compact SLR 40mm-45mm lenses

[msbarnes]

I really like the 40mm focal length and would like one for an SLR (preferably Nikon/OM). My preference is small and fast (~f2) but I can probably compromise size and mount.

What are some good MF lenses?

I'm aware of the OM one and the reviews are mixed but it seems like a decent performer at f2.8. I haven't looked into the CV one but I assume that it is sharp and contrasty and probably the best performer at f2.0.

How about the Konica 40mm f1.8? I've seen it go for under $50 regularly and it is f1.8. Is it any good?

I also believe that Pentax, Contax, and Nikon made some f2.8 lenses but f2.8 is maybe too slow and harder to focus...but I would consider it if it is brilliant wide open and tiny.

 

[Pioneer]

I own three 40s and like them all.

Well the little Pentax 40mm 2.8 pancake is certainly tiny. It is a decent lens, not great but it does well. I like it but I rarely use it wide open. This is a manual focus lens and combined with the LX it makes for a very small SLR package that is very close to rangefinder territory.

The Pentax Limited 43mm 1.8 is also small and is probably of higher quality. It has a very sincere following, but all the Pentax Limited lenses have a pretty devoted following. This is probably the best 40 that I have personally used. Truth be known though, I use the 31mm Limited far more frequently.

Minolta also had a 45 f2, again, not terrific but a good lens all the same. I have managed to use it for some pretty nice shots.

Just a few thoughts on the lenses I am familiar with.

 

[zuikologist]

The Voigtlander 40/2 is super - well made and excellent IQ. Lots of reports on the web.

 

[bgb]

It's for a Canon EOS ... still very cool. 40mm f 2.8

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/772-canon_40_28_apsc

 

[kanzlr]

The OM 40/2 is actually pretty good.

I also liked the Tessar 45/2.8 and Minoltas 45/2 MD.

 

[hamradio]

The Voigtlander 40/2 is super - well made and excellent IQ. Lots of reports on the web.

x2. This has been my main lens, lately.

 

[KoNickon]

The Voigtlander 40/2 is great; I have it in Nikon and Canon FD mount. You asked about the Konica Hexanon 40/1.8; this lens is very highly recommended. It's well worth getting a Konica body just to use this lens (get the Autoreflex T3 rather than the smaller T4 or TC; much better made, I think).

 

[Spicy]

Never used the CV one, but I'd love to own one. Nikon's got two pancakes, if you count both the 45/2.8P and GN as different lenses (which I thought they either had different optical formulas or the P has more favorable number/configuration of aperture blades (IIRC they're curved and thus when closed down almost always circular regardless of aperture). I've heard reports that the P has quite impressive/nice OOF looks, while the GN is less-impressive.

The 50/1.8 Series E is also a nice lens. I know it doesn't really fit in your 40-45 requirements, but I've been using one for a while and really like it. It's not surgically-sharp wide open like some of the more modern lenses, but that's never stopped me, hahaha. It's pretty small, very fast, quite light, and not too expensive (cheap to replace). I'm sure the build quality isn't as nice as the CV one, but it's not too bad.

 

[craygc]

The Voigtlander 40/2 is super - well made and excellent IQ. Lots of reports on the web.

Another +1 ...I have the version 1 in Nikon mount with the compact hood. Very small and good package

 

[msbarnes]

Thanks for the many suggestions and advice!

It sounds that many of these lenses are very good/decent! Truth is, I love the 40mm focal length and I like SLRs, RF's, and compact cameras...but sometimes bigger cameras too (like Nikon F).

I mostly shoot people and I don't care about some light falloff or a hint of softness. Bokeh is what it is and I try to not be overly religious about it. Same with contrast.

I mostly care about sharpness in the center at wide apertures (f2-f4) but I shoot at small apertures for landscape, sometimes (but not often).

Looks like most of these are wonderful. I'm sure the Konica is great but since I have a Nikon and OM system then I am thinking of getting the CV or OM to consolidate my systems.

KoNickon: They made the CV lens in FD mount? OR did you mean EF mount?

 

[mfogiel]

For Nikon, as mentioned, the 45P is very nice, although it gets seriously sharp only at f 5.6 - like most Tessars. On a side note - if you like a fast 45mm lens for Nikon with a VERY nice background bokeh - try the Sigma 50/1.4 - it is a 45mm lens in reality. They made it on purpose with some under corrected spherical aberration, which results in a creamy background blur ( but a bit wonky in the foreground ). The lens is VERY big and it can only be used on cameras, where you can set the aperture on the body - unless you want to shoot it wide open obviously.

 

[konicaman]

Most SLR lenses after 1970 in the 35-50 range are quite good and of course there are those that are just outstanding. The best I have worked with is the Konica Hexanon 40/1.8. But I am a bit biased of course 😉

 

[KoNickon]

Thanks for the many suggestions and advice!

It sounds that many of these lenses are very good/decent! Truth is, I love the 40mm focal length and I like SLRs, RF's, and compact cameras...but sometimes bigger cameras too (like Nikon F).

I mostly shoot people and I don't care about some light falloff or a hint of softness. Bokeh is what it is and I try to not be overly religious about it. Same with contrast.

I mostly care about sharpness in the center at wide apertures (f2-f4) but I shoot at small apertures for landscape, sometimes (but not often).

Looks like most of these are wonderful. I'm sure the Konica is great but since I have a Nikon and OM system then I am thinking of getting the CV or OM to consolidate my systems.

KoNickon: They made the CV lens in FD mount? OR did you mean EF mount?

Nope, it's FD -- sitting on an AT-1 right now. Cosina made it in the older breech-style mount. I seem to recall, from Mr. Gandy's website when these were new, that all these SL lenses were available in OM and K mount also.

 

[kanzlr]

On a side note - if you like a fast 45mm lens for Nikon with a VERY nice background bokeh - try the Sigma 50/1.4 - it is a 45mm lens in reality. They made it on purpose with some under corrected spherical aberration, which results in a creamy background blur ( but a bit wonky in the foreground ). The lens is VERY big and it can only be used on cameras, where you can set the aperture on the body - unless you want to shoot it wide open obviously.

seconded. An awesome lens on many levels. Very creamy blur and surprisingly sharp at f1.4.

 

[ssmc]

Another vote for the Minolta Rokkor 45/2.

This is a very compact lens that can be had in good to excellent condition for very little $. I found that the 45/2 does not do very well in close-focus (i.e. 50x FL) resolution tests, with fairly soft corners until f/4 (by which time the light falloff is virtually gone), but at longer distances e.g. landscapes I never had cause to complain about it. There is slight barrel distortion. Here are a couple of my galleries, of B&W shots taken with the 45/2:

http://www.pbase.com/smcleod965/utah09&page=all

http://www.pbase.com/smcleod965/ynp_09

An advantage of the Minolta bodies is the very high-magnification 0.90x viewfinder, second only to the OM-1 IIRC (0.92x), though the reduced eye relief can be a disadvantage if you wear glasses. This, and the contrasty screen, makes critical focusing dead easy.

Good luck with your choice!
Scott