On 7/31/2004 at 7:33 PM Carlos J. Santisteban Salinas wrote:
>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)
Is this why I like(d) the shots from my Konica C-35 (current) and C-35v so
much? It has a 38mm lens, which is close enough for jazz.
Earl
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|