Yes, when on the M8 it's 26.3mm you're after! There is a little movement in the right direction with the 25mm lenses, then the hop to the longer side with a 28mm. Happily for me, 28mm is ideal.
PentHassyKon
Established
Doug-
Wow! that's quite a posse of 40's you've got there.
Could you by chance share a family portrait of these 40's. I'm most interested in seeing the size differences between the Rokkor and the 43mm Pentax Limited and Pentax-L.
You see, I have a Pentax LX and k200d and just recently acquired a Leica CL and would like to outfit the CL with either the 40 'cron-c, Nokton, or the Pentax-L. My interest in the Pentax-L is since I also have Pentax film bodies and might also get the FA43 Limited.
Also most appreciative if you could share your experience with using the 'cron C (or Rokkor) vs the Pentax 43mm in terms of FOV, handling, and rendering.
Forgot to add....
I also find myself gravitating towards the 24mm on my K200d (APS-C). I have a 40mm Pentax and somehow on the k200d it doesn't suit me. At least not yet ;-)
Hi PentHassyKon.... I'll see if I can gather them together for a snap tomorrow.
Since the 43 is made for SLR, and the L lens is the same glass in RF mount, the difference in flange-to-film distance means a long barrel for the L, and it feels it. The CLE Rokkor and Nokton SC are much more compact. There are many opinions as to the attributes of these two lenses.... Frankly, they both look fine to me but I don't use them wide open. The Nokton has a bit of barrel distortion, but it's faster. Barrel distortion noticeable in the 43mm lenses too.
Similar to you, I have a Pentax LX and K100D and Minolta CLE... And 24 is sweet on the K100D, the only lens I took for two weeks in Hawaii last year... Photos in my Gallery over at RFF's sister site DSLReXchange (see under "Cool Links" lower left of this window).
Since the 43 is made for SLR, and the L lens is the same glass in RF mount, the difference in flange-to-film distance means a long barrel for the L, and it feels it. The CLE Rokkor and Nokton SC are much more compact. There are many opinions as to the attributes of these two lenses....
Frankly, they both look fine to me but I don't use them wide open. The Nokton has a bit of barrel distortion, but it's faster. Barrel distortion noticeable in the 43mm lenses too.Similar to you, I have a Pentax LX and K100D and Minolta CLE... And 24 is sweet on the K100D, the only lens I took for two weeks in Hawaii last year... Photos in my Gallery over at RFF's sister site DSLReXchange (see under "Cool Links" lower left of this window).
Ljós
Well-known
The 40mm as main lens
The 40mm as main lens
I switched to rangefinder (M2) last year, after using various Nikon and Pentax cameras for a long time, Pentax with 50mm lenses, and for the last two years before switching Nikon with a 35mm f2 Nikkor AI.
I got the 40mm f2 CLE-Rokkor as first lens, and am very, very happy with it so far.
In my book, 40mm is - among other uses - a very good focal length for photographing people you already know/are familiar with and getting a bit of the surroundings in as well. With a 50mm, I'd be too close in, and would have to move back. Sometimes not physically possible, and generally not something I'd like to do, as it would signal: folks, I am backing up now, taking a picture... etc. With a 40 I photograph from the comfort zone already established. Certainly, a 35mm will do that as well. But, the 40 helps to stay that smidgen farther away that will help minimizing exaggerated facial features etc., or, shot from the same distance, feels less "loose" pictorially to me than the 35mm.
At first I used the M2 finder for composing (the lens came filed down to show 35mm framelines), which worked... but I wear glasses, and the external 40mm VC finder I got now makes a big difference. I have a 50mm 1:1 finder coming my way, I will try and see whether that works out even better for me.
The 40mm as main lens
I switched to rangefinder (M2) last year, after using various Nikon and Pentax cameras for a long time, Pentax with 50mm lenses, and for the last two years before switching Nikon with a 35mm f2 Nikkor AI.
