Rarity I presume. My recollections about list discussion of this lens
are that it was originally considered a low cost lens and thus not of
the highest optical quality. But despite the low cost it didn't sell
well and was soon discontinued. Short production run and therefore rare.
FWIW, some folks consider that the "ideal" focal length for a "normal"
lens is one whose focal length equals the diagonal of the film frame.
35 mm film has a diagonal of 42mm and the 40mm is closer to that focal
length than any other Zuiko.
Where's Khem when we need him? Why did Olympus decide to produce a 40mm
f/2? Optimum focal length for producing a low cost moderately fast
normal lens? If so, why was that Zuiko 50/1.8 the "normal" lens.
Inquiring minds and all that . . .
Chuck Norcutt
ScottGee1 wrote:
> 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 . . .
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|