"The 40mm price has been driven up, I
think, because not many were sold originally because of mediocre
reviews in the magazines and demand has risen primarily because
people apparently want to complete their OM "collections."
robertmeier said,
Nonsense. The 40 is in demand because it's a very, very good lens that
fills a niche the way no other lens can or does -- a compact lens of ideal
focal length for walking about pictures. That's why Leica equipped the CL
with one and that's why Olympus did the same.
The following is from Gary's web page:
35/F2, OM-4 with mirror @and diaphragm prefire (sample 3 - minty)
Vignetting = B- @ f/2, A- @ f/2.8, A @ f/4
Distortion = slight barrel
Aperture Center Corner
f/2.0 A- C
f/2.8 A C+
f/4 A- B-
f/5.6 A- B
f/8 A A
f/11 A- A-
f/16 B+ B+
Notes: Moderately high contrast in center and moderately low in corner at
f/2 and f/2.8; moderately high contrast in center and moderate in corner
at f/4 and f/5.6; moderately high contrast in corner and center at f/8 to
f/16.
40/F2, OM-4T with mirror and diaphragm prefire, different sample from above
OM-1 test
Vignetting = B @ f/2, A- @ f/2.8, A thereafter
Distortion = none
Aperture Center Corner
f/2 C+ C-
f/2.8 B+ C
f/4 A- B
f/5.6 B B+
f/8 A- A
f/11 A A
f/16 A A-
Notes: Moderately low contrast in center and low contrast in corners at
f/2; moderate contrast in center and moderately low in corners at f/2.8;
moderately high contrast in center and moderate contrast in corners at
f/4; moderately high contrast in center and corners at f/16; high
contrast in center and corners at f/11; very high contrast in center
and corners at f/8.
Not a huge difference, but no one ever said the 35/2 is "very, very
good". It is pretty good, but it appears to be better than the 40mm
and it is much cheaper, used. The angle of the 40mn is 56 degrees as
opposed to 63 degrees on the 35mm. I doubt one would notice much
difference. The 35mm taking the same filter sticks out 18mm or less
than 3/4 of an inch, not an insurmountable burden for most and
certainly not making a significant difference in the overall
camera-lens package in taking walking around pictures. The 28/2 with
its size similar to the 35, its slightly wider angle, and its superb
quality is probably the ideal walking around lens.
Comparison with the Leica CL is problematic to me. I was a Leica
owner when the CL was issued and it was Leica's first venture into a
cheap consumer oriented "tourist camera" and the design of the system
had more to do with cost and profit than the best of design. For
instance, expensive prisms were replaced by inexpensive mirrors in
the rangefinder which also was made much less accurate by reducing
the rangefinder base. It did not get a lot of respect at the time. I
would hope that Oly was rather trying to emulate the compactness of
their high quality namesake M cameras with their collapsible lenses.
If you have the 40 and like it, fine. All I was saying was the the
current highly inflated used prices only reflect demand based on
reasons other than its intrinsic quality as a lens. Someone who does
not own the lens might be better off with another option for less
money. Just my opinion.
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
< 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 >
|