I've had both. I like the OM better. The Pentax is shallower, but I believe a bit larger in circumference. It doesn't focus close at all and it's slow at f/2.8, but it is nice and sharp.
The 45/2.8P is great. The booke is like most other Nikkors. Not smooth.
ISO1600 wrote:
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.
I will agree on this... a lens that has a smaller aperture than f1.8 (or f2.0) and is of a focal length less than 60mm-85mm... maybe even 50mm, the bookeh thing really is just chatter/background noise..... the real test for these lenses is in the distortion/vignetting/falloff/colors/contrast/sharpness/size etc. they are capable of.
pascal03 wrote:
I will agree on this... a lens that has a smaller aperture than f1.8 (or f2.0) and is of a focal length less than 60mm-85mm... maybe even 50mm, the bookeh thing really is just chatter/background noise..... the real test for these lenses is in the distortion/vignetting/falloff/colors/contrast/sharpness/size etc. they are capable of.
You're right, once you measure that, who cares how the image looks?
I love th Oly f/2 40mm. It is very, very compact and it is sharp all over.
I am using my OM-Lenses often for panorama shots, like this one,
which was taken with the 40mm:
