40mm to Replace 35 & 50?

dazedgonebye

dazedgonebye

Veteran
Local time
6:53 AM
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
3,932
Hi all,

I've got an Ultron 35mm f1.7 and a Nokton 50mm f1.4. I go wider with the 21mm and longer with the 75mm (all CV).

How many of you out there are satisfied with the 40mm f1.4 standing in for both of these lenses?

So, 21/40/75 instead of 21/35/50/75?

I think I need to borrow a 40mm and see.
 
40 is closer to 50 than it is to 35 in my eye, which is highly subjective, and optical calculations may well prove me wrong. What I mean is that in practical usage, 40 seems to lean closer to 50 than to 35. I use it more as a lens to reach forward slightly rather than to pull back.

My friend shoots with the 40 and 74 on his R3A and seems to be happy with it so far.

Clarence
 
i think the cv 40 tested out at cloer to 43mm.
for those who feel the 50 is like a short tele (and don't like that) then the 40 is a great length.
the 35 is still more wide and a better lens for general all purpose shooting...my opinion...
 
My film kit for the big Asia trip last summer was CV 21/4, Minolta (Summicron) 40/2 and Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8, all used on a Minolta CL (the 90 much less than the others). I'd wondered if I'd regret taking a 40 instead of, say, a 50, since I had the 21 along too, but I found the 40 was a fine "normal" lens. I was shooting more architecture and gardens than people. For people shots a longer "normal" might be better. (I've been tempted by the CV 75.)

-- Michael
 
Last edited:
to me, the 21/40/75 set is ideal, but it is a matter of your personal style and preference. some like it, some don't.

what about your use of the 35mm FL - do you have a "natural" feel about it, or do you want to close up just a bit more often than sometimes?

what about your use of the 50mm FL - is it too narrow in most cases when you do not want to use the 75mm?

if your answer is "yes" in both cases, the 40mm will be a valid replacement for both.
in case you doubt, possibly 40mm will be just a nice alternative - then better keep them all until you worked with them for a longer period, and you feel safe to give up on one (or two) of them.

depending on your wallet, the 40mm lens might be just a minor expense - then, it may be worth whil simply trying it.
i think with its comactness, it can be very helpful as all around lens. still, i prefer to leave the house with a wider one in my pocket ...

(in my case, it is a 50/25/15mm set on the epson, so i carry even less)

hope this helps.
cheers,
sebastel
 
I once had a Minilux (40mm) and a HexarAF (35mm) at the same time. There was never a moment when I had problems with the 40 not being as wide as the 35.

Basically, when you get prints, the labs crop a bit of the edges. In the rare occasion that you need that little bit, ordering a full frame print closes the gap between the 40and the straight lab print from the 35.

If you really need the field of view of the 50, you can crop the 40 shot a bit. The increased magnification makes the dof indistinguishable.

So, long story short, if your camera has the framelines for it, the 40 is great.
 
I use the 40mm with cameras having a 40mm viewfinder frameline, and 35 & 50 on cameras with those framelines. While the 40 is a major favorite for me, sometimes I prefer the 35 or 50... It's all good, and all fun. :)

28 is a very nice pairing with the 40, as 25mm is with 35mm...
 
I only ever use 40mm and never miss a 35mm or a 50mm, although I feel the need for somthing much wider when photographing large things in small places.
 
leave the 50 at home.

leave the 50 at home.

dazedgonebye said:
Hi all,

I've got an Ultron 35mm f1.7 and a Nokton 50mm f1.4. I go wider with the 21mm and longer with the 75mm (all CV).

How many of you out there are satisfied with the 40mm f1.4 standing in for both of these lenses?

So, 21/40/75 instead of 21/35/50/75?

I think I need to borrow a 40mm and see.
Click to expand...
First of all, the 40, being an M-mount lens, will not fit your Bessa R (your signature file say you have this).

I would suggest if 21/35/50/75 is to much to carry, go for 21/35/75. I know a lot of people which are very happy with the classical 21/35/90 and don't even own a 50. I for one don't even own the 21;) and am very happy with 35/90. After all the part of the beauty of a ranger is in the compact size of the outfit.

Having written this, I own a 43/1.9 in Pentax KAF-mount and really love the focal length.

In the end these choices are all individual.
 
Last edited:
This is quite an interesting thread. I notice Steve that you have the Nokton 1.5, if I recall this is quite a large (but very good) lens so I guess I can see why the 40 beckons as its very small in comparison. The 35 Ultron is also large for a 35 but not huge compares to the current 35 ASPH cron with its hood on. Its also a very good lens and one that I'm very please with.

With my Bessa R I tend to use just two lenses, these being the 35 Ultron and the wonderful (in my view a fantastic lens for the money) CV 75. If I need to tighten the angle I can crop it to that of a 50, and with the 75 I can drop to the angle of the 90, both at the expense of a tad more grain. If I use three lenses I'll take the 35, FSU 50 and the CV 90.

Try going out without the 50 and see how you get on.
 
I'd go with Tony's suggestion. When I want a light, versatile outfit I go with 35 and 90 (but I can see the sense of using 75 instead) and am quite happy to crop the 35 down to 50 fov if required. The 35 Ultron is only 1/2 a stop slower than the 40 Nokton anyway so not such a big difference really.
 
Hi,

I like 40 the most as an allround lens. For me the 50 is a short tele.
If i have to chose only one lens it certainly would be a 40.
For me the 21/40/75 would work very well.

Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema
 
My personal preferences are for the 35 and 50 as I see a big difference between those two lenses. I have a Canonet with a 40 but that cam has gotten a lot less use since I got my 35.
 
as a kit, i am really liking the 25/35/50/90.
it offers good focal lengths for one camera, one lens choice and also for various combos when wanting to travel lighter.
 
I personally don't care for 35mm but I love both 40 and 50. I don't think 40 replaces 35 and 50 but maybe 35 by itself.
 
If you like in-between things, the 40 might work for you.

To me, it's neither here nor there. I'd much rather have a 35, and in fact I sold my perfectly good and cheap 40mm Summicron for a much more expensive but not better optically 35mm Summicron. But I'm really happy with the 35mm in a way I know I'd never be with a 40. It's just didn't feel right to me.

Everyone's different though, you might really like it.
 
Thanks for all the great input guys...and Mark, that chart's a keeper.

I've got an R3A on the way, so I guess I'll keep it in hand and play with the frame lines a bit to see what I think.
I'm generally not a 50mm kind of guy. It seems too tight for me most of the time. I guess I fear that it won't be wide enough, since 35mm often seems just barely wide enough.
Also, it's a big gap between 21mm and 40mm.
Hey! That'd give me a great excuse for a 28mm! :)
 
Steve,

My kit uses a much larger spacing than most peoples (15, 40, 105) and for me it works. I've never been much of a 50mm lover as I see things 35/40 or 90/100. I found that I used my SLR (F2/180) more than my 105 on the last vacation. But I have to say the 105 was the perfect size several times. You have a great kit now, if you move to a M mount system, dump the 35 and 50 and go with a 40. For me, less is more.

B2 (;->
 
My preferred on my Bessa R, CV 28mm and a J-3/8 50. If I need tele I use a Minolta X370/700 or Maxxum 4.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom