Olympus Om 65-200mm F4 Zuiko Close Focus Lens 65-200/4 Review
108 • Senior Fellow member • Posts: 1,272
Zuiko OM 65-200 f4 and 200 f4
Hi all
I accept had a rather practiced experience with an onetime OM 135 f2.viii on a four/iii body .
Has anybody here on this forum used an OM 65-200 mm f4 zoom, and/or a 200 mm f4 ( preferably on a 4/three format ), and how practise they conduct especially at the long end ( 200 mm ) ?
Thanks
Olympus OM-D East-M5 Olympus OM-D Eastward-M10 Olympus E-M1
ANSWER:
This question has not been answered yet.
Re: Zuiko OM 65-200 f4 and 200 f4
108 wrote:
Hi all
I take had a rather skilful experience with an old OM 135 f2.eight on a 4/3 body .
Has anybody here on this forum used an OM 65-200 mm f4 zoom, and/or a 200 mm f4 ( preferably on a 4/iii format ), and how do they behave specially at the long finish ( 200 mm ) ?
Cheers
I accept the OM 200mm f4 with adapter for Micro 4/three but honestly accept non had a chance to use it yet. As far as handling goes, it is positively bulkier/heavier than native lens offering (none that I know at exactly 200mm tho). Focus ring and apertures are snappy and no wiggle. The niggling retractable hood is handy.
OP 108 • Senior Fellow member • Posts: 1,272
Re: Zuiko OM 65-200 f4 and 200 f4
GnarlydogOZ wrote:
108 wrote:
Hi all
I have had a rather good experience with an old OM 135 f2.eight on a 4/three trunk .
Has anybody hither on this forum used an OM 65-200 mm f4 zoom, and/or a 200 mm f4 ( preferably on a 4/iii format ), and how do they acquit especially at the long terminate ( 200 mm ) ?
Thank you
I take the OM 200mm f4 with adapter for Micro 4/3 simply honestly have non had a chance to use it yet. As far as handling goes, it is positively bulkier/heavier than native lens offering (none that I know at exactly 200mm tho). Focus band and apertures are snappy and no wiggle. The footling retractable hood is handy.
Please do me a favour, shoot once at f4 and then at five.6 at 1600 iso at dusk and post the pics hither
Thank you a lot
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus OM-D E-M10 Olympus E-M1
Re: Zuiko OM 65-200 f4 and 200 f4
108 wrote:
GnarlydogOZ wrote:
108 wrote:
Howdy all
I have had a rather good experience with an old OM 135 f2.8 on a 4/three torso .
Has anybody here on this forum used an OM 65-200 mm f4 zoom, and/or a 200 mm f4 ( preferably on a 4/3 format ), and how practise they bear especially at the long stop ( 200 mm ) ?
Thanks
I have the OM 200mm f4 with adapter for Micro 4/3 merely honestly have not had a chance to apply information technology yet. Equally far every bit handling goes, it is positively bulkier/heavier than native lens offer (none that I know at exactly 200mm tho). Focus band and apertures are snappy and no jerk. The little retractable hood is handy.
Please do me a favour, shoot once at f4 and then at 5.half dozen at 1600 iso at sunset and post the pics here
Thanks a lot
I volition try to get those images for you.
But why at 1600 ISO and at dusk? I know that might be the state of affairs that you want to employ that lens in but honestly I don't remember it volition show how proficient or bad that lens is. Unless you are concerned that it is depression contrast and will give you flat images? that should also show up in different low-cal situations?
OP 108 • Senior Fellow member • Posts: 1,272
Re: Zuiko OM 65-200 f4 and 200 f4
GnarlydogOZ wrote:
108 wrote:
GnarlydogOZ wrote:
108 wrote:
Howdy all
I accept had a rather good experience with an old OM 135 f2.8 on a 4/three torso .
Has anybody hither on this forum used an OM 65-200 mm f4 zoom, and/or a 200 mm f4 ( preferably on a 4/three format ), and how practise they carry especially at the long end ( 200 mm ) ?
