I was just perusing KEH and noticed the OM 40mm f/2 lens is quite expensive. I haven't heard much about this lens, is it good? Why the high cost?
Thanks,
Dan
www.danbrownphotography.com
Hi Dan. The Zuiko 40/2 is a very nice lens (regarding IQ) and quite a collectable (rare-ish) one. Maybe you should ask Richard 'Brainiac' to provide some photos taken with it.
I have some pics taken with film cameras so if I can scan them I'll post them.
I have this lens, too. It is tiny and light. Carrying a canon 5D attached with it you almost think, you have forgotten to bring a lens. I like it very much.
Here is a stitched panorama of my hometown Bochum in Germany. Actually it shows the southern outskirts of Bochum, the Ruhr river valley. The pano was taken from the main tower of the medieval castle "Burg Blankenstein".
Currently on a trip, here are some snaps from yesterday. This lens is one of my favorites and gotta give props to brainiac for his wonderful top view pics of the lens mounted on camera showcasing how diminutive it can be. Great on all my bodies, FF, 1.3x and 1.6x. Started my alt addiction with the OM 40/2 and haven't looked back.
It's overpriced due to 'collector' status. not that many were made (supposedly?) so it's fairly uncommon. In the day it was cheap, priced around what the 50/1.8 sold for.
The OM 40/2 is an excellent and fun lens to use. It is also absolutely tiny. I'm am very pleased with the results I've been getting with it. The colors are rich and the bokeh is smooth. It also focuses down to roughly 6 inches. There is some CA in high contrast areas wide open and it will flare easily in certain situations. Overall though, the lens is a gem and delivers fantastic results for it's micro size. The price is pretty high but, is mostly driven by supply and demand and not extreme optical performance. I love my OM 40 but, unless you're a collector or like the rendition of older and/or OM lenses the new voigtlander 40/2 ultron is looking pretty good. It's cheaper, has a modern optical design and coatings, excellent build, and has auto aperture control.
Ed Sawyer wrote:
It's overpriced due to 'collector' status. not that many were made (supposedly?) so it's fairly uncommon. In the day it was cheap, priced around what the 50/1.8 sold for.
-Ed
^ +1.
I suggest OP to buy a 50/1.4 with high serial number and expect to pay up to $150 for it. Slightly better IQ-wise and 3-4 times cheaper (and, uh, 100g heavier). I have both but I'm a collector/Zuikoholic, so don't take me as an example.
To answer the OP....yeah - the OM40mm f2.0 is good. Small, sharp, great colors.... a very nice lens for sure. If I was shooting Canon, I would not be selling mine.
But recently, having played with a Rokkor 40mm f2.0 - the colors are very nice and it is one sharp lens. I would consider this lens as an alternative.
In addition, the Nikon 45mm f2.8 P is also a pancake and just a tad bigger than the OM 40mm f2.0 - might be worthwhile to consider one of these as well. The Nikon 45P has got to be one of the most high contrast lenses I have used and it is sharp with little or no distortion. It uses a very simple Zeiss design and I absolutely love the pictures from it.
I have a 40 F2, love the lens. Unfortunately I must soon sell as an illness (cancer) consumes much of my efforts these days and has affected my eyes. Nice lens, somewhat rare, mounts well on my 50D. Zuikos are interesting lenses.
pascal03 wrote:
...
But recently, having played with a Rokkor 40mm f2.0 - the colors are very nice and it is one sharp lens. I would consider this lens as an alternative.
...
You probably meant the 45/2. It's a nice alternative but I believe the zuiko has higher resolution. However, the zuiko is way too expensive nowadays. I am glad I got one when it was manageable ( and I thought it was expensive).
I had cataract surgery on both eyes. So far no problem with sharpness, but I remember my doctor saying, that after cataract surgery I would have a slight shift in color recognition.
I did not feel it so far. But I am 57 already and things are not going any better any more.
here are a few more images taken today with the 40mm. Most of them are taken at f/2.8.
The bokeh is pretty good when the background features are at least 1 meter away from the object.
pascal03 wrote:
In addition, the Nikon 45mm f2.8 P is also a pancake and just a tad bigger than the OM 40mm f2.0 - might be worthwhile to consider one of these as well. The Nikon 45P has got to be one of the most high contrast lenses I have used and it is sharp with little or no distortion. It uses a very simple Zeiss design and I absolutely love the pictures from it.
The Nikkor 45/2.8, at 17mm long without the hood, is actually smaller than the 25mm long OM 40 (which is about the same size as the CV 40/2).
DanPBrown wrote:
I was just perusing KEH and noticed the OM 40mm f/2 lens is quite expensive. I haven't heard much about this lens, is it good? Why the high cost?
Thanks,
Dan
www.danbrownphotography.com
I dunno why so much but from what I can tell by the images posted so far it should sell for about $150 to $200. What is it going for on KEH? alexandre says it's rare... maybe that's why.
i was not so impressed of the oly.
IQ in relationship to price is absurd. (my opinion)
i prefer the rokkor, mine is sharper in the middle
but softer in the corners.
the hexanon 40mm 1,7 glows a little and is not that sharp and contrasty, but smaller.
this evening i will have the ultron 40/2 in my hands. im exited ....
out of curiosity how do the om 40mm and other lenses mentioned here (rokkor and nikkor 45mm pancakes) compare to the zeiss 45mm f/2.8 pancake? anyone have experience with this lens?
sebboh wrote:
out of curiosity how do the om 40mm and other lenses mentioned here (rokkor and nikkor 45mm pancakes) compare to the zeiss 45mm f/2.8 pancake? anyone have experience with this lens?
The Zeiss and the Nikkor are damned near identical in overall performance, with the only significant difference being the Zeiss look. Understandably as both are straight-up Tessar's. Expect softish corners at wider apertures and excellent centre performance.
