On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 09:59:52AM -0600, gries wrote:
> i hope that i won't be ex-communicated from the list for asking, but what is
> the fascination w/ the 40/2.0?
Yes, it is a type of fascination, rather than resonably. There are less
expensive Zuikos
doing the same job. But the 2/40 is the peak of the OM-Philosopy to keep
equipment
small and light.
Now let`s see, I like using 24mm and 85mm, and I want a standart/medium wide
angle between:
First take the 2.8/35 or 1,8/50 both are small, I prefer 35mm, but the later
one is
faster. I already turned to 2/35 but this is bigger. So the 2/40 is an ideal
compromise
among these three, and it is even smaller and lighter.
Oher advantages are, it shares the same hood with my 2/85 which fits better to
my bag.
And it has the best close focusing capability. At least, what is with the
performance?
I just did some test shoots 2/35-2/40-1.8/50:
Now It is not as razor sharp as the 1.8/50 wide open, but still better than the
2/35. In the center it was the best anong them. Stopped down the 2/35 is
amazing, but the difference to the others is
just mariginal, not visible when you`re not doing careful side by side
comparison.
So I´ve nothing to complain about with this lens,
only that there are by far too less available, even
when I payed more than 50 Bucks for mine.
>
> >
> > Serious, I doubt it will have this impact or how do you explain the
> > ebay prices of an certified dog like the 40mm/2.0?
> >
Now I´m confused does the american like dogs or not?
Well, I don`t like dogs too much, but I like the Zuiko 2/40 (see above).
Frieder Faig
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|