50mm or 40mm

[mistral01]

Hi

sorry for asking a question on my first post... some background - im shortly getting a R2A (because im shortsighted, heard it was more suitable than the R3a)

i eventualy aim to get a 21/15mm wide angle for landscape, and a 75 or 90mm for portraiture, but my first lens purchase was going to be a general purpose, some portraiture, street photog, available low light lens. i normally would just have picked up the 50mm 1.5 without any thought, as i have a 50mm prime for my canon and shoot with that a fair bit so am used to that focal range.

however, since theres also a 40mm 1.4, for about the same price, im a little torn now.
ive heard and read good things about the 40mm 1.4 (apart from the bokeh issue). and i like that the SC version is optimised for B&W film, as i aim to use the bessa mainly to shoot B&W.

so aside from bokeh, does anyone who has had a chance to use both or either have any comments that can help me make my decision. im off to paris this thursday for holiday and so need to choose before i go.

also how usable is the 40mm for portaiture as compared to the 50mm? does anyone have any shots they can post?

i have searched for and read the other posts here about the 40/50mm, but most seem to have included other issues like camera models and some focused on bokeh, so i still havent really had much clarity on this.

appreciate any comments. and im glad i found this board.

 

[pvdhaar]

Have you thought about the framelines that the finder of the R2A has? I believe it's 35 and 50, and not 40..

 

[fuwen]

If is Bessa R2A I think better to go for 50mm.

 

[mistral01]

im aware of the frameline issue, but from what ive read its hard to see the 40mm framelines on the R3a if you are wearing glasses.

 

[Turtle]

If you are buying an R2a I would go for a 50 1.5. This lens is a better performer than the 40 1.4 in any case and you will have the correct framelines to boot. You can then add a 35 and a 75 or a 28 and a 90. If I was going to keep the kit small and intended to shoot landscapes, street, portraits, I would go for the latter. The CV 90 3.5 lanthar is a great lens by all accounts, better than the 75. It also offers better seperation from the 50. The 75 is perhaps ideally paired with a 35 for a really small outfit (as close to 50 and 90, so a good repacement fvor both!). Even Putz was seriously impressed by the 90 lanthar which is very sharp wide open.

I would not personally go for a 21/15 to back up the 40/50, as the gap is too wide for my tastes (possibly not for yours)> I think you would get a lot more mileage from a 28 or even 35 than a 21 let alone a 15. The 28 really is a landscape universal as it is wide without an extreme look. I jsut tnhink you would find the 21 too wide and be screaming for something a bit longer most of the time.

Just my thoughts!

 

[mistral01]

so in terms of pure optics, you would rate the 50 over the 40mm?

 

[rover]

I used a 40mm lens on an R2 quite capably. Yes, the R2a does not have 40mm framelines, but the 35mm framelines probably more accurately estimate the 40mm field of view than they do 35mm. You will be able to use a 40mm lens with the 35mm framelines.

Regarding which lens, I would recommend that you spend a lot of time in the galleries here, and elsewhere looking for images from both lenses. Look at each shoot and see if there are any particular characteristics of either lens that for you make it stand out, good or bad. Personally, I have seen some nice shots out of both, but am more impressed with the 50. But that is just my opinion.

Keep in mind too that the 50 is a physically larger lens. I actually don't like small stubby lenses, but again, that is just me, I am sure I am in the minority on this one.

 

[oscroft]

I would not personally go for a 21/15 to back up the 40/50, as the gap is too wide for my tastes

I'd say the same, but for a slightly different reason. I have both the 15 and 21, but I rarely use them for landscape shots (and I'd go further with the 15 and say it's not a very useful general purpose lens at all - it's fantastic fun and brilliant on the occasions that it's suited to the shot, but I find it very much a case of going out with the 15 and looking for something suited to it rather than just happening to see a shot and thinking "I need the 15 for that"). And the 21 is just too wide for most landscape shots (the old "the wider the better because you can get more in" approach leads to really dull photos, imo) - I tend to use it mostly when I want the frame to be dominated by some specific close foreground detail.

For general purpose landscape use, I'd echo what has been suggested by other people and would recommend a 35 or a 28 (I've used both a lot over the years, and am currently mostly using a CV 35/2.5 - in fact, probably 75% of my photography has been with lenses around those lengths). Or if you really do want a wider lens then perhaps consider the 25?

 

[rover]

Nokton 50/1.5 images
http://www.flickr.com/groups/nokton50/

Nokton 40/1.4 images
http://www.flickr.com/groups/nokton40mm/

 

[Terao]

50 is better than the 40, however bear in mind a couple of things:

(1) You'll need to buy a screw to M-mount adapter and rear cap for the 50

and

(2) The 40mm feels much, much smaller than the 50. This is partly to do with the size of the hood and cap on the 50, but even without that its still a significant one. The 40 is pocketable (particularly without the optional vented hood) and in my opinion (I own both) the 50 isn't.

The 40 is marginally faster but that's hardly a reason to differentiate.

I also find that the 40 gives me a bit more headroom on shots, but then I'm using it on an R-D1 so it has a ~60m fov...

