40mm lens advice

[existrandom]

hello all,

out of impulse of (what?), i have just committed to buy a CL at US300
the next i worries is naturally what 40mm lens i have to go for;

i have been using the Konica AR 40/1.8, and find its perspective very very pleasing in a naturally fulfilling way... perhaps that was the reson why

i noted that Cosina, Minolta, Rolllei and Leica have their offerings in the focal length; would love to hear your opinion on these, esp. in terms of handling and B/W picture rendition, etc

i have an M4 already w/ a Canon LTM 35/1.8 and Hexanon 50/2; (you see i try very hard not to have dublicate lenses in each focal length)

i mean to have the CL as a carry-all-around stealth outfit
i could use the 35 as well, but i heard that the VF of CL is just meant for a 40... in longer run i will have a 25 as well; making the 2 camera a complimentary pair for different needs

thanks and look forward to you guys

 

[RayPA]

I think the Minolta (Rokkor 40/2) and the Leica (cron 40/2) are similar in character and quality. The CV 40/1.4 is nice too (I like what I've seen of the single coated version), can't speak to the MC version. Some think the bokeh of this lens is inferior to the other two. I haven't used the Rollei.



.

 

[Doug]

I too find the 40mm very useful... I have the 40mm Rokkor on my CLE, and use a 43mm Pentax Limited on it too, and still I'm tempted by the Voigtlander 40mm Nokton. The CV is remarkably compact for its speed. Someone here did a surprising comparison test that showed the bokeh under difficult condtions was actually a bit better (my impression) in the Nokton than the Summicron/Rokkor at the same apertures. At f/1.4 it wasn't as pleasant, but then the other lenses won't open that far!

You'd probably find any of these excellent choices, with the earlier Rokkor or Summicron for the CL being the most affordable.

 

[yossarian]

I have the 40/1.4 Nokton, and the only criticism I have is the wide, concave focusing
tab. I think I'd prefer the type CV put on the 25. As with anything else, with use
comes more familiarity. The bright side of your quest is that there is no "wrong"
choice--they're all first-rate little optical gems.

Fred

 

[Huck Finn]

I am not the best person to answer this question because I only own one of these lenses - the Rollei 40/2.8 Sonnar, which is a superb lens both in terms of sharpness, color rendition, & build quality. My impressions are that the performance characteristics of the Sonnar & the Summicron (Leica & Minolta versions are essentially the same.) are similar, and that both reflect the era of their design (early '70s). Test results I've seen have shown the Sonnar to give a little higher resolution except wide open where it remains higher in the center, but is a little softer than the Summicron in the corners. I doubt that a user would notice much difference between the two. The Sonnar is a recent re-issue of a lens that was developed for Rollei by Zeiss 35 years ago, so it is available new but you give up a stop of speed compared to the Summicron. While all three lenses are compact, the Summicron is the smallest.

The third lens, the CV Nokton, is an amazing size for such a fast lens - about the same length as the Sonnar but wider. It's a modern design with higher contrast than the other two. It has gotten mixed reviews for its bokeh characteristics, but I have seen the same reports as Doug that this may be more of an issues of pictures shot at f/1.4, an aperture that doesn't exist on either of the other two lenses. If you buy this lens, I would recommend that you buy it new because some of the early samples were reported to have rough or stiff focusing. It would be nice to have a warranty if you have any such concerns. It's also hard to know if you're getting one of the early samples when you buy used.

If you want a high contrast, high speed lens, the Nokton is the way to go. If you want a little older look, the Summicron is perfect for your CL as it was built to the same scale specifically for it. If on the other hand, you prefer to buy new, the Sonnar is a nice alternative with similar performance if you don't need the extra stop of speed.

A couple of notes . . . The Minolta version of the Summicron will sell for lessthan the Leica. The Rollei Sonnar is a screw mount lens that is sold with an LTM/M-mount adaptor. If you buy used, be sure that the adaptor is included.

All three are excellent lenses, capable of taking stunning pictures, & I don't think that you can go wrong with any of them.

Huck

 

[RayPA]

...The bright side of your quest is that there is no "wrong"
choice--they're all first-rate little optical gems.

Fred

without a doubt, if you were blindfolded and pulled one out of a bag containing all of them you would be very satisfied with your pick.

One caveat on the Nokton 40/1.4. The vented hood that comes with the lens may block the focusing window on the CL. It does on my CLE. Fortunately the Heavystar (e*ay seller) non-vented hood neither blocks the window, nor causes vignetting.

🙂



.

 

[Biggles]

...i mean to have the CL as a carry-all-around stealth outfit
...i heard that the VF of CL is just meant for a 40...

Either the Leitz or Minolta 40mm f/2 will help you keep the size and weight down. They're quite tiny, back-to-front. Stubby little things. From the pictures I've seen of the Cosina Voigtlander 40, I'd say it looks a bit taller.

As for the viewfinder, I think you heard the truth The 40mm framelines haven't disappointed me yet, as far as framing is concerned. Pretty accurate, for the purposes a CL will be put to. There's quite a bit of room around them, too. Eyeglass-friendly when used with the 40, the CL.

Using a 50 on the thing is a bit like using a mild telephoto- the 50mm framelines are small. And I took two pictures with my 90mm before I decided to sell it. Tiny, tiny rectangle, that one. That lens wasn't going to come out of my pocket, ever, not while I owned a CL.

 

[Palaeoboy]

All of the 40's available are pretty good lenses and you cant go wrong with each. Which you choose wil depend on your own personal requirements.

If you want the fastest then there is only the 2 Noktons to choose from. If you want high contrast go with the MC version if you want a bit lower go with the SC version. They are stout lenses and look mean on a CL. And yes the CL can just focus at f1.4.

If you like the classic Leica pre ASPH look or you want the most compact and light then the Summicron Rokkors are the ones to go for. There are 3 to choose from, the Summicron, the CL Rokkor and the CLE Rokkor. The Summicron and CL Rokkors are identical so choice between them should be based on price and if you like to use filters as the Rokkor uses 40.5mm which are easier to find. The Summicron uses series 5.5 filters but you can jam 39mm filters on in a pinch. The CLE Rokkor has a conventional M cam and although its reputed to be multicoated while the others arent I fnd it does not flare any more. So if you get one at a good price then its a great lens too.

The Rollei 40 is a good lens too but I feel that for its speed at only f2.8 and price it doesnt represent as good value for money as any of the others. It is a classic Zeiss design however and if you seek a Zeiss look that some love then the money maybe worth the extra money for you. If you also need to use the lens on a screw mount Leica then this is your only choice as all of the others are fixed M mounts.

Its good pickings on the 40mm front. Goodluck

 

[awilder]

I like the Rollei because it's less flare prone than the Summicron/ Rokkor CLE and has better bokeh than the CV Nokton. I agree for the money it's not value priced but has a Tessar look, i.e. tack sharp over most of the field with a little softness at the extreme corners.

 

[RML]

I got a CL one day and just had to get the M-Rokkor 40/2 with it. It turned out to be a fabulous lens and I use it as my standard lens on my R-D1 now. Many (I mean many!) of my most recent photos are taken with the 40/2. You can see those photos _in my photo portfolio_.

IMO the 40mm focal length is more "natural" than either the 35mm or 50mm focal length. Some people may be able to explain the reasons for it in a technical or mathematical way, but my personal hands-on experience tells me so in much more understandable ways. 🙂

 

[kvanderlaag]

Once upon a time, I thought I wanted a 90mm for the CL, since it has framelines, and it'd work on an M2, as well.

I don't really shoot tele, so it's not much of a consideration anymore.

I find myself using my 40/2 'Cron on the M2, even, and just guesstimating between the 35 and 50 lines. It is a nice, nice, compact lens. Razor-sharp like 'Crons tend to be. Definite bang for your buck.

 

[furcafe]

I have most of the 40mm lenses in Leica mount(s), including 1 that hasn't been discussed, the late-1940s/early 1950s 4cm/2.8 Zuiko (LTM) made by Olympus. IMHO, all of these are fine lenses that are representative of their time periods. The Zuiko is typical of a late '40s/early '50 lens (i.e., low contrast, more flare-prone), the 40/2 M-Rokkor is a typical 1980s lens (more contrast & less flare-prone than a "classic" '50s lens, but not quite as sharp as the latest glass), & the Rollei & CV lenses have a more modern look on account of the modern coatings. You should make your decision based on what kind of look you're after & what maximum aperture you need, i.e., the best f/2.8 lens in the world won't matter if you need f/2 or f/1.4.

 

[existrandom]

thanks all for your input,

there is plently of info to spend time on digesting...
i suddenly think of one concern, which of the above mentioned lenses bring ONLY the 40mm frameline? i read from another thread that some M-lens/Rokkor lens bring the 40 and 50 framelines at the same time... that is would bother me abit

would love to hear your experience

thanks!

lee

 

[Doug]

For the CL both 40mm and 50mm lenses are "normal" and both always trigger an M-system body's "normal" frameset... These 40mm bring up the same framelines on all M-type cameras as the 50mm lenses do. If you take the lens off your CL, I think the 50mm frame disappears, doesn't it, leaving just the permanent 40mm frame? I will guess that if you put a 35mm lens on the CL, you'd see the same, just the 40. If so, it makes sense that if you file a little in the right place on the 40mm lens's mount as some do to bring up 35mm frameline in M bodies, then the 50 frame would not appear.

 

[existrandom]

filing the lens mount!!!
my heart is faint!

so what about the Voigtlander 40/1.7 and the Rollei 40/2.8? bringing up both sets of framelines as well?

filing the lens mount!!!
i know it could be done, but my heart is faint!

 

[Huck Finn]

The Voigt 40/1.4 is an M-mount lens & will also bring up the 50 frame on any M-mount camera.

However, the Rollei Sonnar is an LTM mount although an LTM/M-mount adapter is included when you buy it. So, if you like the 40 mm field of view but prefer the 35 frame to the 50 frame, just buy a 35/135 adapter & you'll get the 35 frame without doing surgery to your lens. That's one of the advantages of this lens. I'm currently using it on the Zeiss Ikon with the 35 frame in this manner.

Huck

 

[existrandom]

oh i miust have been clumsy in formulating the question:

i mean to ask, will the Voigt 40/1.4 bring only the 40mm frameline on a CL?
and likewise, the 40mm offerings from leica/minolta/rollei; they only bring up the 40 framelines on a CL, right?

thanks!

lee