11-28-2011, 08:43 AM
[quote name='Sylvain' timestamp='1322469351' post='13295']
That's my guess too, or that the 45-200 sample PZ had was a better sample than mine. I gave my 45-200 a try a few weeks ago, I got the same conclusions, terrible vignetting, and quite hard to get anything convincingly sharp, even stopped down. Another problem with these cheap lenses is that I don't think they are actually fine tunable.
[/quote]
Actually some users have already reported that even the X 45-175 is actually also NOT sharper than the 45-200.
Which is a bit surprising upon first thought but less so when considering the low price difference.
45-200: 300EUR
45-175: 450EUR
100-300: 500EUR
These prices do not suggest a performance that should be a magnitude apart.
The comparatively "high" pricing of the 45-175 could be easily explained by the superior build quality and AF, less so with better optics (based on a more difficult design due to the fixed length).
That said it may well be that the 45-200 has e.g. a less accurate AF.
That's my guess too, or that the 45-200 sample PZ had was a better sample than mine. I gave my 45-200 a try a few weeks ago, I got the same conclusions, terrible vignetting, and quite hard to get anything convincingly sharp, even stopped down. Another problem with these cheap lenses is that I don't think they are actually fine tunable.
[/quote]
Actually some users have already reported that even the X 45-175 is actually also NOT sharper than the 45-200.
Which is a bit surprising upon first thought but less so when considering the low price difference.
45-200: 300EUR
45-175: 450EUR
100-300: 500EUR
These prices do not suggest a performance that should be a magnitude apart.
The comparatively "high" pricing of the 45-175 could be easily explained by the superior build quality and AF, less so with better optics (based on a more difficult design due to the fixed length).
That said it may well be that the 45-200 has e.g. a less accurate AF.