I agree that the 40mm FOV is an excellent 'standard' view, but I can't agree
that distortion makes the 35mm Zuiko less of a lens. I own both the 40/2 and
35/2 and can't see any big difference that would make me eliminate one over the
other. I was and am very happy with the 35mm. I only bought the 40 because I
wanted one for a long time, not because the 35 didn't fit the bill. I also
have no problem with the "flavor" of my 35/2. Maybe you got one that was
manufactured first thing on a Monday morning...
George S.
Carlos J. Santisteban writes:
> 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)
>
> 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.
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|