Thanks
I have the OM 200mm f4 with adapter for Micro 4/iii but honestly have not had a take a chance to use it yet. Every bit far as handling goes, it is positively bulkier/heavier than native lens offering (none that I know at exactly 200mm tho). Focus ring and apertures are snappy and no jerk. The picayune retractable hood is handy.
Delight do me a favour, shoot in one case at f4 and and so at 5.6 at 1600 iso at sunset and mail service the pics here
Thanks a lot
I volition try to get those images for you.
Merely why at 1600 ISO and at dusk? I know that might be the situation that you want to utilise that lens in only honestly I don't think it will show how adept or bad that lens is. Unless you are concerned that it is low contrast and will give y'all flat images? that should also show up in different light situations?
yeah that is the situation I intend to use the lens in . And if results delight me at iso 1600 early evening and so I'll exist most likely satisfied with better light scenarios , judging from my feel with the OM 135 mm f2.viii .
So here is a chance to use your lens on your m4/3
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus OM-D E-M10 Olympus Eastward-M1
Re: Zuiko OM 65-200 f4 and 200 f4
108 wrote:
I will attempt to go those images for you.
But why at 1600 ISO and at dusk? I know that might be the situation that you desire to employ that lens in but honestly I don't call back it volition evidence how good or bad that lens is. Unless you are concerned that it is low dissimilarity and will give you flat images? that should also evidence up in different light situations?
yes that is the situation I intend to utilize the lens in . And if results please me at iso 1600 early evening and so I'll be most probable satisfied with better light scenarios , judging from my feel with the OM 135 mm f2.8 .
Then hither is a chance to use your lens on your m4/3
towards the evening tonight I took some pix for y'all:
into the altitude towards the light, first at 200ISO
ISO 200, f4
200ISO, f8
OK, enough of the 200ISO; yous asked for 1600ISO
All images were shot paw-held (with images stabilization on, set to 200mm) electronic shutter (to avoid shutter-daze) and braced myself a wall with the steadiest pose possible. I wanted to mimic what you could practise out in the field (unless yous program to apply a tripod simply perhaps then you don't need 1600ISO?). All pix are .jpg straight out of the photographic camera, no processing, color balance on photographic camera set to "cloudy".
OP 108 • Senior Member • Posts: one,272
Re: Zuiko OM 65-200 f4 and 200 f4
Thank you so much for the pictures , that was of great assistance . Sharpness wise I call up this lens is pretty much ok , at that place is a bit of "ghosting" at f4 iso 200 , but that's to be expected with legacy zuiko lenses and I don't listen that at all .
Now I see you lot have used an Em1 and I'm a bit puzzled by this iso 1600 , well information technology does not look very good . What were your settings for the jpegs , I mean sharpness, contrast , noise reduction if whatever ( I think you have the noise filter on , not certain though ) . The electronic shutter did not help I call up and added dissonance .
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus OM-D Due east-M10 Olympus Due east-M1
OP 108 • Senior Fellow member • Posts: 1,272
Re: Zuiko OM 65-200 f4 and 200 f4
108 wrote:
Thank you so much for the pictures , that was of great aid . Sharpness wise I recollect this lens is pretty much ok , in that location is a flake of "ghosting" at f4 iso 200 , but that'due south to be expected with legacy zuiko lenses and I don't mind that at all .
At present I see you have used an Em1 and I'm a bit puzzled by this iso 1600 , well it does not look very good . What were your settings for the jpegs , I mean sharpness, contrast , noise reduction if whatsoever ( I think you have the noise filter on , non certain though ) . The electronic shutter did non help I retrieve and added dissonance .
well I've taken a second await and these iso1600 look fine , just the beginning i with the 2 buildings on the left is a bit messy ( I have downloaded and checked your exif , personally I always turn the noise filter off and wouldn't employ the electronic shutter considering of dissonance , I had a bad experience with the pana G5 )
Thank you once more for your attention ( where were these pics taken , by the way ? )
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus OM-D E-M10 Olympus E-M1
Re: Zuiko OM 65-200 f4 and 200 f4
I bought a OM 65-200 mm f4 zoom brand new virtually twenty-25 years ago and was very disappointed with information technology. I think information technology was a dud just at the fourth dimension I wasn't used to the concept of dramatic sample variation and I didn't return information technology. I persisted and ultimately rarely used it. I promise my particular lens was a dud considering if all OM 65-200 mm f4 zooms are the same then it's a piece of junk that I wouldn't touch with a clomp pole.
Having said that, I have several other Zuiko lenses and find them superb.
Re: Zuiko OM 65-200 f4 and 200 f4
108 wrote:
108 wrote:
Thank yous so much for the pictures , that was of great assist . Sharpness wise I think this lens is pretty much ok , in that location is a bit of "ghosting" at f4 iso 200 , but that's to be expected with legacy zuiko lenses and I don't mind that at all .
At present I see you lot have used an Em1 and I'm a bit puzzled by this iso 1600 , well it does non look very good . What were your settings for the jpegs , I mean sharpness, contrast , racket reduction if whatever ( I think yous have the dissonance filter on , non sure though ) . The electronic shutter did not help I think and added dissonance .
well I've taken a second expect and these iso1600 look fine , but the outset one with the 2 buildings on the left is a bit messy ( I accept downloaded and checked your exif , personally I always turn the noise filter off and wouldn't use the electronic shutter because of noise , I had a bad experience with the pana G5 )
Cheers again for your attention ( where were these pics taken , by the style ? )
Y'all are welcome. Will experiment with noise filter and electronic shutter to run across the departure
Images were taken in Brisbane, Australia
GnarlydogOZ wrote:
108 wrote:
Hello all
I have had a rather good experience with an old OM 135 f2.viii on a iv/iii body .
Has anybody hither on this forum used an OM 65-200 mm f4 zoom, and/or a 200 mm f4 ( preferably on a iv/3 format ), and how do they comport specially at the long cease ( 200 mm ) ?
Cheers
I have the OM 200mm f4 with adapter for Micro four/3 merely honestly have not had a chance to apply it even so. As far as handling goes, it is positively bulkier/heavier than native lens offering (none that I know at exactly 200mm tho). Focus ring and apertures are snappy and no jerk. The niggling retractable hood is handy.
I accept a Komura 200mm f4.five in LTM thread mount which I bought as hardly a deal only it is in quite good condition. I am starting to call back that Komura used some special helicoid grease that was formulated in Siberia and sold off cheap in 44 gallon drums. Not merely has my limited feel with M39 LTM Komuras been entirely tight focus rings only they are ofttimes metioned as having "strong focus action" by honest vendors in their speil.
In whatever case the object of my post is that Komura seems to have made a range of M39 LTM lenses as prime number telephoto and covered the longer lengths where there were not a lot of RF lenses made. As far as I know only because the RF focus mechanism started to struggle and small viewfinder units must have made precise focusing a work of some fine art and a substantal amount of guess. In any example the 200/4.5 does have the focus cam for anyone that might yet like to have a effort. But of grade this is not such a bother with digital cameras. Where it is advantageous is that the short flange focal distance makes for a more than compact telephoto lens on a digital body. With M4/three there is besides a heave from the ingather cistron.
But the stiff focus ring does take the joy out of it. Luckily they are non a hugely hard lens to work on. I have just re-greased my quite uncomfortable tight focus band on my 200/four.5 and propose to try it out today on a GM5 - it makes for a quite compact long lens.
Whe I pulled the helicoid apart I found that the grease was reasonably well applied and nighttime, more like axle grease than I might expect - whatever they used it was well done, but presumably gets universally glutinous with historic period (?) - I suspect that Komuras are all like that. Merely once cleaned and lightly re-greased with "modern" high cook signal grease this lens is at present silky smooth. The relatively narrow lens butt may too be a problem as the twisting torque necessary is higher.
This is the second Komura lens I have had to "fix" in this manner - the other virtually needed a plumbers stilson wrench to move the focus ring when it arrived.
