40mm to Replace 35 & 50?

My lens setup is a rather conventional 28, 35,40,50.
I know there is not a lot of variation in this, however I like my 50 elmar M as a standard traveling lens, my 40 C as a inexpensive everyday walking around lens, my 35 cron for the matching framelines and for being wide enough for me, and my zeiss 28 when I want a wide lens. I had a CV 25 but didn't care for zone focusing and I've never been interested in a long lens on a Leica M. The 40 is a great lens, but I think a 35 is a classic focal length. Its really a matter of preference and how one sees the world. ;)
 
Less is more is the right concept. It's tough to keep to though when there is so much great gear out there.
One argument I just thought of for keeping the 35/50 combo is that I can use one of my old Feds loaded with 800iso film as a low light second body...I was sort of planning on that with the R as the primary body.
If I got the 40, I'd let the 35 and 50 go and would not have a fast screw-mount lens.
Hey, I know, I'll get a Bessa-T!

Funny how all solutions end with my buying more stuff. Must be that GAS thing.
 
I just sold the 40/1.4 Nokton to replace it with a 50/2 Heliar. I never liked the FL, not wide enough, not tight enough. Another thing to consider: the Nokton is not a "bokeh machine" IMO. It's a bit too gritty, but still not with a "signature".

Yet another thing: using the R3A with eyeglasses and the 40 mm framelines is not easy. With my glasses on, I can't see the 40 mm lines at all. When I use contacts, it's another story. I'm very myopic, (-8, -8) and so my experience may not be relevant to others, though.
 
I wouldn't do that; you will lose the enjoyment of choosing between a 35mm lens and a 50mm lens when you take photos. Each focal length is special here. The 35mm focal length has been the norm for street photography, but in the past, the 50mm lens was also a standard street photography lens. The 40mm falls in between these two, and it ends up being suitable when you cannot or don't want to carry two lenses.

I only have one 40mm lens, the Summicron -C for the CL. As for 50mm lenses, the list is longer than one. I need fewer 35mm lenses. I have as a standard 35mm lens a Canon 35mm/1.8, and as a vintage 35mm lens I have the Canon 35mm/2.8. My pampered 35mm lenses are the Summicron with goggles and the Summaron 3.5. I like the Canon look a lot.

Raid
 
Last edited:
On my little walk around in a museum yesterday and in the surrounding area, I found that my 35mm felt a little tight now and again. When it felt short, it felt way short...like I needed a 75 or 90.
I guess that means I'll likely stay with the 35/50 combo.
 
I got hooked on the 40mm on my Canonet. If I only carry one lens, I lean towards the 40 over the 50. That extra bit of angle seems to be more handy than a handicap. That said, I was never dissatisfied with a 50mm mounted to my camera. I currently have a 40 and a 50 for the same camera, and don't feel any redundancy there. I don't think I'd ever carry a 35, 40, and 50, but I also don't really think a 40 is a replacement for a 35. It's more a replacement for a 50, IMHO. I might sell a 35 and get a 28 and 40, but that's me. I wouldn't dump a 50mm for any other focal length.
 
I absolutely love my 40mm Nokton. It has a great feel while out shooting and I really don't miss the 50mm. I'll probably pick up a 50mm/70mm anyways but I can't see them completely replacing my 40mm.
 
40 mm Nokton a nice allround lens

40 mm Nokton a nice allround lens

F1000032.jpg

F1000018.jpg

Foto's 6 februari 2007 Amsterdam Damrak
M7 Voigtlander 40 mm 1.4 Nokton Classic
Fuji Reala 100
 
I've a Konica (dont like to say this) SLR with the 40mm pancake and it is real convenient I dont feel any need for a 35mm or 50mm. Indeed I liked it so much I bought a second as a parts spare. I've not done the foam or put in a pair of diodes for the meter, on either, they both work really well and were as cheap as my Kievs.
Noel
 
Using a 40mm lens, I've found that for most subjects, moving a bit closer or farther away can give an adequate approximation to the 50mm or 35mm field of view. However, moving the camera changes the perspective, so the myth that one can "zoom with the feet" is obviously false. Also, for very close or very distant subjects, changing focal lengths may be the only practical way to alter the field of view. Yet, 99% of the time, one of my little 40mm Rollei 35 pocket cameras (or my M2 with the 40mm M-Rokkor) does everything I need. It would be nice to have a 40mm lens which is as good as my 50mm Summicron (or even my 50mm Elmar-M), but one can't have everything.

