ok, I now own the older S-M-C 200mm and the new 200mmm lens....differences = old is heavier and built like a tank - metal construction. New is lighter (plastic) although fatter ( takes 77m filters vs the old's 67mm filters ). Ths old has a built in lens shade - the new has a much more recessed front element....I took shots of a stationary subject 80 feet away, in FULL SUNLIGHT on kodak 100 slide film (E100 SW). Shots were taken VERTICAL orientation at 1/1000 at 5.6, 1/500 at 8 and 1/250 at 11. Also Horizontal shots were taken at 1/500 at 8...ALL SHOTS mounted on a bogen 3046 with 3029 head. Results ? Well, the old lens is about 1/3 stops faster than the new. Contrast is just about the same - big surprise too me since the color of the coatings really sparkle on the new lens...I guess the 4 element old lens does fine with contrast because of fewer elements than the new with 5 elements with likely slightly better, more modern coating.....Sharpness ? Well, the new lens is clearly better at 5.6, just a tiny bit better ( but not much at all ) at F 8, and at F11 I couldnt tell the difference under 10X magnification.... PS - another interesting item that seems to concern some other 67 poster who mentioned less camera shake issues on vertical shots ( something to do with inertia....etc )...my test confirmed the same !! My vertical shots were sharper than the horizontals !!.....CONCLUSIONS: new 200mm is not that much better than the old ( at least at the stops I tested ). Contrast is about equal. Old has a better ( stronger ) build. New 200 does focus closer than old.......now that my testing is done - I am selling the old lens ( I do want the closer focusing lens ). the glass is in very fine condition..barrel has wear...no dents or dings...aperture working perfectly..$ 265 + 7 ship....If no interest, going to ebay...you can see my ebay feedback at dcolucci@aol.com on ebay

-- Dan (dcolucci@aol.com), October 02, 2000

Answers

PS.....F 11 was the winner for both lenses inoverall performance - however the added DOF probably helped that a bit....on the new lens, 5.6 was pretty dam good, F 8 better and F11 clearly the best...on the old lens 5.6 was good, F8 MUCH better and F 11 again likely the best, but not far ahead of F 8.

-- Dan (dcolucci@aol.com), October 02, 2000.

Seems like the more interesting comparison would have been a subject ten feet away, because if the close focus performance of the newer 200mm isn't significantly better at the faster stops, at portrait distances, then there isn't a helluva lot of reason to buy the newer version.

Thanks for doing the comparison, though. Nice to have the data.

-- Bill Baker (wab@well.com), October 03, 2000.

good point about testing at 10 feet - however I wanted to test near the lens optimal range ( which would really be infinity ). and at the range I was likel to shoot at..........At 10 feet, both lenses would likely perform TOO well for portraiture purposes...ie...both would have excess sharpness that would likely have to be softened by a filter anyway....

-- dan (dcolucci@aol.com), October 03, 2000.