Hi, all. Now I've got a bit of time to reply some old threads!
>From: "C.H.Ling" <chling@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>I agree the price of 40/2 is high today but I can't agree on the lower
>optical quality.
All right, the 40/2 is very expensive, but there's no match in the OM line
-- and neither in most other brands. For me, the FOV of the 40mm is the
*perfect* standard: 50mm, even 45mm is too narrow for me. A 35mm would do
the trick, but on and SLR that means *retrofocus* design, with all
associated trade-offs (size, distortion, etc)
>With slides I didn't found its resolution poorer than 35/2
>at stopped down, at wide open it is even better than 35/2.
Again, picture quality has a definite *subjective* component -- I like the
'flavour' of the 40/2 very much, but dislike that of the Zuiko 35/2,
especially at the widest apertures. YMMV.
>The close focus
>performance is also excellent, not only it has higher mag. than 50/1.4 it is
>also much sharper at close distance.
Another good point of this tiny lens -- I even tried it on a bellows, with
*much* better results than the 50/1.4 & 1.8.
>It is now the lens I always bring with
>my E-1, I don't need to look for a 50/2 anymore.
The usual 'nose' of my EOS-300D is either the 28/2 or the (new to me) MC
24/2.8. However, I had great results with the 40/2 on the digital:
<http://cjss.sytes.net/atachaos/audrey40.jpeg>
Enjoy,
...
Carlos J. Santisteban
<cjss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<http://cjss.galeon.com>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
