Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
Recently I'm more and more attracted to the 'one camera - one lens' concept when wandering around with no specific project in mind. In the past I have used this approach with a 35mm or a 50mm attached, but have not been totally happy with either - as a sole option. A few months ago I picked up a Konica FT1 complete with the excellent pancake 40mm f1.8 lens, for a song, and although having now obtained several other focal lengths for it, that 40mm has become my all-time most used optic.
With this in mind, it seems that I would be happy for most of the time with this length also on a rangefinder - but there seems to be few options, and that AR Hexanon is a hard act to follow!, so - how keen are you guys, on the '40' ? and what are your opinions on the few available options?.
Cheers, Dave.
With this in mind, it seems that I would be happy for most of the time with this length also on a rangefinder - but there seems to be few options, and that AR Hexanon is a hard act to follow!, so - how keen are you guys, on the '40' ? and what are your opinions on the few available options?.
Cheers, Dave.
The 40mm F2 Summicron is hard to beat. That on a Leica CL replaced my Panda Canonet QL17l.
Becoming
Established
I absolutely love the 40mm focal legnth! I have the single coated Nokton and I'm over the moon with it. It's a perfect match with the Bessa R3 for a single lens/body combo. I like to think of it as the foot shuffling length. One step forward - 50, one step back - 35.
I can't comment on any other 40's so I'll leave that for the others.
I can't comment on any other 40's so I'll leave that for the others.
vrgard
Well-known
I think a 40 is great. Which is why I'm happy using my Cl & 40 when traveling. Have never been out with it and thought, gee I wish had my 50 or my 35 instead.
-Randy
-Randy
GaryLH
Veteran
The Minolta 40 is always on my CLE as the default lens. Just a great overall lens.
ZeissFan
Veteran
I was toying around with a Konica 40mm for its SLRs and the Pentax 40mm pancake for its K-mount cameras, and I was thinking the same thing. Not too wide. Not too long. Just perfect.
The Goldilocks lens.
The Goldilocks lens.
btgc
Veteran
Yashica Electro with 40/2.8 lens is one of my favorites. It's really well balanced FL.
Pity my SLR Revuenon pancake is 45mm not 40.
Pity my SLR Revuenon pancake is 45mm not 40.
ampguy
Veteran
I think 43 is perfect. The CV 40 gets close because it is really 41mm or so. 43mm is the natural human FOV, and is also the diagonal of the 35mm frame format.
The best and only 43mm for RF's that I am aware of is the Pentax ltd 43/1.9. It's one of the best all around RF lenses ever made.
The best and only 43mm for RF's that I am aware of is the Pentax ltd 43/1.9. It's one of the best all around RF lenses ever made.
Warren T.
Well-known
It's not a RF, but I have recently been enjoying my Nikkor 28mm f2.8 on my Nikon D100 dslr. It's equivalent to approx. 42mm FOV in 35mm.
--Warren
--Warren
naql
Established
The Rollei 35 is probably my most used camera. Great lenses and a great focal length for pretty much every use.
MPerson
Established
I love my 40's. I have a Cron version on the CL and and M2 and the Nokton SC on my MP. Since I bought the Nokton two years ago my Cron 35/f2 has been gathering dust! I prefer using them with the 50mm frame lines, gives you a better view of what is coming into frame.
The Nokton also covers low light capabilities too.
The Nokton also covers low light capabilities too.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Universal?Or a b*stard length that's neither one thing or the other and doesn't have a frame on any Leica except the CL?
Both are legitimate viewpoints.
Cheers,
R.
Both are legitimate viewpoints.
Cheers,
R.
Jaans
Well-known
I have a 40mm Rokkor - the later version with the multi coatings. It was originally coupled with my CLE which I sold and it now sits on my M6TTL.
It is an amazingly sharp lens without the brutal contrast that I experienced with my Zeiss Biogon 35mm or the Summicron ASPH. Their is a pleasant rendering of tones and the bokeh is absolutely superb with a subtle transition.
That Rokkor or a 40mm Summicron would have to be the best bang for the buck. The IV summicron 35mm is reported to produce similar bokeh to that Rokkor, but at up to 4 times the price! It seems to produce a look that is a combination of old world and modern.
