Hi Ross:
I bought a 180/2.8 (item 3803563033 eb*y) for $535. it is as good as it
looks in the photos. I like it a lot, it's a 5F lens(fit, feel, finish,
focus F stop) I would have liked to pay the $440 I thought it was worth but
another bidder upped the ante. I think it is worth the price but I agree
that I couldn't rationalize the 40 for the same money. I also would rank the
85/2.0 as my co- favorite (I like the 21 too).
Gord
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ross Orr" > >> this [40mm]
> > > lens is really only for the collector.
>
> I really use this lens, which I bought new in 1990 for $150. Even at
> the time they were pretty hard to track down, and I had to plead with
> a local camera shop to sell me the one example they had in an Olympus
> display case.
>
> At the time (and still now) the attraction was the size and close
> focusing ability; and the nice intermediate coverage it gave between
> the 24 and 85 I already owned. I do like it, but I never formed the
> deep emotional bond with it that I have with the 85/2.
>
> I think I was swayed by the tweaky point of view that the "correct"
> normal focal length for 35mm film =the film diagonal of 43mm. In any
> case 40 does give a slightly "deeper" sense of space, but without any
> obviously zoomy wide-angle effect. I think if you were a dedicated
> Henri Cartier-Bresson style street shooter, it would be pretty much
> ideal. (For my own shots, though, I'm tending more towards the 50mm
> again.)
>
> I'm also pretty stunned at how compact this 40 is vs. the 35/2. How
> does 5mm make that much difference?
>
> All that being said, the 40 does have a very lightweight feel, and
> the fact that the aperture ring *is* the filter thread at the front
> gives it less of the reassuring solidity of other Zuikos.
>
> Truthfully I've been quite alarmed to discover the prices this lens
> changes hands for these days. It makes me a little uneasy about
> carrying it around! If I were shopping today, there's no way I could
> justify the price.
>
> For the same money, you can buy ALL of the following: A 50/1.4
> (faster); a 50/3.5 (closer focusing); a 50/1.8 miJ (nearly as small
> and probably sharper); a 35/2.8 (wider and still quite compact). Oh,
> and a spare OM-1/OM-2 body. And you'll have change left over.
>
>
> Not to cast any doubt on our mutual Zuikoholism or anything. . . but
> this does make me wonder whether there are some other "cult" Zuikos
> that fetch high prices which may be less than totally justified. The
> 180/2.8? 100/2? Comments anyone?
>
> -- Ross
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|