Is there any member(s) who are lucky enough to have both? This would
be a *great*
question to settle, much more interesting than the wide or normal
lenses, in fact.
I would actually pay to see a properly done test between Canon 200/2
and Zuiko 180/2
and perhaps even the 250/2.
The Olys are so rare, in fact, that very often they cost somewhat more
than the Canon
counterparts. Precisely why it may take a long hold-out until I
eventually find a
180/2.0, especially one I can afford at the time :-) The one or two
180/2 and 250/2
lenses which have been on eBay for years command ridiculous prices,
because they are
being sold by known-ridiculous sellers, such as photo-arsenal. I have
heard many bad
stories of these vendors, yet they somehow manage to hoard exotica
gear and put it up
for ridiculous prices.
Anyway, even a comparison between a 180/2.0 and Canon's 200mm f/2.8L
(A lens I used and loved
for years) would be great to see. If the Oly 180/2.0 manages to
perform as good as
the Canon 200/2.8L it's a perfect lens in my books.
On 23 Jul 2009, at 4:01 PM, C.H.Ling wrote:
> 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/
|