OM 40mm

[msbarnes]

Anyone have experience with this lens?

How does it compare with the VC, Leica/Minolta, and Rollei 40's?

[Travis L.]

It's a super little lens, sharp and very compact. I've used one on an OM1 quite a bit.
If I had to find a nit to pick it would be that the filter ring also doubles as the aperture ring. A necessity of the compact size.
It's never really been a problem for me, but is occasionally a little easy to bump out of place.
Not sure how to compare it to the other lenses you mentioned.

I've also owned and loved a VC 40 1.4.

[redisburning]

I sold mine. Don't really miss it since it paid for my ZM50P

nice lens optically, not sold on the build quality.

samples:


Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr



Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I liked mine, it had great bokeh and was sharp. It developed a fungus infection that destroyed it though, and they cost so damned much I'll likely never have another one.

[msbarnes]

IC, I have an OM system and this lens seems to have a reputation of being very good or very over-rated.

I'm not desperate for one and wouldn't pay more than $300, but I've seen them go for $200 and less on ebay...I saw one go for $100 with an an OM...

But I would have no interest in buying one just to sell as I know that they can sell for $400-$500.

[ferider]

I have one and rarely use it. Good bokeh and kind of cute.

But optically (resolution and distortion), my late Zuiko 35/2 and the much cheaper and not much bigger MIJ 50/1.8 run circles around it. As do the VC 40/1.4 that I still have and Summicron-C/Rokkor 40/2 that I had a couple of years back.

Much overrrated. And handling is a pain. Not only that the filter screws into the aperture ring. It will only work with some, thin enough filters to boot.

Roland.

[sleepyhead]

When I used an OM-1, I had one for the small size and the 40mm focal length (which I love). Optically, it was an okay to good lens, but not as "punchy" as a 40mm M-Rokkor.

In the end, I sold all my OM gear and now use Contax/Yashica for my film SLR system. I find the 45mm Zeiss Tessar a better lens, although it is only f/2.8 max aperture, so not really comparable.

[David Murphy]

It's a very interesting lens, well made, sharp and a very useful focal length. Like many OM system lenses it's prone to fungus, but it can also be cleaned at modest cost if nccessary.

[-Nash-]

The lens is very nice to use, but it is quite expensive.
I used mine on a OM-1. The profile is smaller than having a wide angle Zuiko on it.

[FTography]

Unless you are an excessive user of polarizing filters, it's a great lens.
In my book, filter use and its relatively high price are the two only weaknesses of the 40mm.

Aside from that, it is very much as typical Zuiko: Small, light, sharp.
The 40mm view angle is very versatile, and being able to focus much closer than the 35mm and 50mm Zuikos (not considering the 50 macros), achieves a relatively large maximum magnification.

All in all, it is the best one-for-all Zuiko to mount on your OM camera.