Stu Warner Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
pascal03 wrote:
I see from your post that you own or have used the OM 50mm f1.2 and OM 50mm f1.8. Both are very nice lenses.
Correct. Still own both, and use regularly on Canon digital and OM1 (film). Am very happy with both, but particulalry wih the 1.2, obviously. Hence, I do not see the point in paying current RIDICULOUS prices for a slightly smaller but slower pancake. To be quite honest, neither of these 50s are too large and heavy for me to consdier leaving them at home. If you are mounting the pancake on a 5D, then the combination is quite clearly not going to fit in your pocket. With this in mind, I see no real-world meaningful distinction in size/weight of the camera package when you use any of the small fast primes available in this focal range. If you accept this reasoning, the 40/2 is just one of many alternatives, and should not command it's current price except for novelty reasons
Just curious.... have you owned or used the Olympus OM 40mm f2.0 ?
No. That is the whole point of my post Pascal. I see no need to own one, when I am already so well covered at 50mm with a 1.8 (gift), 1.2, and 2.8 macro. The 40/2 is too rare and expensive for me to consider chasing after it just for the sake of comparison to the 50s. Are you trying to suggest that wide open at f/2 it performs 500USD better than all of the 50/1.8 or 1.4 alternatives (by any manufacturer) stopped down to f/2? Or for the same current price, is it better than any of the more commonly available f/1.2 legacy lenses stopped town to f/2 with an extra one and a half stops available for when you want them? Because those are the questions that current buyers have to ask themselves.
I don't want to dimish the artistry in Brainiac's example images, but for optical performance alone, I don't see anything that justifies 600 USD when there are alternatives that appear to be:
1) equally good but cheaper, and having at least half a stop in reserve if you want it
2) same price, but much faster lenses at a very close focal length.
YMMV.
Just to be clear, my objection is not to the lens, but to the RIDICULOUS PRICE for what is at the end of the day still just an f/2 standard lens. In my opinion, if it was not a pancake (read "oddity/curiosity/novelty") lens, it would not warrant this price range.
Edited on Sep 03, 2008 at 11:41 AM
|