Re: M 4/200mm vs F 4-5.6/70-210mm at 200mm

[Peter J. Alling]

That would be the expectation, but it's not as much better as one would 
expect.  At least when comparing the M 200 and F 70-210 I own anyway.
Marginal is the word I'd use.  That's why the M stays in the cabinet and 
the F usually is in the bag.

Jens Bladt wrote:
I took a few test shots today.
To see how the SMC-M 4/200mm is doing.
Not so bad - compared to the SMC F 4-5.6/70-210mm.
I think the prime is the sharper lens of the two.
Both photographs shot at f 5.6 and app. 1/2000 sec. handheld.
No editing except autolevels and very little cropping (almost the full
frames).
See for yourself: http://gallery37564.fotopic.net/p12447314.html
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt

 


--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. 
During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings 
and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
	--P.J. O'Rourke