40mm - the sensible all-rounder?
- Thread starter Dave Wilkinson
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 63
- Views 8K
HarryW
Established
My only RF set-up now is an M2 and a 40 mm f1.4 Nokton MC.
I filed the lug down so that it brings up the 35 mm frame lines. Works fine for me.
Regards
Harry
I filed the lug down so that it brings up the 35 mm frame lines. Works fine for me.
Regards
Harry
Jaans
Well-known
I was actually fully expecting your input after my post as I suspected you would be there to clarify those finer details that I initially couldn't fully explain.
Modules and formulas aside, like I originally tried to say (minus the formulas) the 40mm is and will remain a popular choice for photographers, especially those on the street shooting with a Leica with 35mm framelines. Also, regardless of whether the 43mm lens 'trick' is real or perceived, like I said many photographers have successfully used the 40mm to their advantage.
Personally, I think the more one tries to overanalyse these things with formulas prior to use, the more complicated things get in the heat of the moment. Perhaps the trick is to find a lens that your comfortable with, either the 28mm, 35mm, 40mm, or 50mm and learn to use your legs to get into position for filling the frame. That is how I learnt photography - using my feet to determine field of view, instead of modulas on an internet site, but then again, each to his own.
retnull
Well-known
Panasonic 20 f1.7 is 40mm equiv on m4/3rds -- and an unbelievably great lens as well.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well. yes -- which is precisely why the 43mm theory is irrelevant. At least I make an attempt on the site to explain the variables, rather than conjuring up a magic (and irrelevant) number.
Cheers,
R.
btgc
Veteran
Roger, is it worth at all?
People see 3D thanks to postprocessing done by brain, while photographs normally are 2D. In such context 40mm or 35mm, they all are just substitutes.
People see 3D thanks to postprocessing done by brain, while photographs normally are 2D. In such context 40mm or 35mm, they all are just substitutes.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Precisely. My theory is that one of the big clues to a 'natural-looking' picture is that all the elements in it subtend pretty close to the same angle as the subject would in the real world. Hence the relevance of print size and viewing distance.
I've yet to see a better argument.
Cheers,
R.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I like the 40mm focal length, I have one for my Olympus OM-system SLRs. Nice thing about an SLR is oddball focal lengths work just fine and allow perfect frame accuracy. With a Leica you're stuck with the lenses your camera was made for: 35, 50, 90, and 135 for me since I have an M4. Too bad, I think the 40 is a great street photo/candid focal length but I don't like kludges like trying to guesstimate based on the 35mm frames....too much hassle, I need stuff that just works and doesnt get in the way.
aizan
Veteran
40mm takes the "telephoto" bite out of 50mm, without being too watered down like the 35mm. just sayin'.
Bingley
Veteran
I like the Rokkor 40/2 (CLE version) b/c it's a terrific optic and very compact to boot. I like the images it produces, wide open or stopped down. I also tend to use it where I would otherwise use a 35, but I appreciate the slightly tighter field of view. 50 is still "normal" for me, but if heading out the door w/ just one lens I tend to agree w/ the OP that the 40 works. I also like the 40 in combination w/ a 28.
back alley
IMAGES
when i was using the cle i had all 3 lenses, 28,40,90...seemed a near perfect kit.
Frontman
Well-known
I have an OM Zuiko 40/2, and it's one of the favorites in my collection. It's far smaller than the next closest lens I have, which is the 35/2. The 40 is a better lens in every way.
I've yet to try a 40mm lens on my Leicas, my standard lens is the 35/2.8 Summaron. If I get a chance, I'll try out a 40 this weekend and see how I like it.
I've yet to try a 40mm lens on my Leicas, my standard lens is the 35/2.8 Summaron. If I get a chance, I'll try out a 40 this weekend and see how I like it.
Jaans
Well-known
Your right - I shouldn't have introduced the number 43mm into the discussion as it pertains to negative diagnoal size rather than the eye's field of view. So, back to the main point of the discussion - the relevance of the 40mm in photography.
As I suggested earlier, I would highly recommend the OP read the Mike Johnston article, as it offers in my opinion the most practicle article/insight that I have come across on why the 40mm is the best lens suitable for general photography.
There are a number of articles in his archive that also make excellent reading. A must for any practitioners of photography.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
"40mm - the sensible all-rounder?" Yes ... well DUH.
(the inimitable Mr. A ...)
(the inimitable Mr. A ...)
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
One more ... sorry for colour ;-)
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Sometimes it looks a bit wide angle ... or does it?
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Just another data point concerning the 40mm equivalent field of view, and that is the Lumix 20-f/1.7 lens for the u4/3 format cameras has become very popular of late, potentially introducing an entirely new generation of photographers to this particular lens angle of view. I know it's become my favorite on the G1.
~Joe
~Joe
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
Once upon a long ago I read an article from a respected RFF-er, who stated he didn't like the 40mm focal length, too short to be a normal, to long to be a usable wide angle. By that time I was only using plastic zoom lenses, making the statement somewhat irrelevant for me, but the thought lingered.
My move into primes had one reason and one reason only: Speed. But you have to consider focal length too of course. I found out that a 50mm and 85mm worked the best for concert shooting on my APS-C camera (crop factor 1.5).
Much later I got my hands on a Canonet GIII QL17 (highly praised on the same RFF-er's website, yes he DID influence me quite a bit I realize). When I looked at the scans I realized a little bit of magic was happening here. It might have something to do with Roger's module about perspective perception and viewing distances, but I was drawn very much to the simple everyday pictures I made with the Canonet. Furthermore, the framing was just about right, in a sense that my brain told me 'this would be nice picture' and I didn't need to go closer (35mm) or further back (50mm) for the image my brain wanted me to capture. Maybe it's a sign I need to train my brain to think in different perspectives but I am actually pondering to get a 40mm for my Nikon F system or for Leica even.
Did that make any sense?
I very much love my Canonet, I'm currently waiting for new seals. Here's a picture. It was made with a Canon Canonet GIII QL17. The lens was wide open (f1.7). film used was Ilford HP5+, rated at ISO800 and developed in Diafine. Shutter speed must have been about 1/30th.
My move into primes had one reason and one reason only: Speed. But you have to consider focal length too of course. I found out that a 50mm and 85mm worked the best for concert shooting on my APS-C camera (crop factor 1.5).
Much later I got my hands on a Canonet GIII QL17 (highly praised on the same RFF-er's website, yes he DID influence me quite a bit I realize). When I looked at the scans I realized a little bit of magic was happening here. It might have something to do with Roger's module about perspective perception and viewing distances, but I was drawn very much to the simple everyday pictures I made with the Canonet. Furthermore, the framing was just about right, in a sense that my brain told me 'this would be nice picture' and I didn't need to go closer (35mm) or further back (50mm) for the image my brain wanted me to capture. Maybe it's a sign I need to train my brain to think in different perspectives but I am actually pondering to get a 40mm for my Nikon F system or for Leica even.
Did that make any sense?
I very much love my Canonet, I'm currently waiting for new seals. Here's a picture. It was made with a Canon Canonet GIII QL17. The lens was wide open (f1.7). film used was Ilford HP5+, rated at ISO800 and developed in Diafine. Shutter speed must have been about 1/30th.
Last edited:
Nice shot! And nice tonality; I do like HP5 with Diafine.
But I think of it more in terms of angle of view, as that then puts it independent of format, though it's tough to relate square vs rectangular formats. So, in 24x36mm format, a 40mm lens is about 56 degrees angle of view, while 50mm is more like 47 degrees and 35mm is 63 degrees.
So I use a 40mm Rokkor, a 43mm Pentax-L, and 40mm Nokton on M bodies, and 40mm Ultron in Pentax K mount as well as a 43mm Pentax FA. But I have come to like 60° or so even better than 56°, so the 28mm on M8, 24mm on APS-C, 60mm on 645, and 75mm on 6x7 feel even more comfortable.
Sure. Through practice I've found I can "see" selectively in almost any angle of view, matching what's on the camera, but I tend not to stress the issue by changing lenses much! Still, I'd agree that for me and apparently many others, a 40mm view feels pretty natural.
But I think of it more in terms of angle of view, as that then puts it independent of format, though it's tough to relate square vs rectangular formats. So, in 24x36mm format, a 40mm lens is about 56 degrees angle of view, while 50mm is more like 47 degrees and 35mm is 63 degrees.
So I use a 40mm Rokkor, a 43mm Pentax-L, and 40mm Nokton on M bodies, and 40mm Ultron in Pentax K mount as well as a 43mm Pentax FA. But I have come to like 60° or so even better than 56°, so the 28mm on M8, 24mm on APS-C, 60mm on 645, and 75mm on 6x7 feel even more comfortable.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Exactly. For me, it's 35. But not 24 on M8, which is a 32 equivalent. Those few mm. make an enormous difference to what you're most comfortable with.
Cheers,
R.