In a message dated 11/6/2006 6:14:10 A.M. Central Standard Time,
scottgee1@xxxxxxxxx writes:
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?
Inquiring minds and all that . . .
Having owned 2 in the past, I have to say it is a market thing. You know,
supply and demand. With both a 35mm f2 and a 50mm or two, my supply was too
great, which created a demand for me to sell it and use that money to buy
something I really needed. Hmm, perhaps it was something a really wanted,
rather
than really needed. The line between the two gets blurred from time to time.
Actually on this deal, I think the pricing is such, that should someone
think they need this lens, this might be an opportunity to get one where they
wouldn't get hurt should they decide to sell it later.
As an aside, I like my pancakes in a tall stack with real butter and maple
syrup, a bunch of the former and a touch of the latter. Someone, such as me,
who has big hands may find the pancake lens as comfortable to operate as it
is to do something with maple syrup on your fingers. Perhaps that is one of
the reasons I like the Tamron 180mm f2.5 so well . . . it fits comfortably in
the palm of my hand and operates easily without too much looking, thinking
or messing with the setting. For me the 40mm would be best for street
shooting where I would close it down, set it for hyperfocal focusing and shoot
away
without messing with any adjustments.
<{8^) Bill Barber
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|