toksuede
Established
If I do go the 35mm way, I would need the 1.4. 2.5 will be almost two stops darker and useless when shooting in dim light.
Which 1.4? 35 or 40?
- Thread starter toksuede
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 31
- Views 3K
oscroft
Veteran
I've got the CV 35/1.4, and I don't have the 40/1.4 but I do have a Summicron-C 40/2.
I'm a big 35 nut, and to me 40 is a very different focal length - I love them both, but I just see differently with them.
I also have a CV 28/2, which I think is excellent, but it's a very different focal length again.
As others have said, it really has to be down to you to choose according to the way you shoot, but I really wouldn't think of shooting football or soccer as a wide angle thing myself - I can just see lots of photos with players looking a very long way away.
I'm a big 35 nut, and to me 40 is a very different focal length - I love them both, but I just see differently with them.
I also have a CV 28/2, which I think is excellent, but it's a very different focal length again.
As others have said, it really has to be down to you to choose according to the way you shoot, but I really wouldn't think of shooting football or soccer as a wide angle thing myself - I can just see lots of photos with players looking a very long way away.
Last edited:
ampguy
Veteran
One advantage to the 40 is less distortion. I think the 40/1.4 MC is a very good lens from f2.0 on, and even 1.4 can be great depending on the background.
I've been able to shoot into the sun and bright lights without issues that I've had from some other CV and Zeiss lenses.
I've been able to shoot into the sun and bright lights without issues that I've had from some other CV and Zeiss lenses.
toksuede
Established
Alan: When I shoot football, I use various lenses and one of my favourite is the wide angle. Do check out my flickr and you'll see what I'm talking about. I prefer the 35 as well and the more I think about it (and more photos I have seen on flickr using the 35), I feel it makes more sense...
ampguy: That I didn't know. Less distorition is always good. How is the flare on the 40 1.4?
ampguy: That I didn't know. Less distorition is always good. How is the flare on the 40 1.4?
ampguy
Veteran
flare control on 40/1.4 MC is very good
flare control on 40/1.4 MC is very good
very good with the MC version (I do not have the SC version). I regularly shoot into the sun with harsh light and this has handled it as well as the Summicron/Rokkors, maybe better than the pre-asph lux 35. 35/1.4 CV MC is probably as good or better, though SC is supposed to provide better shadow detail.
You can see distortion of the CV 35s easily when shooting flat surfaces with lines (brick walls), and architecture, for people photos, it imay be less of a concern.
flare control on 40/1.4 MC is very good
very good with the MC version (I do not have the SC version). I regularly shoot into the sun with harsh light and this has handled it as well as the Summicron/Rokkors, maybe better than the pre-asph lux 35. 35/1.4 CV MC is probably as good or better, though SC is supposed to provide better shadow detail.
You can see distortion of the CV 35s easily when shooting flat surfaces with lines (brick walls), and architecture, for people photos, it imay be less of a concern.
toksuede
Established
Everyone:
Just wanted to say "thanks" for all the tips.
At the end, I decided on the 40 1.4 as that focal length is something that I've never used and obviously, it's cheaper.
I'm sure I'll get a wider lens at some point, but for the time being, I'm going to go shoot some film.
Wow, that sounds weird...
Just wanted to say "thanks" for all the tips.
At the end, I decided on the 40 1.4 as that focal length is something that I've never used and obviously, it's cheaper.
I'm sure I'll get a wider lens at some point, but for the time being, I'm going to go shoot some film.
Wow, that sounds weird...
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
My take on the 35/40 conundrum is simple. The 35 (which is my "standard" lens for most everything) usually requires a 50 along on a 2nd body. The 40 is the perfect 1 camera/1 lens "kit". The exact framing is not a big issue with me - if I need 100% control over what I see and get - I get one of my old Nikon F's out.
If you are thinking of a "prime' focal length for street, people etc - the 40mm will do well. Once you get used to the frames (be it a filed down "claw" for 35mm frame - or leave it as a 50) - it can handle most everything you throw at it. As a fast "normal" it is the best deal around.
The Nokton 35f1.4 is a more specialized lens - it was designed to duplicate some of the idiosyncrasies of the Pre-Asph 35f1.4 Summilux ( a bit flare, some distorsion - but generally less so than the Summilux). The 40f1.4 is just a very good, reasonably priced semi-wide "normal". One step back and it looks like 35 - one step forward and it looks like a 50!!!!
I often find myself just taking a M2 and the 40f1.4 (filed down to give me 35 frame) and using it for "walk-about" shooting - nothing planned, just for fun.
Image quality with either the 35f1.4 or the 40f1.4 is more than sufficient for just about anything.
If you are thinking of a "prime' focal length for street, people etc - the 40mm will do well. Once you get used to the frames (be it a filed down "claw" for 35mm frame - or leave it as a 50) - it can handle most everything you throw at it. As a fast "normal" it is the best deal around.
The Nokton 35f1.4 is a more specialized lens - it was designed to duplicate some of the idiosyncrasies of the Pre-Asph 35f1.4 Summilux ( a bit flare, some distorsion - but generally less so than the Summilux). The 40f1.4 is just a very good, reasonably priced semi-wide "normal". One step back and it looks like 35 - one step forward and it looks like a 50!!!!
I often find myself just taking a M2 and the 40f1.4 (filed down to give me 35 frame) and using it for "walk-about" shooting - nothing planned, just for fun.
Image quality with either the 35f1.4 or the 40f1.4 is more than sufficient for just about anything.
oscroft
Veteran
Ah yes, I see what you mean - you've got some nice shots there on Flickr
toksuede
Established
Well, I just ordered it last night and I'm looking forward to combinging it all.
Although I'm still wondering if this 40mm business is going to work for me, but I guess one just has to try.
Tom: Thanks. I feel much better about it and it should be fun taking a crack at a mysterious focal length.
Alan: Thanks as well. I just don't like conventional football images, so I try to do different things. 🙂
Will post photos once the stuff gets here.
Alan:
Although I'm still wondering if this 40mm business is going to work for me, but I guess one just has to try.
Tom: Thanks. I feel much better about it and it should be fun taking a crack at a mysterious focal length.
Alan: Thanks as well. I just don't like conventional football images, so I try to do different things. 🙂
Will post photos once the stuff gets here.
Alan:
gilpen123
Gil
I agree with Tom for 1 lens/camera the 40 1.4 will do the works. I used the 40 1.4 SC a lot until the sumicron-c 40 arrived. Here's a shot using an M3 and 40 1.4 SC
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
You'll be very happy with the lens. The focusing tab is something I really enjoy... When I don't use it wide open (I mean most of the times) after learning where's the focus with the tab centered, you have guide enough to focus without the finder! It's a shame I didn't use focusing tabs for so many years... Now I think photography should be tought on rangefinders and slide film, not slrs and black & white...
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan