfect (certainly not the 250/2, as nice as it is). The
> attractive thing of the 250/2 is the speed; sharpness wise the Canon
> 300/2.8 and 200/2 are better, though not as fast for the given focal
> length. Unfortunately the Oly's are rare so not much cheaper than the
> Canons. If Oly was making revised versions of these lenses now, they
> perhaps might be competitive again, but given their age, they simply have
> been surpassed. There's no shame in it.
>
> -Ed
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|