Hello Zuiko shooters. I became interested in finding a 40 f/2 Zuiko recently. It obviously has a following and I've heard a lot of great things about it. However, with the soon to be released CV 40 f/2 pancake in EF mount I am rethinking my decision. I'm sure you all know the prices for the Oly are about double the CV if you can find one. That being said, the IQ is what matters more to me. Does anybody have any comparison shots from these lenses?
Thanks for the replies. Any shots taken with either lens? As far as the Hexanon goes, I have seen these before. One just sold eBay for about $125. However, my interest in alts is limited to lenses that will work without clearence issues on a 5D2. So I'm pretty much stuck with Zuikos and other lenses made for EF mount. Not that it's a bad thing
The Oly is silly overpriced. It was priced between 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 when it was new - e.g. cheap. I'd say forget the Oly and CV unless you find crazy cheap deals, and go with a converted Minolta Rokkor 45/2 instead. It will clear canon mirrors, AFAIK. It's very cheap ($25 should get you a nice one). I am sure the Oly is a nice $50-80 lens (about what I'd pay), but it's an egregiously overpriced shelf-queen @ $500+ (the current price).
Ed Sawyer wrote:
The Oly is silly overpriced. It was priced between 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 when it was new - e.g. cheap. I'd say forget the Oly and CV unless you find crazy cheap deals, and go with a converted Minolta Rokkor 45/2 instead. It will clear canon mirrors, AFAIK. It's very cheap ($25 should get you a nice one). I am sure the Oly is a nice $50-80 lens (about what I'd pay), but it's an egregiously overpriced shelf-queen @ $500+ (the current price).
Just my $0.02.
-Ed
+1 unless you are an addict Zuiko junkie like me
Can't you consider a Zuiko 50/1.4 late serial #? It's cheap (about $100) and very good.
The big advantage of a Canon-mount CV 40/2 is that you don't have to futz with stop down metering. That, the sharpness, the nice hood should put it above any contenders. I just hope it won't be too expensive.
The OM 40mm f2.0 is still tops for me.... As a close second, I would also recommend the Nikon 45mm f2.8 P - almost same design as the Zeiss 45 but a very crisp and sharp lens for a Nikon and will not cause any mount issues on Canon. The Nikon 50mm Series E is quite compact as well as is the Pentax Pancake. The Rokkor is sharp and crisp, but does not offer the same image quality as the OM 40.
The OM 40mm f2.0 still is more compact and sharp - plus it offers exquisite image qualities including sharpness, colors, contrast, bookeh etc.
It appears the only one's who feel it isn't worth the price are those who have not tried it or find themselves in a situation where they feel they paid too much for it or have never used it - nothing wrong with that... whatever works for you is good.
pascal03 wrote:
The OM 40mm f2.0 is still tops for me.... As a close second, I would also recommend the Nikon 45mm f2.8 P - almost same design as the Zeiss 45 but a very crisp and sharp lens for a Nikon and will not cause any mount issues on Canon.
AFAIK, the Nikon is a direct copy. Is its bokeh as bad as the Contax? I'd guess so.
The Nikon 50mm Series E is quite compact as well as is the Pentax Pancake.
I just sold one of the Series E 50/1.8. Compact, yes. Otherwise underwhelming in almost every way.
The Rokkor is sharp and crisp, but does not offer the same image quality as the OM 40.... The OM 40mm f2.0 still is more compact and sharp - plus it offers exquisite image qualities including sharpness, colors, contrast, bookeh etc.
My experience with the Rokkor is that, yes it is sharp and crisp, right from wide open, but it also has excellent colour, contrast and bokeh (it is a Rokkor in the true sense). In what ways do you feel the Zuiko is superior, and could that be chalked up to personal preference?
cogitech wrote:
My experience with the Rokkor is that, yes it is sharp and crisp, right from wide open, but it also has excellent colour, contrast and bokeh (it is a Rokkor in the true sense). In what ways do you feel the Zuiko is superior, and could that be chalked up to personal preference?
I recall the colors and bookeh just looked more pleasing with the OM....... since one can't be objective with this and it is purely one's opinion, i would chalk it up to personal preference.
The Nikon is very similar to the Zeiss - high contrast and very sharp... but not so great with the bookeh.
good bokeh poor bokeh is the most subjective and objective debate ever.
ford vs chevy.
omfg, get over yourselves.
ALSO- does nobody EVER search pancake threads on here? Every week there is a new thread asking about the CV and/or OM. I have a lengthy post in almost of of these threads.
ISO1600 wrote:
I'd like to see an IX or IX-L up next to a current D-Rebel. Prob about the same size.
I don't have one of the new Rebels, but it's not even close considering the depth of the grip on the newer bodies. The IX-Lite is closer in form, but even that grip is much smaller.
