Cv 40/1.4

[dostacos]

ok, I got the lens today much smaller than the 50/1.5

Question: use the 35MM frameline or the 50MM frameline at least until I snag a R3?

 

[FrankS]

Some may argue otherwise, but the online consensus is to use the 35mm framelines.

 

[tedwhite]

I borrow my friend's cv 40/1.4 AND his 28 Ultron and use the 35mm framelines for both. Don't have any noticeable problems.

 

[tajart]

framelines

framelines

i'm still getting used to mine, experimenting, toggling between 35 and 50, and...adjusting my variable finder in the hot shoe. i'm blanking on the code name of it, but you know, it goes from 35-135 and points inbetween...so i dial in what i think approximates 40 and go from there...but i prefer not to use the aux finder.
i'm thinking i will probably file the mount and go with the 35 framelines eventually.

 

[haagen_dazs]

its pretty close to the 35mm frame lines 🙂

 

[FrankS]

I did the filing on my CV40f1.4 with a dremel tool to bring up the 35mm framelines. You can't go wrong and file too much, because the default setting with no lens is 35 framelines.

 

[dostacos]

well I am going to Long Beach this weekend so I will play with it.

 

[pvdhaar]

I did the filing on my CV40f1.4 with a dremel tool to bring up the 35mm framelines. You can't go wrong and file too much, because the default setting with no lens is 35 framelines.

If you don't want to do things this drastic without trying first, Noel (aka. Xmas) yesterday suggested using an elastic band tied between the preview lever and the strap lug to keep the lever at the 35mm point..

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=574841#post574841

 

[Doug]

I operate outside the consensus, it seems, always using the 40mm framelines with the 40mm lens. I use a 40mm lens only on cameras that have a 40mm frameline. I use 35 and 50mm lenses only on cameras that have those framelines... Weird, huh. 🙂

 

[kully]

Well done for having a camera with 40mm framelines Doug!

Dostacos, I use the 35mm framelines on my Bessas (50mm for closeup). On the M2, with my glasses I just use what I can see without straining - it works out remarkably well.

 

[CJP6008]

I would not fall over yourself to get a R3, esp if you wear glasses - you have to grind the thing into your face to see the 40mm frame lines and with glasses on - forget it!

 

[iandg]

40mm 35or50

40mm 35or50

I use the 35mm frame line with no problems,but i also have a 40mm viewfinder on the way for critical frameing and will eventually get a grey R3A when funds allow.

 

[Glenn2]

I shoot while wearing glasses and have a hard time seeing the 35mm lines in my M4. As a result I use the 50mm lines and frame a little tighter than usual. The 40mm f/1.4 is a damn fine lens, and have been using it more than my old pre-asph 35mm Lux. Great for available darkness shooting......

Here's a shot at f/1.4 and 1 second, handheld.... Was resting my elbows on a wall for a little extra support. Film was 400asa Fuji.

Glenn

 

[Doug]

Well done for having a camera with 40mm framelines Doug!

Yeah, Kully, I know the choices are few... R3x of course, the Leica/Minolta CL, and my favorite CLE. Just got a second CLE largely for its easily seen 40mm framelines with .6x finder magnication, meaning that the 28mm framelines are easy to see as well. Perfect. 😀

I really like the 40mm focal length, with the 40 Rokkor, 40 Nokton, 43 Pentax-L for the RFs, plus a 40 Ultron for Pentax SLR. Very natural and versatile, especially when partnered with a 28.

 

[oscroft]

I've been pondering the same question for a little while (I don't actually have an interchangeable 40mm lens, but I probably will before the year is out - I really like my fixed-lens RFs with lenses around that length), and had decided it would be between exactly those first three options. I've actually just bought a cheap Leica CL that hasn't arrived yet, and if it turns out to be OK I'll use that with my eventual 40. But I went for option 3 anyway ("Buy an R3A") because that is the one that would give me the most pleasure (and one I might still go for - a 1.0 viewfinder would also be a very desirable option to go with my current 0.52 and 0.72 viewfinders) 😀

 

[Olsen]

This 40 mm 1,4 seems like a practical proposition. It is flat and compact and very fast. But how is the opical qualities? What I have heard,- correct me if I am wrong, is that the 40 mm 1,4 has been tested by Sean Reid and have been found to have a rather mediocre optical quality. One of the poorest for the Leica M system.

Comments..?

 

[sirius]

The only negatives that I have heard about it is that the bokeh is not very attractive and there are the above frameline & M8 coding issues.

 

[PetarDima]

As people said before 35mm frame ... and 50mm for closeup

 

[kully]

Unattractive bokeh for one person is lovely for the next...

For me, if I could keep only one lens of the ones I own - it would be this one (50/2 Heliar, 50/1.5 Nokton, 35/2.5, J-8. I-61, I-22, summitar...).

It's small, _I_ think it's fine for 12x8 enlargements, may be it is a little too sharp and the bokeh _can_ be a little harsh (for me) if it is wide open with a certain type of background.

You can't really get an idea of a lenses qualities in web images, but you can get a good idea of the bokeh it produces, have a butchers in the gallery and see if you like it.

 

[weser]

Here's a question. How would you code the 40/1.4????

Sean Reid is recommending to code it like a Noctilux 50/1, since going as a 35mm might cause overcorrecting.
But why as a Nocti? Wouldn't make the code for the 50/1.4 summilux more sense???
Just wondering...


thanks.