I likewise take found that the infinity stop is perfect and that this is another tribute to the Pixco LTM-M4/3 adapters that I bought some months ago - perfect registration distances that accommodate a perfect infinity focus lens.
Oh, and the other problem with this compact wonder lens is that the shut focus is 8 metres (!). Well, nosotros want a telephoto to accept reach ....
-- hibernate signature --
Tom Caldwell
Re: Zuiko OM 65-200 f4 and 200 f4
I only concluded up with both the 65-200 and the 200/f5, within a week of each other; the 65-200 at a used photographic camera/lens shop inside an antique mall I ran across in Orlando, the 200/5 today at an manor auction. (They also had about-pristine copies of the 50/three.5 macro, 24/2.8, and 100/2.8; pity I already have all three. ;_; Anyone hither interested? I could make a run support there tomorrow.)
Anyone accept further feel with these lenses since this thread was started?
The 65-200 I picked up because I've gotten interested in comparing lenses with that focal length; this was a copy in very squeamish exterior condition, and I plant one reference in a quick search that sounded promising (http://www.lensshatterbyrattus.com/2017/07/olympus-zuiko-65200mm-f4.html). Some initial testing that twenty-four hours showed pretty depression contrast, but a decent image when contrast boosted:
At outset I was wondering if it was veiling flare... but now that I'm back in the office under potent lighting, I can finally encounter the haze on the rear chemical element. Time to go spelunking within, when I become a gamble...
The 200/5 was priced at $20 considering of fungus; a quick wait through seemed to show it only on the front element, so I took a risk and grabbed it. Back at the office, wiped the outside front clean, and that looks like that may take taken intendance of the problem; I couldn't spot anything obvious with a quick flashlight test.
A few quick shots outside the office expect promising, through the long MFD is annoying:
Nikon Coolpix A Fujifilm X20 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Pentax K-50 Olympus PEN-F +19 more
Re: Zuiko OM 65-200 f4 and 200 f4
I believe the OM 65-200 has somewhat of a reputation for 1 detail element hazing. Some people online claim to have been successful cleaning it. I have just checked my copy, it doesn't take it, but has enough of grit, so I oasis't cleaned it and then forgotten near it. From my tests the lens has adept contrast and colours, with average resolution in the corners, but rather pronounced imperial fringing in the corners, fifty-fifty at F8.
The Olympus 200/4 has above average resolution and contrast right out to the corners at F8, with just a touch of purple fringing.
kcdogger • Veteran Fellow member • Posts: iii,672
Re: Zuiko OM 65-200 f4 and 200 f4
I besides take both of those lenses, although I take not used them for some time. As I recall, both are decently precipitous. It took three copies of the 65-200 to go one without haze. The get-go one was terrible - could hardly run into through information technology - 2d non far behind. Culprit in both was the rear lens. The 200 was quite skilful, but I too got the 200 f5, which is smaller (but slower) for m4/iii.
peace.
John
Olympus TG-6 Panasonic ZS100 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX99 Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 +28 more than
kcdogger • Veteran Fellow member • Posts: 3,672
Re: Zuiko OM 65-200 f4 and 200 f4
Travis - If yous figure out how to clean upwardly the rear element (brume) on the 65-200, delight allow me know. I still take one - very hazy - in my junk pile. Yep, the long minimum focus distance of the 200 f5 is very annoying.
Peace.
John
Olympus TG-six Panasonic ZS100 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX99 Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 +28 more
fferreres • Veteran Member • Posts: 7,224
Re: Zuiko OM 65-200 f4 and 200 f4
Travis Butler wrote:
I just concluded upwards with both the 65-200 and the 200/f5, within a week of each other; the 65-200 at a used camera/lens shop inside an antique mall I ran across in Orlando, the 200/5 today at an estate sale. (They also had nigh-pristine copies of the fifty/3.5 macro, 24/2.8, and 100/two.eight; compassion I already have all three. ;_; Anyone here interested? I could brand a run back up there tomorrow.)
Travis, practise you have the address? I leave non far from there.
Too, does anyone know any of the photographers that become to rocket launches? I'd like to get in touch with anyone to learn a bit most how they go to sites.
koushiro • Forum Fellow member • Posts: 78
Re: Zuiko OM 65-200 f4 and 200 f4
I also picked up a 200mm f5, actually based on a tip on the forum. I utilise it on full frame, not m4/3, just it'southward become one of my favorite lenses. I mostly employ it for landscapes, particularly sunrise and sunset. For that, MFD and small aperture don't actually carp me at all. I just love how darn small-scale it is. And surprisingly sharp, too.
Sony a7 III Fujifilm Ten-T30 Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 Iii Samyang AF 35mm F2.8 Iron Sony Fe 50mm F2.eight Macro +6 more
Re: Zuiko OM 65-200 f4 and 200 f4
fferreres wrote:
Travis Butler wrote:
I just ended upwardly with both the 65-200 and the 200/f5, inside a week of each other; the 65-200 at a used photographic camera/lens shop inside an antique mall I ran beyond in Orlando, the 200/5 today at an estate sale. (They also had nigh-pristine copies of the 50/iii.5 macro, 24/2.8, and 100/ii.8; pity I already have all 3. ;_; Anyone here interested? I could make a run back up there tomorrow.)
Travis, do you take the address? I go out not far from in that location.
http://www.oldcamerastore.com is their website; 95 Geneva Drive, Oviedo, FL 32765.
Besides, does anyone know any of the photographers that get to rocket launches? I'd like to get in touch with anyone to acquire a bit almost how they get to sites.
The closest I've seen is some of Ars Technica's articles on preparing to shoot a space launch:
https://arstechnica.com/scientific discipline/2018/03/how-to-photograph-a-rocket-launch-from-a-rooftop-on-falcon-heavys-celebrated-mean solar day/
For me, it was just doing some net searches on good viewing sites, talking to the information desk at the conference hotel (who sadly didn't know anything more than the websites), and starting out from the hotel at 3:thirty AM to have plenty of time to expect at the identify earlier the v:45 AM launch.
(Concluded upwardly at Jetty Park in Port Canaveral - looked like the simplest spot to accomplish from the hotel and that was important when trying to find it pre-dawn. The launch pad was behind the trees, but otherwise it was a beautiful spot to watch and shoot from.)
Jetty Park, Port Canaveral, FL
The extended motorcoach tour at Kennedy Infinite Center visits the on-base sites you tin can pay to attend; I didn't use either ane considering I had to spend the rest of the day at the conference, and I didn't want to pay for a ticket+launch site fare simply to see the launch. Would patently be a better bargain if you can spend the whole day in that location.
https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/explore-attractions/behind-the-gates/kennedy-space-center-explore-tour
https://world wide web.kennedyspacecenter.com/launches-and-events/events-calendar/see-a-rocket-launch
https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/blog/03/how-to-watch-a-rocket-launch
Nikon Coolpix A Fujifilm X20 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Pentax Grand-50 Olympus PEN-F +19 more
Re: Zuiko OM 65-200 f4 and 200 f4
kcdogger wrote:
Travis - If you figure out how to clean up the rear element (haze) on the 65-200, delight let me know. I still have i - very hazy - in my junk pile. Yes, the long minimum focus distance of the 200 f5 is very annoying.
Volition do!
It looks similar the rear mountain plate is held on past 3 screws, and it'southward a split piece (as compared to say the 24/2.8, where the mount plate is combined with the metallic ring holding the depth of field scale). That's the main fashion I can see to get access to the rear area of the lens; I'thousand not seeing whatever obvious slots for a spanner wrench.
Later on the original mail service, I remembered the owner also had a 25mm extension tube, and I suddenly realized what it might be expert for. Swung by this morning and fortunately information technology was yet there... and it definitely improves the MFD on the 200/5..
Nikon Coolpix A Fujifilm X20 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Pentax K-l Olympus PEN-F +xix more
willoughbylextre1939.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4050081
0 Response to "Olympus Om 65-200mm F4 Zuiko Close Focus Lens 65-200/4 Review"
Post a Comment