I got this lens last summer from Ebay for about US$100. I've been very happy with it as a nice medium telephoto for hiking. I've got some comparisons photos between it and the DZ 40-150mm (@150mm) - sorry no other 200mm lenses in my inventory!


- I relatively light and compact lens; slightly shorter than the 40-150 and considerably less bulky
Attachment 873

- IMO, it is every bit as good as 40-150 (using that lens @150mm) both in terms of resolution and color. Here's a couple of sample shots of a subject taken indoors, ISO800 (dark day here in northern Nevada), no noise treatment and only minor tweaks to equalize exposures. Using the E-300 on aperture priority, auto WB.

... 40-150@150mm/f5
Attachment 881
... 200mm/f5
Attachment 876
Here's 100% crops for the pixel peepers.
... 40-150@150mm/f5
Attachment 880
... 200mm/f5
Attachment 874

Here's the same set taken at f8. I think you can see that there's a little softness in OM lens at f5 by comparison, but it tightens up nicely at f8 and seems to surpass the 40-150 in terms of sharpness.

... 40-150@150mm/f8
Attachment 883
... 200mm/f8
Attachment 879
100% crops:

... 40-150@150mm/f8
Attachment 882
... 200mm/f8
Attachment 877


- It's an f5, so if you're thinking about a lot of low light work, this isn't your lens. In normal daylight or a bright cloudy day, no problems at ISO 100.
- Same limitations as all lenses using the OM adapter.
- Takes time to get used to manual focus. As a rule I've found the best results dialing it in as best I can and then bracketing my focus.
- Hard to find. There were many, many more 200/f4 lenses made, so this one is still not as dirt cheap as some OM lenses.


I'd call this lens GOOD, but within the limitations as I mentioned above. When I got it I also tried out an OM 200/f4 at the local camera shop. I thought the photo quality was nearly identical and the size difference was significant.