I had mine filed down by a Leica technician to bring up the 35mm framelines on my M. It is such a great carry around lens as it doesn't protrude a lot from the camera like my Biogon used to do.
I find it faster to focus and I adore the focus tab. Steve Gandy rates this Rokkor as super sharp.
For a more insightful account of why the 40mm should be RIGHT for you, then pleaase visit the esteemed writer Mike Johnston's column - the online photographer. He wrote an excellent article that praises this exact focal length - the 40mm. Sally Mann was a great advocate of the 40mm.
Apparently the human eye sees about a 43mm view, so it would make sense that the 40mm should be considered a 'normal' lens as it is closer to this field of view than a 35mm or a 50mm.
Another thing that I found through experience is that there IS a marked difference between a 35mm and 40mm, depending on location. When I was in the crowded streets of Tokyo, I found that the 35mm included a lot of extraneous information in the sides of my frame that I didn't want. That extra crop of 5mm with the 40mm proved perfect as it allowed me to negate a lot of this extra information.
Anyway, they are jut some of my experiences. But I do really recommend looking up Johnston's article which can be found in his archive.
It is an amazingly sharp lens without the brutal contrast that I experienced with my Zeiss Biogon 35mm or the Summicron ASPH. Their is a pleasant rendering of tones and the bokeh is absolutely superb with a subtle transition.
That Rokkor or a 40mm Summicron would have to be the best bang for the buck. The IV summicron 35mm is reported to produce similar bokeh to that Rokkor, but at up to 4 times the price! It seems to produce a look that is a combination of old world and modern.
I had mine filed down by a Leica technician to bring up the 35mm framelines on my M. It is such a great carry around lens as it doesn't protrude a lot from the camera like my Biogon used to do.
I find it faster to focus and I adore the focus tab. Steve Gandy rates this Rokkor as super sharp.
For a more insightful account of why the 40mm should be RIGHT for you, then pleaase visit the esteemed writer Mike Johnston's column - the online photographer. He wrote an excellent article that praises this exact focal length - the 40mm. Sally Mann was a great advocate of the 40mm.
Apparently the human eye sees about a 43mm view, so it would make sense that the 40mm should be considered a 'normal' lens as it is closer to this field of view than a 35mm or a 50mm.
Another thing that I found through experience is that there IS a marked difference between a 35mm and 40mm, depending on location. When I was in the crowded streets of Tokyo, I found that the 35mm included a lot of extraneous information in the sides of my frame that I didn't want. That extra crop of 5mm with the 40mm proved perfect as it allowed me to negate a lot of this extra information.
Anyway, they are jut some of my experiences. But I do really recommend looking up Johnston's article which can be found in his archive.
Jaans
Well-known
I have a 40mm Rokkor - the later version with the multi coatings. It was originally coupled with my CLE which I sold and it now sits on my M6TTL.
It is an amazingly sharp lens without the brutal contrast that I experienced with my Zeiss Biogon 35mm or the Summicron ASPH. Their is a pleasant rendering of tones and the bokeh is absolutely superb with a subtle transition.
That Rokkor or a 40mm Summicron would have to be the best bang for the buck. The IV summicron 35mm is reported to produce similar bokeh to that Rokkor, but at up to 4 times the price! It seems to produce a look that is a combination of old world and modern.
I had mine filed down by a Leica technician to bring up the 35mm framelines on my M. It is such a great carry around lens as it doesn't protrude a lot from the camera like my Biogon used to do.
I find it faster to focus and I adore the focus tab. Steve Gandy rates this Rokkor as super sharp.
For a more insightful account of why the 40mm should be RIGHT for you, then pleaase visit the esteemed writer Mike Johnston's column - the online photographer. He wrote an excellent article that praises this exact focal length - the 40mm. Sally Mann was a great advocate of the 40mm.
Apparently the human eye sees about a 43mm view, so it would make sense that the 40mm should be considered a 'normal' lens as it is closer to this field of view than a 35mm or a 50mm.
Another thing that I found through experience is that there IS a marked difference between a 35mm and 40mm, depending on location. When I was in the crowded streets of Tokyo, I found that the 35mm included a lot of extraneous information in the sides of my frame that I didn't want. That extra crop of 5mm with the 40mm proved perfect as it allowed me to negate a lot of this extra information.
