> 2. Recently I had need to try the Zuiko 200/4 and 300/4.5
> on the M5 for a subject about 1 km distant.
> I found them very disappointing. Difficult to focus, much ?chroma? green
> margins
> on items, and not sharp. The kit tele lens (guessing 50 - 150) was much
> sharper.
There is a lot of variability between cameras and these lenses. The
300/4.5 is gut-wrench horrible on the DMC-L1 for chroma. It's quite
good on the E-1, but also problematic on the E-3. However, on the 6D,
it rocks! The 300/4.5 and 6D combination is excellent and I get almost
no chroma and what I do get is typically easy to address. Depending on
film the 300/4.5 is lovely on an OM film body.
The 200/4 is another story. Horrible on film bodies (vibration),
glorious on the E-1 and L1, but marginal on the 6D. That's a "go
figure" thing. (I don't recall using it on the E-3 yet).
To add one other lens twist to the mix, the 100/2 is a golden lens on
every camera EXCEPT the 6D. On the 6D, the 100/2.8 simply blows it
away. It's not bad, but the 2.8 is just a whole league better. The
100/2 is better for video, though.
Oh, one other twist of the lenses... The 28/2 is almost orgasmic on
the film bodies, selectively so on the 6D, but sucks pond water on the
4/3 cameras. Yet, the 24/2.8, which smokes it on all of the digital
cameras is kinda ho-hum on the film bodies because of vibration. The
28/2 vignettes like a Holga on the 6D, wide open.
AG Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|