>
> An interesting question. Gary Reese tested the 40/2 and found it low
> contrast and soft in the corners at f2. It sharpened up quite a bit at
> f2.8 Of course the 35-100/2 would run circles around it at 4omm and
> f2--but at bit of a high price.
>
And don't forget the size difference between the 40/2 and the 35-100/2. Not
exactly a fair fight.
The 40/2, which is blasted near perfect with film somehow doesn't seem to
hold up quite as well with digital. It's still mighty fine (especially the
bokeh), but hasn't been the ultra-lens that we'd hoped it would have been on
digital.
I've been a fan of the the 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 on the E-thingies. When stopped
down to F2.8, those two lenses seem to come into their own pretty well. The
bokeh isn't as nice as the 40/2, but they have a nice edginess to the
images.
But if I had to pick my favorite film Zuiko in this range for placement on
an E-thingy, I vote for the lowly 35/2.8. This lens performs quite well
wide-open for an equivalent of 70/2.8. Not shabby. Best thing about it is
the bokeh. The bokeh of this lens really is special--perhaps one of the most
underrated lenses in the entire line-up. Unfortunately, 70mm equivalent
focal length is one of those unusable focal lengths as it is too long and
too short at the very same time.
OK, must spout off on one lens, though. The 35-80 F2.8 is absolutely
glorious on the E-thingies. But not small or lightweight. (or cheep).
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|