Originally posted by LesDMess Given the emphasis on the DA being in a league of it's own, I would appreciate the data you used to arrive at this conclusion without even considering the 4X average price difference. TIA.
I never said league of its own, I said a different league. I like the m40, but it is a compromised lens. Good yes. Great? Not so much. The average eBay price reflects that reality I'm afraid.
Hopefully my post qualified that statement? The M40 is sharp, but lacks character, doesn't focus to infinity on digital, and the images are flat compared to an M50 f1.4 or K55 f1.8 (which are very good, and will cost you about the same as an m40).
I don't measurebate over my film shots. I hardly if ever scan them (I just develop at home and enlarge my own prints). So my impression is just that, my experience with that lens, compared to the DA40, FA43, A35, M50, K55 (which I also own, and also use on film)
The M40 is a good lens, the DA40 is better, and I could pick up an XS variant for £40 more than the M version. On film (on a body that can cope with lenses sans aperture ring), I'd say the xs is a better bet.
For an mx, again repeating myself, sure, why not?
If you care about the price that much, buy a K55 f1.8 or M50 f1.4. You'll get better value for money.