Ed Sawyer wrote:
It was cheap, yes, under $100 new. Priced between the 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 back in the day.
Actually no. The Olympus OM 40mm F2.0 was priced at $350-$400 street price when it was introduced. Not sure where you are getting the $100 price tag at introduction. The one website that does list prices gives only a ballpark estimate of how much these lenses sold for back in the 80's-90's.
The f2.0 OM lenses were superior to the standard OM lenses - not quite in the same class as say the 50mm f1.4 or 50mm f1.8.
And I feel Richard and his picture actually don't do enough justice for what this lens is really capable of. It does show how small a package it gets you.
It's interesting how owners of this lens never say it's too pricey or not worth it. Use one and maybe then decide what this little jewel is truly capable of.
ISO1600 wrote:
Richard, i really wish you would stop touting the Oly40 so much.
Sorry fellas. Will try to stop. I just love it though. I sold my no. 1 Oly 40 to a bloke I met in a shop the other day. Now I only have one left. Could be time to try an Ultron.
In some reviews the Ultron 40 has less flattering bokeh; is there better or worse among these lenses or do they all suffer a bit because of the pancake design?
FretNoMore wrote:
In some reviews the Ultron 40 has less flattering bokeh; is there better or worse among these lenses or do they all suffer a bit because of the pancake design?
It's not the pancake design, it's the well corrected apsherical design. The Ultron is nearly as well corrected for spherical abberation as a macro and that does lead to less than satisfying bokeh in some circumstances. The Nokton is definitely the better bokeh lens (But the 35/1.4 AI-S is worse than the Ultron IMHO).
Scroll down to the second Konrad Beck posting and the accompanying MTF chart.
Is it really that bad?
This suggestion that sharpness is the best measure of the usefulness of a lens is highly subjective. For some reason, when I use my Oly 40, the results seem magic to me. I don't really care what people say about this lens - nothing can take away from the pleasure of using it. Even my wife loves the results from it, and she calls it "THE lens".
As with many lenses, this is one which I think you have to use before making your mind up about whether you are comfortable with it. For me it is a perfect compromise of size, weight, and image qualities. Also, 40mm is a focal length that has an unusual natural perspective that allows you to concentrate on the photography rather than gear. The photo.net comment stating that the handling is poor is the purest nonsense. The focus ring and aperture fall to hand perfectly, and the lens works quite well without a hood in most situations. I rarely use the hood with it.
pascal03 wrote somewhere in the middle of page one about the Zuiko 40/2 pricing:
"Actually no. The Olympus OM 40mm F2.0 was priced at $350-$400 street price when it was introduced. Not sure where you are getting the $100 price tag at introduction. The one website that does list prices gives only a ballpark estimate of how much these lenses sold for back in the 80's-90's."
In 1985, B+H listed for the Zuiko lenses: 40/2 $76.90, 50/1.8 $42.90, 50/1.4 $79.90.
The official Olympus dealer net prices between 04/84 to 08/88 were in the $84.95 to $115.40 range. It was quite common that Adorama, B+H, Cambridge, 47th Street etc. offered lower than dealer net prices in their Modern Photography and PopPhoto ads.
brainiac wrote:
As with many lenses, this is one which I think you have to use before making your mind up about whether you are comfortable with it. For me it is a perfect compromise of size, weight, and image qualities. Also, 40mm is a focal length that has an unusual natural perspective that allows you to concentrate on the photography rather than gear. The photo.net comment stating that the handling is poor is the purest nonsense. The focus ring and aperture fall to hand perfectly, and the lens works quite well without a hood in most situations. I rarely use the hood with it....Show more →
Impressive shots, where those first few in Vietnam? What did you sell your 40/2 for?
TWoK wrote:
Impressive shots, where those first few in Vietnam? What did you sell your 40/2 for?
They were in Luang Prabang, Laos. Since you're the second to ask, I'll give in. £500. I have a spare so I thought it made sense. I slightly regret it now.
You should give the Ultron a try and let us know what you think. I would love to have a OM 40/2 as the only lens for my OM-2n, but it's probably not the best choice to buy one.
Wow. Thanks for sharing those. That's done it. I'm having one too. The bokeh looks fine despite complaints. I've been waiting for Robert White to get one in. They seem to be in short supply.
Hey Greg, if you ever need help spending your money just let me know
I am no professional lens reviewer either and most of the time all I can say is WOW, I love it, you have got to try it...... so I probably don't sell a lot of people with those reviews
Swapping lenses is a blast - looking forward to trying the Summicron!!
Don't need pancake though.. 
