On 3/19/2010 9:19 AM, Nicolas Mitchell wrote:
> Hmm, maybe I should forget it.
My last use of the 200%, as far as I remember, was a wander around the
neighborhood carrying 50/1.8, 100/2.8 and 200/5. I was pleased with
results from all three, except for close-ups with the 50/1.8 with
distant backgrounds, which had ugly bokeh.
As the tests Chuck posted show, the f5 is only a small step behind the
f4 in resolution. I can't speak to other differences, as I haven't made
comparisons. Gary says that only full grade differences are significant
in non-paired comparisons, which would say the two test the same.
At f11-16, I don't think there's any practical resolution difference. As
I was wandering on a sunny day with ISO 160 film, I was probably
shooting at about 1/250 @ f16 or 1/500 @ f11, so I doubt if the f4 would
have given different results. I like the 200/5 a lot for its size and
weight. For me, it's pocketable and the 200/4 isn't.
Anytime anyone comments on performance of these lenses, you really need
to know how they were used, supported and at what shutter speeds. Use
them on a simple tripod @ 1/30 with an OM-1, mirror lock up or not, or
an OM-2, and they will be fuzzy. Hand hold at 1/500, and they are sharp.
The vibration problem is much less at higher shutter speeds and the
"wet" human body is a good vibration damper. Same tripod/camera set-up
with a 5# bag of lead shot draped over body and lens and you're golden.
Same tripod set-up, but with with mirror-aperture prefire on an OM-2S,
4(x), OMPC or OM2000 and you will get much better results than with the
earlier bodies, even without additional vibration control, but not as
good as slower speeds as with it.
Like Chuck, below, I find the Zone-10 form of the tests hard to browse.
I've pulled down the original form and put them on my HD.
Moose
On 3/19/2010 1:02 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> This is the data from Gary's tests of the 200/4 and 200/5 on an OM-2000
> with mirror and aperture pre-fire and Bogen tele support:
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 200mm f/4 Zuiko (multi-coated)
> Vignetting = A
> Distortion = none
> All tests shot with the same lens, in 9+ condition. These multiple
> tests were done to determine the effects of vibration from shutter
> travel and the auto diaphram mechanism.
>
> OM-2000 with mirror& auto diaphram prefire, lens supported by
> Bogen Telephoto Lens Support
> Aperture Center Corner
> f/4 B B-
> f/5.6 B+ B
> f/8 A- B
> f/11 A- B+
> f/16 B+ B+
> f/22 B+ B+
> f/32 B B-
> Notes: Statistically insignificant differences to the OM-4 test below
> [snipped out], perhaps indicating little advantage to a vertical
> traveling shutter in the OM-2000.
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 200mm f/5 Zuiko (single-coated)
> OM-2000 with mirror and aperture prefire and Bogen Telephoto Lens
> Support
> Vignetting = A
> Distortion = slight pincushion
> Aperture Center Corner
> f/5 B- B-
> f/8 B B-
> f/11 B+ B
> f/16 A- B+
> f/22 B+ B
> f/32 B B-
> Notes: Moderately low contrast.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This is comparing multi-coated 200/4 vs. single coated 200/5 but I chose
> this pair because both are supported the same on the same body and we
> all know that vibration is a big problem with the 200/4 and probably the
> 200/5. The differences between them are only about 1/2 a grade which
> Gary's notes say should not be considered significant without a paired
> comparison. Unfortunately, the 200/5 multicoated test was run on an
> OM-1. See Gary's original test data format below for more:
> <http://web.archive.org/web/20050208000949/members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm>
>
> (Sorry, AG, I find your reformatted version not as simple to browse)
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
>
>
> Nicolas Mitchell wrote:
>
>> Hmm, maybe I should forget it.
>> Nic
>>
>> On 19 Mar 2010, at 14:34, Nicholas Herndon wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Hello list,
>>>> I am looking for an excellent condition example of the OM 200mm f5. I
>>>> wonder if there is anyone on the list>who has one for sale?
>>>> Many thanks,
>>>> Nic Mitchell
>>>>
>>> Nic, I happened to stumble across a 200/5 for next to nothing. I had
>>> been looking for one for a while to complete my 49mm filter thread
>>> setup. I hardly used it. It was slow, soft, and really the only
>>> thing it had going for it was its tiny size. Maybe my copy was bad,
>>> but I didn't really care for it. So I sold it on the auction site.
>>> The 200/4 is much superior. Granted, I did no formal testing with
>>> charts or anything of that sort, but I did
>>>
>>>
>>>> Here again is the yearly portrait event in the HK flower show,
>>>> all shots with OM180/2.8 at F2.8 on a 5D II body at ISO160.
>>>>
>>> CH, wonderful portraits. The 180/2.8 is such a nice lens, but it
>>> looks pretty big, especially compared to the 200/4. How do you feel
>>> it handles on an OM body, and do you prefer it on the 5DII?
>>> --
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>>>
>>>
>>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|