 

[Turtle]

Its true the 50 1.5 is a fair bit bigger than the 40 1.4, but if you really intend to use the wider apertures the 50 is the better bet. I say this not because I own either but have read lots about both and it seems the wide aperture performance of the 50 is a fair bit better than the 40. Most reviewers of the 40 say it is quite soft until you get to f4 or so. As for the MC/SC issue, if you are shooting other lenses too and these are MC, there is no sense in going for a SC lens as you will have inconsistent contrast between lenses. I dont know how much of a difference this would make but cannot really see much sense in the SC version unless it is your only lens....and even then it is debatable.

Some reviews suggest that only the ASPH 50 Summilux can appreciably better the CV 50 1.5...which is the equal of the pre-asph....some say even better. That is saying something....

I think a thread to M adaptor is about $40 so not a big deal.

 

[santino]

well, you could get the 40 and a Jupiter 8 for example (it's only f2) but you could try out both 🙂

 

[kevin m]

I say this not because I own either but have read lots about both..

😕 😕 😕

 

[like2fiddle]

My two cents, or maybe one cent as I own only one "modern" lens, the CV 40 mc version. As has been mentioned above, the cv 40 is perhaps longer than 40, I've read elsewhere that it may actually be closer to 43, but the point is that there may not be a significant difference in focal length. Can't help with size comparrison, but I can attest to the compact size of the 40, especially without the hood. Adaptors really don't take up much space, so I wouldn't let that weigh much in the decision. The most important thing to me would be to see what the lens produces across a number of different photographers and situations. See if one stands out. My 40 doesn't seem to have the issue of being too soft wide open. As much as I like contrasty lenses, I find the cv 40 to have a tad more contrast than I like in B&W. Nice in color though.
Roger

 

[Huck Finn]

When Popular Photography tested the 40, they measure it at 40.86 mm. For all intents & purposes, it is essentially a 40 with only the slightest of variation. Cosina did an excellent job of meeting its specs with this lens. Its f/1.4 is also a true 1.4. Pop Photo measured its maximum aperture at f/1.44.

 

[Huck Finn]

also how usable is the 40mm for portaiture as compared to the 50mm? does anyone have any shots they can post?

In the 1950s, 50 mm lenses were commonly used as portrait lenses & wide apertures were used to soften the backgrounds. With the improvement of telephoto lenses, longer focal lengths were used to provide out-of-focus background & allowed the photographer to shoot from a more comfortable distance.

So is the 40 usable for portraits? Depends on what kind of portraits you want to take.

The rule of thumb that I use is that 90 mm is for head & shoulder portraits, 50 mm for full body portraits, & 35 mm for "environmental portraits" where you want to take the individual in their context & so include some of their daily environment, i.e. home, office, etc.

I find the 40 mm focal length to be very versatile for traveling between the needs of 35 & 50 without having to change lenses. A step back or a step closer includes more or less in the photo. The problem that I have with the 40 is that it is limited for indoor use because you can't always take a step back in confined spaces. I'd rather have a 35 indoors & even then space is sometimes a constraint. As good as the concept of a 40/1.4 may be, it's indoors that I want the speed & 40 mm would not be my personal preference of focal length indoors. I'm sure that there are circumstances in which it works just fine, but maybe not as versatile indoors as I would like.

Each has their own preference. Just my 2 cents . . .

 

[Turtle]

Kevin,

One does not need to own a lens to see its size and weight, filter size etc....
One does not need to own a lens to comment about its focal length as part of an outfit (I own a 65 for 645 format)
One does not need to own a lens to be able to see quite clearly that credible tests of both indicate that the 50 is optically superior especially wide open. This has been borne out in many tests and opinions of those who have owned both. As long as one can pick out the comments by people talking bull and identifiy those from people talking sense and being objective it is perfectly possible to form opinions without having had hands on. I have read plenty about both lenses as i considered both at one point..all the factors I have mentioned were factors readily aparrent if you research them throoughly on the net. Do the searches and I am sure you would feel confident drawing the same conclusions as I have. If this were not a viable mechanism for assisting decisions none of us would ever buy anything without having done a personal direct comparison with everything else would we?

My comments were simply a distillation of a lot of web reasearch and careful consideration. I made it clear that I had not owned them, did I not? Your comments suggest that a poster can only make comments if they have. Thats just silly. Had I just spouted off about this one being 'rubbish' and the other being 'far better' then fair enough.

I still feel perfectly confident with what I have said and if you can demonstrate that my comments on optical issues are mistaken, please go ahead.

 

[Robert]

I would use the 50mm instead of the 40mm but rather than either of them I would buy a 35mm for general use and a 90mm for portraiture.

 

[Huck Finn]

One does not need to own a lens to be able to see quite clearly that credible tests of both indicate that the 50 is optically superior especially wide open.

This is an excellent point. 🙂

I would throw into the mix that it is also well established that lens design gets more challenging as the angle gets wider & the focal length gets shorter than 50. If one is simply seeking the best optical design, I think that the choice would almost always be a 50 over something wider - all other things being equal.

For me the choice between 40 & 50 would have more to do with the intended use of the lens than the optics alone.

 

[kevin m]

Most reviewers of the 40 say it is quite soft until you get to f4 or so.

Well, this comment, for one, is the sort of misinformation that borders on gossip. And it's the sort that, sadly, gets passed around the internet and takes on a life of its own, regardless its lack of merit.
Ten minutes of use and a couple of test shots will amply demonstrate that it's not close to being true.

I'm attaching a shot taken with the Nokton SC at f2.0 Does it look "quite soft" to you? 😕