:Can anyone offer a subjective appraisal of these 3 lenses? Also, on the
:famous 40--what's it like to use? Do 40mm users feel they no longer need
50mm
:or 35mm focal lengths? Do they match it with an 85F2.0 and hobnob with
Leica
:or Contax rangefinder people? I know it's an elegant, brilliant collector's
:piece--but does it compete toe to toe with the larger 35F2.0? Is the 40 a
:better, more useful focal length than either the 50 or 35?
IMHO it is when you want to go back to basics and walk around with just one
lens. In many cases, specifically indoors, 50 mm is just too long but taking
everything with a wide angle (which the 35 still is) isn't ideal either. So
40 mm would be the ideal compromise; it also comes closer to the standard
lens definition (43 mm = the diagonal of the 36x24 square). Besides this
lens is extremely light. I ignore its supposed collectors value and consider
it a photographers lens.
It does not, however, make the 35 and 50 mm focal length superfluous. The 50
comes in higher speeds and the 35 is better for group portraits etc.
As comparing the 35/2.0 to the 35/2.8, the latter is smaller and lighter.
Same is true for the 28/2.0 vs. the 28/2.8. But for these focal lengths I
would always select the 2.0 speed. It focuses much easier, and for the 35 it
gives true meaning to being a hybrid lens. Wide open, it can produce out of
focus effects like a standard lens. Stopped down, perhaps hyperfocal, it can
give overall sharp effects like a true wide angle.
Hans
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|