Any experience with these lenses: OM 40mm f2, OM 100mm f2

[msbarnes]

These lenses seem to be scarce so samples are hard to find. I've heard nothing but good things about the 100mm and I've heard that the 40mm is either really good or really over-rated. I'm not concerned about brutal sharpness; however, I care about good bokeh. I find that most big lens manufacturers make sharp-enough normal and telephotos, but bokeh seems to be all over the place.

Anyone experience either of these lenses?

I wouldn't spend any serious money on the 40mm but I've seen them BIN for not-that-much on ebay. I guess a lot of people pass these things off as a run of the mill type of lenses. I'm attracted to this lens because of the FOV and speed--not the size.

For a telephoto, I'm debating between the 100mm f2 and the 100mm f2.8. I prefer 100mm over 85mm. I thought to get the 100mm but then my local photography store has 100mm f2 at a very good price. I know that the 100mm f2 is a more sophisticated design, but in practice, are the results noticeabley better? Ok that is very subjective but any comments on the bokeh qualities? That is what I care mostly about.

 

[mopar_guy]

I bought the 100mm f2.0 Zuiko new in 1987. I can't say about the 100mm f2.8 as I have never used one. The 100mm f2 was my first good telephoto. I also own the 85mm f2 Zuiko and I can see a noticeable improvement with the 100mm f2. If I am looking at a photo from the 100mm f2 and one from the 85mm f2, I can always tell which is which. The 100mm f2 has a special way of rendering on film that no other OM Zuiko has. Bokeh? I know that this lens has has a unique way of rendering that I cannot get with any other lens.

As for the 40mm f2 Zuiko, I have one but I prefer my 50mm f1.4.

 

[ooze]

I'm primarily a Leica M and Nikon SLR guy, but also have indulged in a small OM system with three lenses; one of them is the 100/2.8. All I can say is that my sample is one hell of a lens (as are the 28 and 50), nothing short of the best Leica and Nikon can offer.

 

[thuggins]

The 40mm was Maitani's special baby. He designed it just because he wanted one. As I recall he said it was one of the three lenses he took with him when travelling. That would be the best endorsement any piece of gear could get.

Mine is a lovely little lens, and it is hard to separate the optical performance from the esthetics. The balance and handling of the camera fluent. It is as sharp as any of the well acknowledged Zuiko's. But truth be told, I find the FOV to be a bit disconcerting. 40mm is the vicinity that Olympus put on their rangefinders and it doesn't seem much different from 35mm. But for me 35mm just seems to be the "right" FOV. That's just a preference and many folks would point out that the 40 is much closer to the standard focal length for a 35mm camera.

I have a 100f2.8 that has never been used. One reason is because that is an awkward f.l. for me. The other is the 90f2. That is a much more versatile lens, and is among the most hightly regarded pieces of glass ever made. Their price reflects their worth, but both the 90 and the 100 seem to be going for about the same amount on the auction site.

 

[Matthew Wagg]

All the zuiko's I've ever used have been fantastic. I've been on the lookout for a good 100 and some of the longer stuff as well. But have you considered the 135mm zuiko? I bought a 135 3.5 silver nose on a whim as it was cheap and clean but knock me sideways if it doesn't render the backgrounds out of focus in the most delightful way. It's creamy smooth with no distractions.