40mm Anyone?

P

Pfreddee

Well-known
Local time
6:01 AM
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
528
I know it's an odd size for a prime lens, but does anyone else use a 40mm as their main prime? I started out with a 50mm prime on a Canon AE1, went to zooms, and now I'm back to the 40mm f/2.8 Pancake (love that term!) lens as my prime on a Canon 6D. Aside from the fact that it looks a little bit odd sitting on a full-size DSLR, I've found that the biggest advantage for me is the light weight. That, and the fact that I'm not bumping a large prime into car doors when I take the camera with me. In fact, it's my only EF Canon lens; I bought it to try out on a film Canon, and put it on the 6D when I bought it. Maybe I'll pick up the 24-105 next.:D

With best regards,

Pfreddee(Stephen)
 
Honestly, that 40mm f2.8 stm lens is one lens I'm jealous of. Used to use one on a 5d mkIII and an old eos 1n, and it's a seriously fantastic little lens. I'm with Fuji now, and the 27 is technically a good lens too, but lacks the ability to have some depth at f2.8 like the little canon does.
 
Pfreddee said:
I know it's an odd size for a prime lens, but does anyone else use a 40mm as their main prime?
Click to expand...


Yes - and the Canon 40mm pancake is an excellent lens.

The 40mm focal length hits the 'sweet spot' between 35mm and 50mm, and provides a very comfortable 'feel'. I also use the 40mm (eq.) focal length in other ways e.g. 27mm prime on an APS-c body, and when using zooms, of course.
 
I regularly use the 40mm Nokton Voigtlander F1.2 on my Leica digitals. I like the way the lens renders, and the focusing is very quick.
 
I have a Voigtlander Ultron 40mm f2.0 for my Nikons. Especially like it on my Nikon FE. Also have the CV 40/1.4 lens. That and a CV Bessa R3A started my rangefinder revival in 2006.
 
I just last week got a 27mm 2.8 new-to-me Fuji pancake

It's a nice mate to the little XE2.
to me, the 40mm FOV is "right" in a lot of circumstances.



Have taken it out twice, quite pleased---
 
The Canon 40mm pancake has probably become my most-used lens. It just never lets me down.

I have the 27mm Fuji pancake as my only lens on my X-M1. The size, usage and coverage is almost exactly the same as an old Trip 35.

I just picked up a Pentax-M 40mm f/2.8 pancake. It was on an ME, which I have since sold (with a different lens).

Now I have it on my K1000 and it looks kind of ridiculous to have such a tiny lens on such a big camera.
 
I used to own a Konica Autroreflex which came with a standard 40mm f1.8 lens, which had a filter thread of 55mm.

I think I only put one film through it. Dunno why I sold it. Probably 'cos I decided I'd rather have the money, although I'm pretty sure I wasted it.
 
LOL I have one of those, too, but no body to attach it to. Maybe I need to lay off the 40s for a while (or go whole hog and get some for my rangefinders).
 
For some time an age ago, my entire kit with a Leica CL was the Summicron-C 40mm f/2 and Elmar-C 90mm f/4. I also spent years using a Rollei 35S with its Sonnar 40mm f/2.8 lens.

40mm is a good and versatile normal lens for 35mm format film or digital, and can replace both 35 and 50 in my bag. The primary reason I use 35mm nowadays is that it matches the frame lines in both my M-D and M4-2 more closely, where the CL had 40mm frame lines as standard.

G
 
I have the 6D with the 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake and love it. Great little lens and the 6D is light and compact with the lens on it. Terrific IQ.

Also I like the Rollei 35S, and CL with M-Rokkor 40mm f/2.

35mm is probably my favourite focal length but these 40s are so good I find myself using them a lot.
 
My first RF camera was a Canonet G-III QL 17. Ever since I've been fond of the 40mm FOV.

Like others above, I now enjoy using the Fujinon XF 27/2.8. It is my main prime when I don't have a specific plan in mind. Otherwise, when appropriate I use the XF 35/2 or the 23/2.

I wish the X100T was designed with a 27mm lens.
 
Here's a cool article that Mike Johnston wrote awhile ago on "Why 40mm?"
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/why-40mm.html

I really like the 40mm field of view, seems natural to me. 40mm f2.0 M Rokkor that came with the Minolta CLE is a wonderful lens and sells for very little compared to its Leica cousins. The Canon EF 40mm STM is an amazing lens that is also a steal:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2017/09/so-you-say-you-want-to-shoot-film.html
 
I shot a contax t2 with the fixed 38mm for years. That was really my true focal length. When I went to leica I settled for 35mm and while I do love it, I wish I just had that little more. I may buckle down and buy a 40mm cron, or find a t2 lens and have it converted.
 
If I could only have one lens, I'd like it to be a 40. I like the fixed-lens rangefinders from the 60s with their ~40s, if only they had bigger viewfinders...

To me 35 is a place where the tension between foreground and background feels big at my typical subjects and working distances, which can make composition difficult in a way, but rewarding. Shorter or longer, and the foreground or background becomes dominant more easily, and composition is easier. 40 seems just a tad easier and avoids the danger of looking like it's supposed to be wide, but doesn't include enough I often feel with 35. Broad generalizations that have no foundation in facts and I will probably change my mind about this again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom