Enjoy, Piers!
ScottGee1 <scottgee1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Please remind me -- why does the 40/2.0 seem to command such a premium
>over the 50/1.8 and 50/1.4? Gary's tests seem to indicate it's not
>very good wide open whereas the 50/1.4 is quite good at f/2.0. Is it
>the wider view? Rarity?
I think the "mystique" of the 40/2 is just that it was the most
compact lens Olympus made, in a system prized for its compactness. I
often take sadistic pleasure in handing my 40+OM-2 to DSLR owners
(and asking them to look through the viewfinder) :-p
And yes, even new it was a rare bird. Around 1989 I got the 24/2.8
and 85/2; and thinking that 40mm would be the perfect f.l. to go
between them (it is), I searched for quite some time to find one.
After about a year, a local store let me buy the demo model from
their OM-system display case.
As I may have posted before, I have a love-hate relationship with
that lens. Size, weight, and super-close focusing are all a delight.
And personally I love the 40mm perspective.
But the lens is so stubby that the f/stop ring doubles as the filter
ring. That feels flimsy and hard to grasp, as well as being
inconvenient for filter use. Also, I am no bokeh geek--but the 40
often seems to give distractingly jangly backgrounds, even in
everyday, non-pathological situations.
The 40's sharpness is certainly adequate, but no, not in the same
league as the late-version Zuiko 50s or some OT lenses like the
lovely Cosina/Voigtlander 35/1.7 Ultron I got recently.
I'm curious about the Voigtlander 40mm for SLRs that was available in
a few mounts, including OM--has anyone here used it?
best,
--Ross
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ross's photo gallery:
http://flickr.com/photos/vox
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|