50mm / 40mm / 35mm close focus shoot out

[FOWL]

I have a question for close up maths heads...
IF I HAD:
35mm/0.7min lens
40mm/0.8min lens
50mm/1meter lens

and I got as close to the subject as possible with the lens - which lens would fill the frame with the subject the most?

would I notice much of a difference (in the photos) between the three lenses at their min. focus?

THANK YOU

 

[Filzkoeter]

They will fill the frame with the subject about the same, there will be no significant differences regarding this.

Although there will be a slight difference in pespective. The 35mm will give you a wider view of the background and a more dynamic perspective, there will be some slight perspective extension with the 35mm and more compression with the 50mm. The 40mm would fall inbetween.
You'll also get a slightly faster transition from the in-focus to the out-of-focus area with the 50mm (+ a little bit more bokeh in the background)

All those differences will be quite subtle in most cases. They really kick in strong with very short or long focal lenghts.

 

[Roel]

Hi FOWL,
I did this test this weekend to check the signature of my Leica M/LTM lenses.

The 40mm (Voigtlander 40mm 1.4, min. @0,7mtr) and the 50 mm Leica Summarit + Summar (LTM, @ min 1mtr) were very close. The 35mm Leica summicron (@0.7 mtr was clearly wider.) Obviously the 50mm Summicron @ 0.7 was clearly the closest.

So the answer to your question from my test with the above lenses would be that the 50mm @ 1mtr would fill the frame the most. And clearly more than the 35mm @ 0.7 mtr.

 

[Filzkoeter]

Roel: They would fill _exactly_ the same space... that is, if you put your camera completly level and would shoot a 2-dimensional target. You could see no difference at all. The calculated diagonal dimension of all three focal lengths (50mm at 1m, 40mm at 0.8m and 35mm at 0.7m) is 0.87m.

In a real life test you won't normally shoot 2 dimensional targets perfectly level. Also the focal lengths are often not exactly what's written on the lens. I think the 40/1.5 Nokton slightly longer then 40mm... Leica 50mm lenses are built to the 51.6mm standard (+/- 0.2mm or something like this).

Here are 2 shots I did to test my Elmar 50/3.5 vs my Nokton 35/1.4... both at f4.0. Unfortunatly the perspective I chose is different, I shot it also at more like 1.3m for the 50mm and 0.8m for the 35mm:

+ 21mm at 0.5m:

 

[FOWL]

thanks really interesting! and sorta what i figured! which one is the ELMAR?

 

[Filzkoeter]

The first picture (of the double one) is my coated Elmar 50/3.5 from 1949, second my multicoated Nokton 35/1.4.
The 21mm one is a Skopar 21/4.0.

 

[FOWL]

thanks, i like the elmar a lot. be interesting to see similar shoot out in colour

 

[Roel]

Well I believe you so it must be lens specific. I just checked my prints and measured the distance of the eyes of my son who was in all the images standing at the same distance. Funny is that actually the VC 40mm at 0.7 has the bigger image of the three. The 35mm the smallest. It,s not much but this is the order of these lenses. I used the minimum distance on the 35mm summicron V4, VC 40mm f1,4, 50mm Summar f2 and the 50mm Summarit f1.5. Left to right, top to bottom. All shot at F2.

[/url]Lenstest at closest focusrange by Roel van Noord, on Flickr[/IMG]

Roel: They would fill _exactly_ the same space... that is, if you put your camera completly level and would shoot a 2-dimensional target. You could see no difference at all. The calculated diagonal dimension of all three focal lengths (50mm at 1m, 40mm at 0.8m and 35mm at 0.7m) is 0.87m.

 

[kossi008]

...Funny is that actually the VC 40mm at 0.7 has the bigger image of the three.

What's funny about this? That's what I expected, but it is not the original question. The 40 mm @ 0.8 m would be the setting to be compared to the 35 mm @ 0.7 m (and the 50 mm at 1.0 m).

And as Filzkoeter explained, in theory those three pairings should fill the frame about the same; all deviations are due to real-life differences in focal lengths...

 

[Filzkoeter]

thanks, i like the elmar a lot. be interesting to see similar shoot out in colour

The Elmar is an amazing lens for being over 60 years old. Mine has no haze and nearly no cleaning marks (only some very faint on the front lens).
I don't know if it's due to a change of light outside as I shot those tests, but the Elmar actually showed slightly more contrast/tonal separation then my Nokton in the center (I had a hood on the Elmar but none on the Nokton). The Nokton outperforms it easily in resolution when looking at the 3600dpi scans (especially in the corners, the Elmar has some smear going on, even at f8). The resolution in the center at f8 is very similar.
The Elmar draws in a very pleasant way.

 

[FOWL]

intresting! im just starting to see why hoods are a good idea, esp. with longer exposures...