50mm or 40mm

[Huck Finn]

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? 😕

Palaeoboy, who has posted here in the past, has made a hobby of comparing the performance of 40 mm lenses. He owns them all except the Rollei 40/2.8 Sonnar. and he would agree with you, Kevin. In fact, If memory serves me well, I think that he has posted that in his comparisons, the 40 Nokton is the sharpest of all the 40's. I hope he checks in to correct me if I'm wrong. The only knock I've seen on this lens is the somewhat subjective bokeh issue & that varies depending on background. It is also primarily an issue at full aperture. Some of the comparisonons have been unfair by comparing the Nokton at f/1.4 with another lens at f/2.

Again I think that it is unfair to compare a 40 with a 50. Popular Photography did not find the Nokton to be the sharpest knife in the drawer at its widest apertures, yet they called it an instant classic. However, the same criticism can be said about the pre-aspherical Summilux. And the Nokton is based on almost the identical design to the Summilux. Many users like Kevin have demonstrated that they can take very sharp pictures with this lens as they get to know it & love the results.

 

[like2fiddle]

My limited experience with the CV 40 mc (4 months), tends to go along more with Kevin's results than with whatever reviewers Turtle is referring to. However, "softness", "contrast", "sharpness", all are very subjective things. When I look at a photo from my 5cm Summitar taken wide open, I see "soft". That's my point of reference and it's likely different from just about every one else's.

This is why I suggested in a previous post that perhaps it might be best to look at the end results from a variety of photographers and scenes/situations. Rover gave a couple of links to flickr, why not check that out and just "see" what others are actually doing with these two lenses?

 

[Turtle]

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? 😕

...do you seriously expect me to make a judgement based upon a 72 dpi computer screen image? A one megapixel camera looks good on the web. I note that you do not post comparison images of the 50. You are ready to dismiss what I say but have no more direct personal comparative information than I do.

Again, my comments are based on reviews that seemed well set out, often comparing numerous lenses and where there appeared no particular reason to dismiss the findings...and from comments from owners of both. I perhaps should have said that edge performace was quite soft up until f4. I see that you own a 40 nokton and perhaps you were offended by what I said. I did not say that the nokton was a bad lens, only that all the tests I have seen and comments from owners of both state quite clearly that the 50 is the better performer at wide apertures. It is however bigger and heavier. This has a danger of turning into a p1ssing match and I will not add any more to this thread once this is posted. I am however confident that from what I have read that the the 50 performs better well at f1.4/5 and f2 whereas the 40 is comparatively struggling at these wide apertures. If you can add some information that proves this incorrect then please post it. However, an image posted on a low res web site of one of the lenses being compared does not constiture an objective comparison. for those who own the 40 1.4 and are very happy with that, there is no issue with this but it does not make my comparative comments any less valid.

I think it is abit far fetched to suggest that negative comments on teh web about this lens are as a result of a mad rumour mill. Most comments are very positive. However the so-so wide open comments come a fair bit for the 40 just as the praise does for the wide aperture performance of the 50 1.5. I have heard a number of users state that the 50 is a 'better performer' than the 40 but not one say the converse. As good as the 40 1.4 is, the 50 is one of the best 50s about full stop. Some of you may be familiar with Reid reviews and a review that I can remember off hand from luminous landscape says great things about the 50. To find the other comments I have referred to a trawl thru apug, this site and google under various key words will allow you to make up your own mind, assuming you dont own both that is.

 

[kevin m]

If memory serves me well, I think that he has posted that in his comparisons, the 40 Nokton is the sharpest of all the 40's. I hope he checks in to correct me if I'm wrong. The only knock I've seen on this lens is the somewhat subjective bokeh issue & that varies depending on background. It is also primarily an issue at full aperture. Some of the comparisonons have been unfair by comparing the Nokton at f/1.4 with another lens at f/2.

Huck, my experience has been the same as his. The Nokton is better at f2.0 than the 40mm Rokkor I have. Sharper, more contrast, more flare resistant. Bokeh is subjective, of course. I can see that the OOF qualities of the Nokton aren't as pleasant as some other 1.4 lenses, but it's hardly horrible, or image ruining, IMO. By f2.0, any 'bokeh' issues seem to be gone.

I just 'tested' all my 35, 40 and 50mm lenses recently*, and I was surprised to see that while there were differences in performance, they were all more alike than not. Meaning subject, composition and lighting were far and away the most important factors. Surpring results to me, since the price difference between the lenses was in some cases staggering. Personally, I find "resistance to flare" is MUCH more important than 'bokeh' considerations, as that can clearly ruin a shot, while 'bokeh' is very much subjective.


*35 Aspherical Summilux, 40 Rokkor, 40 Nokton SC, 50 Summilux, 50/1.5 Canon

 

[kevin m]

...do you seriously expect me to make a judgement based upon a 72 dpi computer screen image?

Sure. As long as the playing field is level.

I perhaps should have said that edge performace was quite soft up until f4.

Or even better, post a link to the original article so we can read it and judge for ourselves.

I see that you own a 40 nokton and perhaps you were offended by what I said.

Not offended at all, Turtle, it's just a lens.

 

[35mmdelux]

35/90 as the standard bearers. The 50mm/40mm/28mm as secondary choices depending on your shooting interests.

 

[dazedgonebye]

I just 'tested' all my 35, 40 and 50mm lenses recently*, and I was surprised to see that while there were differences in performance, they were all more alike than not. Meaning subject, composition and lighting were far and away the most important factors.
kevinm

Now THERE's something we tend to lose track of too quickly.

 

[Trius]

35/90 as the standard bearers. The 50mm/40mm/28mm as secondary choices depending on your shooting interests.

I see that POV, but it is all so subjective. I think 50 was the "standard bearer" for HCB. 😉

As far as FL goes, ~40 is my current favourite. 50 is just a tad restrictive for what I am currently shooting, though 35 and 28 are often very handy.

I have not reaached for a short/mid tele for a long time, though I just picked one up from an RFF member and now will be forced to play with it. 😛

 

[Huck Finn]

I just 'tested' all my 35, 40 and 50mm lenses recently*, and I was surprised to see that while there were differences in performance, they were all more alike than not. Meaning subject, composition and lighting were far and away the most important factors.

Amen. 😎

Personally, I find "resistance to flare" is MUCH more important than 'bokeh' considerations, as that can clearly ruin a shot, while 'bokeh' is very much subjective.

I completely agree. 🙂

I also think that lenses are charged with bad bokeh characteristics when the photographer should be blamed. Some of the bad bokeh shots involve terribly contrasty backgrounds &/or foregrounds while others have almost impossible lighting situations to deal with. Even a lens with bad bokeh characteristics can be put to good use by controlling such factors, but a flare prone lens lets you down in too many important situations IMHO.