40mm and a 50mm?

raid said:
I may use lenses on one day because of the type of lens that I want to use on that day.

The CZJ 5cm 1.5 is ia unique vintage lens that I may support with the 40mm Summicron C. This is my only 40mm lens. Both lenses are superb, and each lens gives me a different look.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%.
I have both a Jupiter 3 50/1.5 and an M-rokkor 40/2 CLE.
The 40 is FAR more flare resistane, but the 50 sonnar has perfect bokeh, is better in low light, has greater close focus magnification (I did the close focus mod), and gives greater subject isolation at medium distances. 40mm is pefect for multiple subjects, where as 50mm is perfect for a single person alone.

I do sometimes carry them both because they do complement each other well, but I am more likely to choose one at the start of the day as a one-body-one-lens outfit and leave the other at home. But they are both tiny lenses that will fit in a trouser pocket without me even noticing their presence, so I have taken both on occasion. I use the 40 very much as a 35mm, and the 50mm... well, like a 50! I only seem to swap the lens on the camera with this setup when I move to a new location.

On my M9 the 40mm fits the 35mm frame lines better than my Nokton 35/1.2, which seems to include a little more than I saw in the viewfinder and feels like a genuine wide angle lens. The 40mm feels "right" to me, and the 50 actually feels like a short and stubby telephoto.

If I'm taking more than one lens, combinations could be:
35/1.2 + 50/1.5 for people.
21 + 40 + 90 for travel and landscape.
 
I found myself shooting mostly with 25mm P CV and 40mm summicron C on my Rd1.
And again with the 40 summicron C on my M2.
I'm using 50mm summicron very few times these days.
 
If I'm shooting film I usually have a pancake 40 and a 50 with me.

With so many compacts being 35mm, and so many family/holiday snapshots over the years, and so much "snapshot aesthetic" stuff done with 35s I have a slight mental bias against the 35mm length, so I choose to go for the 40 instead because it's just a little tighter, and I feel there's something about the 40mm focal length that gives it it's own identity, it has a different feel from the 35 and the 50, so I don't feel they're too close.

I'll freely admit that most of my reasoning in this case is based on reaction rather than planning, but so far it's working ok for me.

I'm also quite interested in exploring the focal lengths just past 50mm, (57mms etc) as I feel they'd help me get closer without feeling like I'm getting in people's faces quite so much (although it may be that I just need to get over that)
 
My Present 3 lenses I'm using
50 Cron, 40 Rokkor, 21 SA

Haven't developed my roll with the (new to me) 40mm yet
But will this weekend
 
I prefer 40 over 50...basically I have forsaken 50...especially since the turn to digital. 50mm has disappeared from my bag there is only 40 now.
 
i have been using the 25 lately and leaving the 21 home...i think, like the 40 is used as a 35 the 25 seems to suit me better than the 21...it allows me better access to the image in my head. (if that makes any sense)
as for my 50 is pretty much used for getting closer as in a portrait shot.
i just got another 75 and i 'plan' on using it as a street lens for when i really want some more distance between me and my subject...we'll see how that goes.
the 21 is the lens that i took my favourite shot with so parting with it seem sorta sacrilegious...
 
I own both--a summicron-c 40/2 and a canon 50/1.8 ltm. The focal lengths are almost redundant, but I keep both because they each have quite different qualities and give me different results. Mainly, though, I picked up the 50 for my Barnack, with the added bonus of being able to use on my M's.

If I had a 35mm I'd likely get rid of my 40, but seeing as how 35 is so similar to 40 anyway, and that summ-c is such a great little lens, I can't part with it. Instead I just think of it as a 35 most of the time.
 
back alley said:
it allows me better access to the image in my head. (if that makes any sense)
Click to expand...


It really makes sense, at least to me.
It reminds me of Ansel Adam's pre-view of the image, before taking the picture.
And it's the same reason I'm feeling more confident with 40mm than 50mm...
The fact is... I see B&W pictures (in my mind). :eek:
 
back alley said:
just wondering if anyone else is using both a 40 and 50 mm lens in their kit?

what do you use each one for?
are they not too close to need both?
Click to expand...
I'm normally a 50mm guy.
But for low-light I found (after some trying) the 40/1.4 matches my intutive behaviour better than a fast 50 or 35.
So I use the Nokton nearly exclusive for that.
In my daylight kit I have a 25mm, different 50's and a 75 (mainly for portraits).

(valid for film/FF)
 
Back Alley: Theres a very good thread in the archives that discusses the 40mm length and its application. Also, the online photographer had an interesting article on the 40mm on his website.
 
"On my M9 the 40mm fits the 35mm frame lines better than my Nokton 35/1.2...."

IMO this is the most important point in the thread. Leica M9 framelines are way off for 35mm, but if you use a 40 Summicron and file the cam to open the 35mm framelines (or have DAG do it), than what you see is what you get.
 
When I go out with my CL I take the CV 21/4, the Summicron-C 40/2, and the Elmar-C 90/4. With M2 I take 35 and 50 and sometimes a short tele. I rarely use these tele's but I always feel I ought to have them in case..... With M6 I take 28 and 50 and 75. So the camera framelines decide in part. The 40 is theoretically closer to 35mm than to 50mm but to me -- probably because I'm carrying it with a 21mm -- it looks more like a 50.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom