I picked up an Olympus 40/1.4 recently. A local store had one on consignment and in great condition so I decided to pick it up. At first I was pretty underwhelmed (and was going to return it) but I decided to give it some more time. It is starting to grow on me. I'm still not a believer but I can't take it back now so I'd better learn to like it.
I quite like how well it fits on my EPL1. Size wise it is a much better match that the various MF lenses I have with big bulky adapters (the M42 being the worst). I like the fact that it close focuses to around a foot. I find the focusing action to be long (although not nearly as long as my Industar 2). I have been spoiled by the super short throw focusing of the Konica 40/1.8. Optically I'd say the Olympus is soft until you get to 2.8 and quite sharp from there on. At the same f-stops the Olympus is as sharp or sharper than the Konicas. I like the build quality as well. It's a nice lens. I wouldn't call it a bargain price wise (then again I think a lot of lenses are over priced) and while I have seen a few people mention that they think the 40/1.4 is on a par with the 40/2 Summicron C or the 40/2 M-Rokkor...I have a very hard time believing that. I think I'm going to need to see more proof of that before I change my opinion. Personally I think its just wishful thinking.
I have noticed that at the same settings as the Konica it seems to produce images that appear to be a bit underexposed compared to the Konicas. I think it produces better color but then again I have always felt Olympus lenses produce better color. It's been raining and snowing quite a lot so I haven't had chance to shoot much. It looks like we're going to have a sunny (albeit COLD) break for a few days so I hope to get out and test it some more.
Right now I think I like it although I'd have a hard time recommending it to someone. It appears to a bit better lens than my Konica 40/1.8 but not 5x better so if image quality is the determining factor then I'd say its a bit expensive for what you get. I am hoping to discover some really fabulous image qualities about the lens but right now I'd say the best thing about it is being small and close focusing.
I quite like how well it fits on my EPL1. Size wise it is a much better match that the various MF lenses I have with big bulky adapters (the M42 being the worst). I like the fact that it close focuses to around a foot. I find the focusing action to be long (although not nearly as long as my Industar 2). I have been spoiled by the super short throw focusing of the Konica 40/1.8. Optically I'd say the Olympus is soft until you get to 2.8 and quite sharp from there on. At the same f-stops the Olympus is as sharp or sharper than the Konicas. I like the build quality as well. It's a nice lens. I wouldn't call it a bargain price wise (then again I think a lot of lenses are over priced) and while I have seen a few people mention that they think the 40/1.4 is on a par with the 40/2 Summicron C or the 40/2 M-Rokkor...I have a very hard time believing that. I think I'm going to need to see more proof of that before I change my opinion. Personally I think its just wishful thinking.
I have noticed that at the same settings as the Konica it seems to produce images that appear to be a bit underexposed compared to the Konicas. I think it produces better color but then again I have always felt Olympus lenses produce better color. It's been raining and snowing quite a lot so I haven't had chance to shoot much. It looks like we're going to have a sunny (albeit COLD) break for a few days so I hope to get out and test it some more.
Right now I think I like it although I'd have a hard time recommending it to someone. It appears to a bit better lens than my Konica 40/1.8 but not 5x better so if image quality is the determining factor then I'd say its a bit expensive for what you get. I am hoping to discover some really fabulous image qualities about the lens but right now I'd say the best thing about it is being small and close focusing.
