Hi, all.
>iwert schrieb:
>> 7519772104 is a "reasonably" priced zuiko 40f2 @ 275 euro BIN.
>> no connection, just that I like the lens.
>
>If I would be an owner of an 40mm Zuiko, I would try to
>rationalize this as "reasonable".
Well, it seems 'reasonable' compared to the $630 + $26 shipping + EUR
180 duties (plus nearly three months 'stuck' at customs) that
*someone* I know had to pay for it...
>Other people would buy an 50mm M-Sumicron, or an 50mm 1.2
>Zuiko for that money, or save a lot of money with an 50mm
>1.8 Zuiko.
>
>Richard,
>
>maybe (I have some doubt about the summicron), but they aren't 40mm!
I agree. I had/have several lenses (for several cameras, even fixed
ones) of 35, 40, 45 & 50mm -- there's *nothing* better (for me) than
40mm, perspective/FOV wise.
>From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>One of the reasons for the 40/2 pancake lenses, by at least Oly and
>Nik*n, is that 40mm is the shortest fl that can be made in a "normal"
>symetrical formula and still not interfere with the SLR mirror. That
>made it a natural for the most compact possible lens.
It seems so. IIRC, both Nik*n pancakes and the Zeiss Tessar are 45mm
f/2.8, not 40mm. The Pent*x 40/2.8 is, and the only pancake faster
than the Oly I know is the K*nica 40/1.8 (oh, well, and the Pent*x
Limited 43/1.9 -- sorry, mum ;-)
OTOH, a 35mm for a SLR *needs* retrofocus design, thus being much
larger -- eg. the Zuiko 35/2.
>The real question was why they didn't design really fast 35mm and/or
>80-100mm lenses. A 35/1.2 or 85/1.4 makes more sense in the market
Most likely the issue was *size* -- the Zeiss Distagon 35/1.4 is
*huge*, and so is the Planar 85/1.4. The OM System was intended to be
compact & lightweight.
Enjoy,
--
Carlos J. Santisteban
<cjss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<http://cjss.sytes.net>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|