Richard
 
I dare not use the 40mm Tessar (Rolli) wider then 5.6, the bad effect is noticable on Kchrome. The Konicia 40mm is a (modified) double gauss and ok to 2.8. Konicia got patents on the enhancements to make it flatter.

I back pack the Rolli or an XA4, when I go high and cut out all the weight.

Noel
 
Noel: A bit OT, but does the Konica 40 pancacke pre-date the 38mm/2.8 on the Konica C35? The reason I ask is that the C35 lens is really amazing given its price; even new the C35 went for about $75-80, I think, around 1973-75. Now, of course, you can pick up a good C35 for a pittance.

I was just wondering if maybe the technology they developed for the pancake made it into the C35 lens.
 
Trius

Definitely off topic...

The C35 lens is a four element triplet like the fabled Elmar or Tessar.

The SLR pancake was a double gauss derivative, a six element four group, like a Leitz late 5cm cron, or Zeiss planar. Normally these are in a 1221 group pattern in power

ppnnpp

where p is converging and n is diverging. Instead to make the lens compact but still have back focus for the SLR, Konica interchanged two elements so

pnpnpp.

I'm doing this from memory, google 'Konica TC' if you want gory tecco details

Noel
P.S. production of the pancake ran from 77-84 about
 
I understand disputes 35 vs. 50, I understand 28 vs. 35 etc, but I think I'll never understand 35 vs. 40.

The framelines in the VF only show 85-90% of actual coverage... so when you are framing with 35 frameline, you are actually framing a 40 lens coverage...
 
When I didn't have any 50mm lenses in LTM or M mount, I often used a 40/2 Rokkor (later on the CV 40/1.4 Nokton & Rollei 40/2.8 Sonnar) on my M3 as an all-round travel lens. I still like the 40mm & M3 combo. Then again, I also like the 45mm focal length for general shooting.
 
If you already have a 35 and a 50 I would think trying to replace them with a 40 would be a bad move. In the end it will just be a user conclusion thing but I have seen the light for myself and where before I was carrying 2 bodies with 2 35s I plan to now carry 2 bodies, one with a 35 and one with a 50 just because of facial distortions if your to close with the 35.

How is the 40 on true image reproduction compared to the 50? I have never used a 40 but I just dont see it replacing a 50 as the 50 is just the ultimate workhorse in small format film photography. I had a FM2 with a 50 1.4 lense and I miss the the thing to this very day. Like I was saying I have been using a 35 full time for 3 years and just now going back to the 50 this year because I miss it.

If someone was just getting new gear I could see a argument for going with a 40 and a 75. Then if thats what they learned to work with it could become standard for them. I just dont see where anyone who has ever used a 50 as a standard lense could replace it. I would like to hear from anyone that has after a year of use and see what they have to say then.
 
I dont use 50mm lenses that much so the 40mm is easy to use as my standard lens. I collect 40mm lenses and fixed lens rangefinders with them. I would use this focal length 70% of the time. The 35 vs 40mm debate is a common one and when someone asks me about 40's (generally because i have so many of them) I tell them that there 2 main things to consider. Firstly what corresponding wide angles do they think they will use (if any) If someone likes 28mm lenses (which I do very much) then the 40mm is an ideal partner. If they prefer 25's as the next step wider then 35's are good as I think 28's and 35's are just a bit close together to warrant having both (although some do). I like the 21/28/40/90 kit very much. The second important thing is framelines. Not having 40mm framelines for the focal length I use most would drive me batty. If I used mainly M's i would more likely go the 25/35 lens route than a 28/40. Fortunately the CLE allows me to use both of my favourite focal lengths.

Given that you own an R3A with 40mm framelines and you mentioning your desire for a 28 then I would certainly recommend a 40mm lens to replace the 35 in your kit.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom