On 7/20/2011 11:40 AM, Ch. Zhou wrote:
> The perspective of 35mm focal length turns out to be my favorite. I just
> hope there is a compact and really good 35mm lens for OM mount. OM Zuiko
> 35mm f/2.8 is about average. I am considering a Voigtlander R3A
> rangefinder just for its 35mm f/1.4 lens.
>
> http://www.four-thirds.cn/forum/thread-181613-1-1.html
What you are looking for may not exist, for simple mechanical and optical
reasons.
SLRs, digital or film, have a mirror that swings up when they make an exposure.
That means that their lenses may not
protrude very far behind the mount without the mirror hitting them.
Rangefinders and the new mirrorless interchangeable
lens digital cameras (Oly Pen, Nikon NEX, etc.) can have lenses that stick back
into the camera almost to the shutter.
That means that while rangefinders can use relatively simple WA lens designs,
lenses shorter than about 40mm for full
frame (D)SLRs must use more complex, larger, heavier and often more expensive
retro-focus lens designs. You can look up
retro-focus on the web to see how they place the virtual rear nodal point
behind all the actual glass. Telephoto lenses
similarly place the front nodal point out front of the physical lens, but have
different issues than WAs.
During the heyday of film SLRs, most manufacturers made so-called 'pancake'
lenses, mostly 40/2, although I seem to
recall a 38mm model from somebody. That's because that is the shortest focal
length, conventional, symmetrical, double
Gauss based lens design that will work with most SLR mount/mirror setups. They
generally stayed with f2 designs to avoid
the extra elements, and the size and weight penalties, required for good
optical performance of f1.4 designs.
Look at the design of the Zuiko 40/2,a relatively small 6 element design
<http://olympus.dementia.org/eSIF/om-sif/lensgroup/40mmf2.htm>
and the 50/1.4s 7 element design
<http://olympus.dementia.org/eSIF/om-sif/lensgroup/50mmf14.htm>
So, there simply aren't any compact, light, fast 35mm lenses for film/FF SLRs.
The Zuiko 35/2 is, like most of their
lenses, small and light compared to the contemporary designs of other makers.
So, you choice for OM mount film is:
1. Compromise a bit on focal length and get a 40/2.
2. Compromise a bit on size and get a 35/2.
3. Switch to a rangefinder, as you propose.
Both the 40/2 and the 35/2 are lenses that get mixed reviews, here and
elsewhere. Some find the 35/2 excellent and the
40/2 very good, and others find one or the other OK, but not great. How much of
that might be due to differences in what
characteristics different people value most in a lens, how much due to original
sample variation and how much a result
of use/abuse of now older lenses, I don't know.
The 40/2 was designed as a moderate priced, very compact lens, sold poorly and
was discontinued fairly quickly. So it is
relatively rare and, of course, it tends to be pricey. The 35/2 was designed as
a premium lens as part of the f2 series
that was added to the original, slower Zuiko WA and moderate tele lenses. It
sold relatively well, so at current prices,
I think you get more lens performance for your money with the 35/2
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|