Steve Spencer wrote: tsdevine wrote:
Fair enough Steve, can we at least agree that it as special in terms of size? I could be wrong, but it is the smallest solution that the OP could consider at 200mm (there are others that may be smaller if you include "close" FLs.)
-Tim
Steve Spencer wrote: tsdevine wrote:
Steve,
If you believe this guy, the Olympus OM 200mm f/5 does have some special glass (not saying to the level you may be thinking about.) Note you have to run this through Google translate unless you can read Italian.
There is some CA that has to be removed, but I haven't found this to be very problematic in my shooting experience.
I don't believe him that it is all that special. Olympus designated some of the their OM lenses as ED, like the 100 f/2 ED, and their fast super telephotos lenses. This lens they did not. Neither does the Mir resource for Olympus OM lenses mention it, and instead they describe it as always being a budget lens:
All that leads me to believe if it has special glass it is not likely to be the special glass that is effective in reducing lateral CA --that is the real problem with these telephotos. Even the 100 f/2 ED, which I own and has the ED label and was considered a premium lens in its time, really only partially corrects for these aberrations at a focal length that is much easier to correct.
Yes, very much. It is special in terms of size and Olympus was very good at that with this lens being a prime example of that capability.
I used the Olympus OM 3.5/135 for many years and it was an excellent lens, one of the sharpest I had (but I sold it when moving to DSLR, so don't know how it performs there). Very small and very affordable lens, Olympus was very good at producing such gems. Probably 200mm is already a step up in difficulty for controlling CA; my OM 4.5/300 while also very sharp had more CA/PF problems ;-)
Mar 29, 2019 at 11:23 AM
Previous versions of technic's message #14805185 « small 200mm »