I got the 40mm f2 CLE-Rokkor as first lens, and am very, very happy with it so far.
In my book, 40mm is - among other uses - a very good focal length for photographing people you already know/are familiar with and getting a bit of the surroundings in as well. With a 50mm, I'd be too close in, and would have to move back. Sometimes not physically possible, and generally not something I'd like to do, as it would signal: folks, I am backing up now, taking a picture... etc. With a 40 I photograph from the comfort zone already established. Certainly, a 35mm will do that as well. But, the 40 helps to stay that smidgen farther away that will help minimizing exaggerated facial features etc., or, shot from the same distance, feels less "loose" pictorially to me than the 35mm.
At first I used the M2 finder for composing (the lens came filed down to show 35mm framelines), which worked... but I wear glasses, and the external 40mm VC finder I got now makes a big difference. I have a 50mm 1:1 finder coming my way, I will try and see whether that works out even better for me.
Here are a few shots taken with a Pentax dSLR and 58mm Nokton SLII, in poor light and too narrow DoF, unfortunately. Still, should give a good idea of relative sizes.
These two are the 40mm f/2 Ultron SL, and the smaller 43mm f/1.9 Pentax Ltd. with an MX as a prop, and with and without hoods.
These two are the 40mm f/2 Ultron SL, and the smaller 43mm f/1.9 Pentax Ltd. with an MX as a prop, and with and without hoods.
Attachments
And here is the RF 40mm group... The 40mm f/1.4 Nokton, 40mm f/2 Rokkor, and 43mm f/1.9 Pentax-L w/bayonet adapter, with a CLE in background. Now the Pentax lens is the big lens... If you look in the mount end the glass is way inside, as that distance from the film is needed on an SLR.
The Minolta is the smallest of the three, and the Nokton is surprisingly small for its speed. Note that the Pentax has a built-in collapsing lens hood. In the first shot, all three lenses have their hoods out, and both Nokton and Pentax have filters mounted too. This extends the hood on the Nokton but not on the Pentax. But the Nokton could accept a bayonet hood rather than this screw-in model....
Further, regarding actual angle of view, the Nokton is listed at 56°, and I think the Rokkor is tad wider, while the Pentax is 53° and the Ultron is 57°.
The Minolta is the smallest of the three, and the Nokton is surprisingly small for its speed. Note that the Pentax has a built-in collapsing lens hood. In the first shot, all three lenses have their hoods out, and both Nokton and Pentax have filters mounted too. This extends the hood on the Nokton but not on the Pentax. But the Nokton could accept a bayonet hood rather than this screw-in model....
Further, regarding actual angle of view, the Nokton is listed at 56°, and I think the Rokkor is tad wider, while the Pentax is 53° and the Ultron is 57°.
Attachments
Last edited:
pvdhaar
Peter
I really liked the perspective and field of view offered by the 40mm that was on my Leica Minilux. 40mm is wide enough and not too wide at the same time..
The 40mm is still so long that it still allows for selective DOF without having to get in too close. And only very rarely did I run into a situation where I couldn't find a way to fit a more expansive scene in the frame in one way or another.. I just had to move about a bit.
The 40mm is still so long that it still allows for selective DOF without having to get in too close. And only very rarely did I run into a situation where I couldn't find a way to fit a more expansive scene in the frame in one way or another.. I just had to move about a bit.
tj01
Well-known
btgc
Veteran
Do anyone values difference between 40mm and 38mm? Like 48mm vs 50mm?
Yes, 38mm for me would be "just right", at about 60° angle of view, though 40mm is fine too. I think there have been fixed-lens RF cameras with 38mm, haven't there? I just have no experience with one.
On the other hand, in non-135-film formats, 60-61° is achievable with 24mm on APS-C size digital, 28mm on Leica M8, 60mm on 645, and 75mm on 6x7. And I like them all!
