Zuiko 40mm f/2

Price is entirely due to rarity and hype. A good lens but not any better than the Oly 50/1.8.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree. I have both lenses. That said, the slightly wider angle of view is nice, and it is much smaller than the 35mm F2.

As for sharpness, Mawz, I don't know the CV 40mm ultron, but I do have the 40mm nokton rf lens, and it is much better wide open, and at F2, than the Zuiko.
 
I can't compare the 40 & 50/1.8 ... For OM 50 I much prefer the 50/1.4.

From what I've seen of the 40, it is not ultimate sharpness nor wide-open performance that I like. It seems to have a nice "look", especially with b&w, that I like. Seems less harsh than the 50/1.8, IIRC.
 
Paul C - thanks for the knowledge! But actually the aperture ring just turns freely and does not stop at any of the stops, which was how I got the idea it was faulty in the first place. I just assumed it was stuck wide open, but at any rate it still needs to be repaired.
 
"mint"

"mint"

mr. cooper said:
The seller was cool about the discount and just asked that I supply an invoice for the repair cost. Not that she was doing me any favors seeing as how it was listed as "mint." John Hermanson sounded confident that he could fix it, so all in all it should work out. Damn that lens is compact! Put it on a black OM body and leave the RF at home...:eek:
Thanks for the input.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have been stung by the same thing: lenses being advertised as "mint" but with aperture blades being completely covered in oil, or many sings of hard use. I guess peoples definition of "mint" varies... Seems pretty simple to me though, and I guess some people just hope that the buyer will not complain.

Glad to hear it worked out for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom