40mm prime lens, anybody?

The 40mm comes close to the true "normal' or "standard" lens on the 35mm and digital FX full-frame formats.. The normal lens is defined as one that has a focal length equal to the film diagonal. In the case of 135 format and FX, that measurement is 43mm. So the closest match is either a 40mm or else one of the 45mm Nikkors (the GN or the "P"). It does make for a good all-around lens that can do most of what the 50mm and 35mm focal lengths can do. I prefer the 40mm to a 45mm, personally. On a recent trip I took only a 40mm Rokkor for my M6. It was all I needed.
 
I became fond of the 40mm Rokkor while becoming very fond of the Minolta CLE it came on, a favorite combo for some years. It was just so "natural" while the camera was so easy to carry and use. The only other M mount lens I had then (besides a 35) was a 90mm Tele-Elmarit which just didn't seem happy on that camera.

Since then I've used the 40mm Nokton and 43mm Pentax-L about as happily on the CLE. as well as the pleasure of the great 28mm Summicron. On the SLR front I also have a 43mm Pentax on a Pentax and the 40mm Voigtlander Ultron too, but on a crop-sensor dSLR it's ok yet just not the same 40mm! An actual 28mm does the 42 fov trick there...

The 45mm Zeiss Planar for Contax-G is a fine lens too, but the specs show it to be actually 47mm in focal length, so it shouldn't count as 40-ish in this discussion, should it?
 
40mm is what's up- I love my 40mm 2.8 / 5D combo; I doubt I'll buy another EOS lens for a long time. The 90mm on the GW690 is what got me hooked on that FOV and I use a 28mm on my X-E1 too. Never got the hang of "seeing" with the 50mm (or equiv) FL and 45 is awful close to 50, but 40 is perfect for me.
 
jarski said:
true that f2 would be nice. it probably wouldn't feel that much bigger, when mounted to full frame body (5D/6D).

any comments what are alternatives with Nikkor's? quick google only found DX lens reviewed by kenrockwell and some others :eek:
Click to expand...

The only similar lenses for Nikon that I'm aware of are the 45mm 2.8GN and 45mm 2.8P (overpriced modern copy of the GN 45), and of course the excellent Voigtlander 40mm f/2. No 40/45mm autofocus Nikkors :( Maybe the good reception of the Canon 40mm will push Nikon to make one? If Nikon made an AF-s 40mm f/2.0 pancake- or even a 40mm f/2.8- I'd be seriously tempted to switch my 5D for a D600 to get the extra dynamic range Nikon/Sony sensors offer. But for now, the Canon 40mm is just so good that I'll stick with them :)
 
40mm is like 50mm with peripheral vision... thats the best way I can describe it. I'm mostly a 50mm shooter, but I have a voigtlander 40/2 and a 40/1.4 that are making me rethink that...
 
Another thing about 40mm: A few years ago an eye doctor on one of the photo forums--I think it was Photo.Net--said that the focal length of the human eye was, I think he either said 42mm or 43mm. If so, that would mean that a lens in the 40 to 45mm range would have a "natural" perspective. I have, in fact, alway felt that way about the 35mm focal length; but if it's true that the eye has a 42/43mm focal length (whose eye?), then I suppose the 40mm is an even better candidate for being a "natural vision" lens.

Update: After typing all that, I decided to google it. I thought I should, when I realized that it didn't seem like the eyeball could be big enough for a 43mm lens to focus on the retina. I found a website that summarized research on the focal length of the eye. most researchers reported 17mm, while the outliers reported about 22mm. So 42-43mm isn't in the ballpark. Never mind.

Well. I still think a 35 to 40mm lens covers the field I take in comfortably--the part I'm most aware of, not counting the peripheral part of my visual field.
 
I honestly cannot tell the difference between a 40mm and a 35mm lens when actually photographing. No doubt a mathematical analysis will show differences but I only use cameras and lenses to make photos.

Actually a 40mm lens is a more precise fit to the 35mm frame lines on my Zeiss Ikon than a 35mm lens.
 
Rob-F said:
Well. I still think a 35 to 40mm lens covers the field I take in comfortably--the part I'm most aware of, not counting the peripheral part of my visual field.
Click to expand...

That fits with my experience certainly.

Using a simple test waving my arms about and looking at objects in my apartment, I can tell that my absolute FOV is around 90* (probably hampered by my use of eyeglasses!), but I can only really see motion and bright points of light on the edges of that.

It's within the central ~45* that I can really pay attention to objects with clarity- which happens to be the horizontal FOV of a 43mm lens!

Guh, all this talk of vision is making me miss the 1:1 finder on the R-D1 ;)
 
Another RFF member once said that he thought the 40mm f.l. was akin to vision with one eye and 28mm for both eyes. Seems about right.
 
Hi,

The dirt cheap way to try a 40mm lens is to buy a Cosmic Symbol, a little dearer is the Olympus Trip 35 and then at 42mm the Olympus-35 SP.

The natural perspective etc of a lens can be traced back to an article published in the 30's and, if my old computer hadn't crashed badly I could quote where and when. OTOH a lot of people think the natural looking portraits come from 85 to 90mm lenses...

Regards, David
 
David Hughes said:
Hi,

The dirt cheap way to try a 40mm lens is to buy a Cosmic Symbol, a little dearer is the Olympus Trip 35 and then at 42mm the Olympus-35 SP.
Click to expand...

Yashica Electro 35MC should be more enjoyable affair with decent results, I mean than Symbol.
 
I like the 40mm focal length very, very much -- I have a Voigtländer Ultron 2/40 (Version 1, the larger one without a CPU) almost permanently mounted on my FM2 (wonderful combo) and a Leitz Summicron-C 2/40 as my standard lens on my M6. Both lenses are excellent in my opinion. And did I mention I like the 40mm focal length very much?
 
btgc said:
Yashica Electro 35MC should be more enjoyable affair with decent results, I mean than Symbol.
Click to expand...

Hi,

It was put forward as a way of trying 40mm without wasting too much cash. The Pentax, Leica and so on 40mm are expensive and old, meaning more problems, perhaps. Or if new, even dearer. OTOH the Pentax M series are dirt cheap as bodies.

Anyway, my son had a Symbol, and I liked the idea behind it and the lens seemed OK; judging by the slides.

Today's budget for one would be camera a pound, film (Agfa Vista 200 ASA & 24 Exp) a pound and develop and scan three pounds. A cheap experiment imo. If you like it then invest in an instruction manual and lens cap from ebay; a) easy to find and b) will cost a lot more than you'd expect.

The Trips cost about five pounds these days but lens cap a fiver x3. There's better but they cost a lot more.

At nearly 40mm there's 38mm like the Olympus 35 ED, Konica C35, Yashica 35-ME and the AF version of the C35. The other Konica and the 35 ED are RF's and cost a bit more if you want to sort them out. Also there's the mercury battery problems but the C35 (AF) means two AA's from memory.

I like to encourage people to experiment and save old cameras and film production...

Regards, David
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom