35mm vs 40mm FOV???

[Lord Fluff]

Hi all. I am using an M6. Can anyone explain, or even better illustrate, the difference in photos between these two focal lengths? Is it a substantial difference, or enough that you just use the 35mm lines either way and the result is 'near enough'. I would love a fast 35mm lens, but the 40 Nokton is such a bargain (the new 35 nokton seems much more expensive in the UK right now), but is framing an issue at all? I already have a fast 50 (Summarit) and am concerned a 40 would be too close to this FL.

Many thanks

 

[reuno]

Hello !

Here you will find some infos about actual framing of 40mm versus 35 and 50. It's a french website but the first picture talks by itself !

http://www.summilux.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9371

 

[mr_phillip]

To be honest, with an M6 you're unlikely to experience any major framing issues.

The 40mm has a coverage of 56° and the 35mm is 63°. With an older Leica such as an M2 or M4, the framelines were much closer to the limit of the actual framing at minimum focusing distances so the difference between 35 and 40mm would likely show up as cropping of your images. From the M4-P onwards the framelines were reduced in size, meaning that you always get slightly more on the negative, even at minimum distance, than the frames suggest. This tolerance would likely be enough to prevent you from getting any nasty shocks when using the 40mm with 35mm lines.

Having said that, my feeling is still that if you want to use a lens with 35mm framelines, you should get a 35mm lens. But I understand that the financial difference between the two optics is a factor.

 

[ferider]

I find the difference to be significant, and the more the closer you shoot. Hopefully, with Raid's permission, here is the "same" photo of his daughter, taken first with Summicron 40/2, next with Summicron 35/2:

Note that the 40 Nokton is rumoured to be almost 10% longer (43mm),
while the 40 Summicron is between 39 and 40mm focal length.

I shoot both 40 and 35 and pick depending on what other lenses I use.
I find 40 easier to use with 28 and 75, and 35 easier with 50.

Best,

Roland.

 

[Lord Fluff]

That's really helpful, thanks all

 

[oscroft]

As it happens, I've been comparing some of my 50s and my Summicron-C 40 recently. Here's the same scene photographed with a Summitar 50 and the Summicron-C 40...

 

[shimo-kitasnap]

I have the 40 nokton as a compromise between 35 and 50 for low light. I used to use the 35 f1.2 but was put off by it's massiveness. I find it a great all purpose lens and works great in the dark when I can't see well enought to bother switching between 35 and 50. I also find it easier to hyper focus from the hip than the 50 without cutting people's heads off.

 

[jamxo]

I shot for a few months with both a 35mm Nokton and a 40mm Summicron and I just really hated the summicron shots. For me 35 is the perfect focal length, so shots from that summicron just seemed too claustraphobic. I guess it comes down also to what type of photos you make. For me, alot of my stuff is quite close environmental portraits (similar the Raid's picture above), so that increased focal length cuts out quite alot of information.

I sold the summicron and replaced it with a 35 Hexanon UC so now I am an extremely happy bunny.

J.