Anyway, they are jut some of my experiences. But I do really recommend looking up Johnston's article which can be found in his archive. Their was also a very detailed discussion on this very topic in the archives right here at rangefinder forum.
It is an amazingly sharp lens without the brutal contrast that I experienced with my Zeiss Biogon 35mm or the Summicron ASPH. Their is a pleasant rendering of tones and the bokeh is absolutely superb with a subtle transition.
That Rokkor or a 40mm Summicron would have to be the best bang for the buck. The IV summicron 35mm is reported to produce similar bokeh to that Rokkor, but at up to 4 times the price! It seems to produce a look that is a combination of old world and modern.
I had mine filed down by a Leica technician to bring up the 35mm framelines on my M. It is such a great carry around lens as it doesn't protrude a lot from the camera like my Biogon used to do.
I find it faster to focus and I adore the focus tab. Steve Gandy rates this Rokkor as super sharp.
For a more insightful account of why the 40mm should be RIGHT for you, then pleaase visit the esteemed writer Mike Johnston's column - the online photographer. He wrote an excellent article that praises this exact focal length - the 40mm. Sally Mann was a great advocate of the 40mm.
Apparently the human eye sees about a 43mm view, so it would make sense that the 40mm should be considered a 'normal' lens as it is closer to this field of view than a 35mm or a 50mm.
Another thing that I found through experience is that there IS a marked difference between a 35mm and 40mm, depending on location. When I was in the crowded streets of Tokyo, I found that the 35mm included a lot of extraneous information in the sides of my frame that I didn't want. That extra crop of 5mm with the 40mm proved perfect as it allowed me to negate a lot of this extra information.
Anyway, they are jut some of my experiences. But I do really recommend looking up Johnston's article which can be found in his archive. Their was also a very detailed discussion on this very topic in the archives right here at rangefinder forum.
snausages
Well-known
The 40 cron-c would be on my M6 always if not for the imperfect relationship with the framelines. Even so, it's on there a lot.
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
Now, now Roger!
Just because it's not Leica doesn't invalidate it.
I have the Nokton 40 on my R3A and the Color Skopar 35 on my R4A and a CV 25 in the bag, just in case.
ampguy
Veteran
Here's something I've done, and recommend to others: take a digital p&s around with you for a while (weeks, months, whatever) that has a medium range zoom, say 35-80 or even wider or longer.
After that period is up, select your favorite photos without looking at exif info. Then, calculate average, and median eff. focal length of the best photos.
It will be ~43mm. If it's not, keep shooting a bit more.
The reason for this is simple - you likely wouldn't have put the camera up to your eye, if you didn't see something (with your eff. 43mm eyesight) worthy of taking a photograph.
Give it a try. Have not ever heard anyone not coming up with ~43, given enough samples.
After that period is up, select your favorite photos without looking at exif info. Then, calculate average, and median eff. focal length of the best photos.
It will be ~43mm. If it's not, keep shooting a bit more.
The reason for this is simple - you likely wouldn't have put the camera up to your eye, if you didn't see something (with your eff. 43mm eyesight) worthy of taking a photograph.
Give it a try. Have not ever heard anyone not coming up with ~43, given enough samples.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Now, now Roger!
Just because it's not Leica doesn't invalidate it.
I have the Nokton 40 on my R3A and the Color Skopar 35 on my R4A and a CV 25 in the bag, just in case.
Leica did one too!
Just because it is Leica doesn't validate it.
Zeiss did one too, though they seemed unable to decide whether to offer 40mm or 42.5mm.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
No, the human eye DOESN'T see like a 43mm lens. We see about 220 degreees horizontally and maybe 120 degrees vertically. The '43mm lens' trick is based on certain assumptions about enlargement and viewing distance. It's quite a bit more complicated than that. See the perspective module on my site: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps perspective 1.html, especially 'Magic Distance' and 'Focal Length'. See also the module on 'Magic Windows' http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps magic window 1.html
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
pagpow
Well-known
Good points, Roger. In fact that's why I went looking at 35's and an M2. But don't the later Leica 35 frames frame tight? -- so that many folks find shooting a 40 with them just fine.
Now I've got an M6 coming out of repair and I'm wondering whether i should try to get used to a 35, or just stick to the 40.
Besides b*stards need love, too.