Reading mode: Light Dark

OM 200mm f4

Go to last post
pcblade

pcblade

Active member
Messages
81
Reaction score
0
Location
Limoges, FR
Hello,

Coming from a Canon 10D, I've purchased a E-410 and now a e-520 (my futur E-1 is coming now by USPS from Alaska ;-) ).

I love using my OM lenses : fast, black, small, cheap... to make street photography.

Thank you for your feedback,
PeF.



---
PeFClic http://flickr.com/photos/25146760@N05/
 
another one...

 
Could you please mention shooting conditions, especially the f stop you sued. In OM Adapter leaflet they suggest to shoot eith f8 or 11.

For focusing, I use LV with 7x or 10x magnification. Even in low light, using boost function activated, focusing is practical. in 10x you are using EFL of 4,000mm !!! so I always keep IS botton pushed to make the scene more stable.

I would say pictue quality is very well, and not different from EZ-40...150.

Enjoy the excellent old stuff!
 
I'm very pleased to see this thread, as my OM 200mm/F4 arrived last week, and I'm yet to have a good play with it. Looking forward!
  • Steve
 
For the first of the woman : 1/200 at f8
For the second of the young man : 1/320 at f5.6

IS has been enabled on the two.
Straight from the camera, no modifications.

PeF.
 
nice photos, I should be getting my om 200 f4 next week :) just got a 300mm 4.5 and the first shots I have taken look great.
 
Nice shot. I sold my 200 as I prefer the 135mm 2.8, although I did pick up a Nikon 180/2.8 to get a little distance and speed.
--



http://www.pbase.com/jfinite
 
Think I'll dust off my 200mm for my morning walk tomorrow- just a little smaller than the 70-300.

Have you had any issues w glare? I found shots taken on bright sunny days suffered, while the lens was excellent when it wasn't so bright.

I once calculated that I could add a foot of length to the hood w/o vignetting, but never did anything about it.
--
Art P



Select images may be seen here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8131242@N04/
 
Art_P said:
Think I'll dust off my 200mm for my morning walk tomorrow- just a
little smaller than the 70-300.
Have you had any issues w glare? I found shots taken on bright sunny
days suffered, while the lens was excellent when it wasn't so bright.
I once calculated that I could add a foot of length to the hood w/o
vignetting, but never did anything about it.
--
Art P
Click to expand...
You do get purple fringing with this lens, but not too bad. In fact IQ is not very far behind the 50-200, and such a small package.

I would certainly recommend them if you like to play with MF. As someone said, you need to go to F8 for best results, but it works well with IS on the E-3.
Cheers,
Don
 
Gidday Hugh & All
HughofBardfield said:
I sold my OM 200mm f5 (along with some other OM stuff) to get an E1.
If it had been the f4 version I'd have probably kept it.

They are ridiculously small for an effective 400mm lens - very
unobtrusive for this kind of shot. However, I do find accurate
focussing a challenge in anything but very good light.
Click to expand...
I am finding the E-1 much better for focusing with my OM lenses. The OVF might not be in the same league as that of the E-3, but it is still better than the E-510.

However, even with the E-510, I have got some pretty good results. E-510 with OM f3.5/28 at f5.6:



Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
-----

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php



Bird Control Officers on active service.
 
Today I shot few pix with my good old 200 F4 and my brand new E-520. I was in same scene (same bright sunshine too) few weeks ago with my ZD 40-150.

Personally I believe this old stuff is doing excellent. I had no chance to use LV for accurate focusing, and relied on VF only. Maybe some shots could be a more focused, but for normal print (10x15 cm) they are all fine.

I shot at ISO 800 with Noise Filter set to LOW. EV -0.3 (to curb blown highlights), and Contrast -1. Filtered by Ninja ones are OK, but have two non filtered ones also. Sample 3 shows a unpleasent Banding (SAT was AUTO). I am very disappointed with this heavy banding in my E-520 which is hunting me even at ISO 100!

Comments?

http://www.pbase.com/bijan_iran/image/103031586
http://www.pbase.com/bijan_iran/image/103031603
http://www.pbase.com/bijan_iran/image/103031613
http://www.pbase.com/bijan_iran/image/103031635

BTW, these are my kids!
 
looking specifically at the 3rd in the list I can't detect any 'banding' beyond that I would associate with net, cloth etc but it's a hugely compressed jpeg file so I wouldn't pay much heed.

shooting SAT auto and then underexposing (which you are) will always risk some issues with the software pushing what it perceives as excessive shadow. Far better to shot contrast -2 and then consider your options to bring it back up in post processing. The other way round is very destructive.

as you say it's focused about 1 ft in front of the face, which is a shame as there is a great determination in the expression there.

--
  • enjoy your camera equipment -
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top