Come to think of it, I do have both 38mm f/1.8 and 40mm f/1.4 lenses for Olympus Pen, but that's a different angle entirely...
zuikologist
.........................
I use a pentax 40/2.8 DA lens on an MZ5n AF film body. Although apparently a "digital" cropped lens, it works really well on film.
I've heard that before, and assumed it was because it's simply a repackaged 40mm f/2.8 Pentax-M introduced in the 70's with the M-series film bodies. Naturally it would cover 24x36....
But my assumption was wrong; it's not the same lens, though the optical design is very similar, still 5 elements in 4 groups with similar shapes, but according to Bojidar's site the new lens has at least one aspheric element, and the first element is somewhat thicker. If it's an even better performer than the old lens, it should be a winner!
FWIW, I have and like my ZX5n, the US market designation for your MZ5n. Very nice rig...
Last edited:
PentHassyKon
Established
Doug-
thank you for these shots
It appears that the Pentax-L had to be made bigger in order to accommodate translating it from the Pentax-K mount to LTM, somewhat counter-intuitive to me as the film-flange distance I thought is smaller on the LTM/Leica M's. This could be a matter of scale since the 40 cron and 40 Nokton are quite small and putting the Pentax-L next to them makes it appear larger.
With regards to the Pentax FA43 vs Ultron 40/2 - I'm quite surprised to see that the Pentax appears to be smaller relative to the Ultron 40/2 considering at 1.9 vs 2.0 they are practically the same in terms of lens speed.
I'm leaning more and more towards just getting either the Rokkor/cron-C or the 40 Nokton - I'm looking more towards something compact. For my eyes, I don't think i can tell how well each performs/renders compared to each other - kinda like my palate/senses still can't tell the difference between a $20 bottle of Cabernet vs a $200 bottle
thank you for these shots
It appears that the Pentax-L had to be made bigger in order to accommodate translating it from the Pentax-K mount to LTM, somewhat counter-intuitive to me as the film-flange distance I thought is smaller on the LTM/Leica M's. This could be a matter of scale since the 40 cron and 40 Nokton are quite small and putting the Pentax-L next to them makes it appear larger.
With regards to the Pentax FA43 vs Ultron 40/2 - I'm quite surprised to see that the Pentax appears to be smaller relative to the Ultron 40/2 considering at 1.9 vs 2.0 they are practically the same in terms of lens speed.
I'm leaning more and more towards just getting either the Rokkor/cron-C or the 40 Nokton - I'm looking more towards something compact. For my eyes, I don't think i can tell how well each performs/renders compared to each other - kinda like my palate/senses still can't tell the difference between a $20 bottle of Cabernet vs a $200 bottle
Last edited:
Hi -- The Ultron also feels larger in diameter than the Pentax FA but I think they're close to the same at the aperture ring, and then the Pentax tapers toward the front and the Ultron stays more cylindrical. Certainly a bigger lens though!
On the lengths of the 43mm lenses... The RF version is definitely longer physically than the SLR version. The glass has to be positioned the same distance from the film to come to proper focus. Since the RF body is thinner than the SLR body, this difference in body thickness means the RF lens has to have a longer barrel to put the glass in the same relative location. The other two lenses were made for RF use, so the design is shorter. These could not achieve infinity focus if somehow mounted on an SLR, where the compact Pentax FA Ltd is in its home environment.
Regarding the Summicron-C, remember this was made for the CL and the focusing cam and RF link have a slightly non-standard design. There's a new RFF member posting recently (Makten?) who has been having focusing trouble with one on an M8. The later 40 Rokkor from the CLE (with 40.5mm filter thread) is standard-M in its cam design, and some say the coatings were better.
The Nokton, while larger than the Rokkor, is also faster and newer. The Pentax-L was made (in small quantities) apparently on request by home-market enthusiasts with a sensitive palate! Ironically, it's said Pentax outsourced the barrel production to Cosina, so it has that in common with the Nokton. All these lenses are quite impressive, each in its own way.
On the lengths of the 43mm lenses... The RF version is definitely longer physically than the SLR version. The glass has to be positioned the same distance from the film to come to proper focus. Since the RF body is thinner than the SLR body, this difference in body thickness means the RF lens has to have a longer barrel to put the glass in the same relative location. The other two lenses were made for RF use, so the design is shorter. These could not achieve infinity focus if somehow mounted on an SLR, where the compact Pentax FA Ltd is in its home environment.
Regarding the Summicron-C, remember this was made for the CL and the focusing cam and RF link have a slightly non-standard design. There's a new RFF member posting recently (Makten?) who has been having focusing trouble with one on an M8. The later 40 Rokkor from the CLE (with 40.5mm filter thread) is standard-M in its cam design, and some say the coatings were better.
The Nokton, while larger than the Rokkor, is also faster and newer. The Pentax-L was made (in small quantities) apparently on request by home-market enthusiasts with a sensitive palate!
Ironically, it's said Pentax outsourced the barrel production to Cosina, so it has that in common with the Nokton. All these lenses are quite impressive, each in its own way.PentHassyKon
Established
Quite ok, at least for now. Even though I have 2 Leica's they're both CL's. I'm eyeing the big brother M's but I think I'll use and learn before I grow up
. And when I do grow up, it might even be the CLE.I have a feeling that Nokton, 'cron-c, or Rokkor/CLE will depend on which one comes up for me at a good price. I've put out a WTB but all the replies I've got appear to be way above what I think are market prices - could be that they're collector grade lenses instead of user grade.
dee
Well-known
When i bought a 45 mm Pancake Rokkor , it was seldom parted from my XD7 , though I use a 35mm on my M8 which is similar .
John Rountree
Nothing is what I want
I use a 40 mm Rokkor CLE on my M7, almost all the time. It has already been described and acknowledged as one of the really great lenses, and a stellar bargain for the price. Mine was filed to bring up the 35 mm frame lines, before I got it. As for the accuracy of framing, I find the 35 mm frame lines to be almost perfect for the 40. If I were shooting with a 35 mm I know I would be frustrated by all the "surprises" in the photographs. Just do a search, there are plenty of threads from people frustrated with using a 35 mm lens on their Leica and having much more in the frame than was apparent in the viewfinder.
nightfly
Well-known
A matter of taste. I got a 40mm Summicron when I bought my M4-P because it was the cheapest Leica lens available. I really liked the look of the photos but something about the focal length always bothered me. Like a splinter in my mind as they say in the Matrix.
Shortly after I sold it and got a 35mm Summicron (for much more money to produce the same essential look). Much happier with the 35mm. Although I predominately shoot with a 28 now.
The 40 is a compromise lens for me, not quite wide enough and not quite narrow enough. The 35 forced me to get closer and the 28 closer still and I think my photos benefited tremendously from this.
The thing about normal human sight is just pure BS to me. I shoot black and white film and I don't see in black and white. I don't photograph to duplicate reality (if that were possible) to quote Gary Winogrand "I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed."
If you like what you're getting from a 40 use it.
Shortly after I sold it and got a 35mm Summicron (for much more money to produce the same essential look). Much happier with the 35mm. Although I predominately shoot with a 28 now.
The 40 is a compromise lens for me, not quite wide enough and not quite narrow enough. The 35 forced me to get closer and the 28 closer still and I think my photos benefited tremendously from this.
The thing about normal human sight is just pure BS to me. I shoot black and white film and I don't see in black and white. I don't photograph to duplicate reality (if that were possible) to quote Gary Winogrand "I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed."
If you like what you're getting from a 40 use it.
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
AR Hexanon 40mm f1.8 - from my morning walk today (kodak gold 200)
Dave.
Dave.
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
and same lens, same walk!
Dave
Dave