Is a 40mm lens the sweet spot?

kshapero

kshapero

South Florida Man
Local time
3:47 PM
Joined
Mar 27, 2006
Messages
10,044
Suddenly I hear more and more about the 40mm lens is the sweet spot and 50mm became the standard via an accident by Barnack in the 30's. My typical kit has been 21-40-90, although I am sneaking in the 75mm more and more. Others's thoughts? I almost consider 50mm as a very short tele these days.

40mm lens:

3337953334_b5d24dafab.jpg
 
Well, I prefer 40mm to 35mm on RF. I think I tend to regard 50mm as a short tele on an RF, but not on an SLR.
 
My #1 subject is portraits, and I gravitate to either 75 or 35 depending on what I want to emphasize.
But since I got a 28, it looks like the 28 may, if I learn to exercise care, supplant the 35. So that induced GAS between the 28 and 75, and of all the 40s available I decided to try the 40/2.8 Rollei Sonnar, largely because Huck Finn has great things to say about its use for candid portraits.

As far as 40s go, I remember Roland did a test comparing the summicron and the nokton sc, and I thought the nokton was better in virtually every category: flare, sharpness, color, and yes, bokeh.

I was tempted by mabelsound's reports on the Pentax 43/1.9, but it looks like an ergonomic elephant in LTM (mabelsound was using the SLR version), whereas the ergonomics of the Rollei are supposed to be really fine.

by the way, there is a silver Rollei Sonnar on ebay right at this moment:eek:!
 
Last edited:
noimmunity said:
My #1 subject is portraits, and I gravitate to either 75 or 35 depending on what I want to emphasize.
But since I got a 28, it looks like the 28 may, if I learn to exercise care, supplant the 35. So that induced GAS between the 28 and 75, and of all the 40s available I decided to try the 40/2.8 Rollei Sonnar, largely because Huck Finn has great things to say about its use for candid portraits.

As far as 40s go, I remember Roland did a test comparing the summicron and the nokton sc, and I thought the nokton was better in virtually every category: flare, sharpness, color, and yes, bokeh.

I was tempted by mabelsound's reports on the Pentax 43/1.9, but it looks like an ergonomic elephant in LTM (mabelsound was using the SLR version), whereas the ergonomics of the Rollei are supposed to be really fine.

by the way, there is a silver Rollei Sonnar on ebay right at this moment:eek:!
Click to expand...


Do you have any pics you could post from that Sonnar 40/2.8? I always wondered about that lens.

And as far as 40mm lenses go - I suppose all those RF cameras with fixed 40mm lenses (or about 40mm) cant be wrong! Nice all purpose FL I think.
 
For film AND digital (1.5x crop), I prefer 40mm. Just right on film, not as long as a 50 on digital (APS-C)... got 40mm (M and DA) pancakes for both my Pentax SLR and DSLR, while a 40/2 rokkor and VC 40/1.4 for my RF (RD-1).
 
Krosya said:
Do you have any pics you could post from that Sonnar 40/2.8? I always wondered about that lens.
Click to expand...

I haven't even received it in the mail (from Japan) yet.

Maybe I'll eventually get something worth showing here and post it so that people can have a look.
 
I prefer my 35mm and 50mm Summicrons to the 40 I used to use on a Minolta CL. Typical kits for me are 28-50 and 21-35.
 
Colman said:
Well, I prefer 40mm to 35mm on RF. I think I tend to regard 50mm as a short tele on an RF, but not on an SLR.
Click to expand...

Ditto...love the 40mm as a "normal lens" and the 50mm as a slight tele on a RF. And I agree that the 50mm is normal on an SLR.

Best regards,

Bob
 
For years I've been using a Rollei 35 which has a 40/2.8 Sonnar lens. I then tried a Minox 35 and found the 35mm lens too wide for normal use. It's probably a result of seeing the world through a 40mm frameline for so long.

Now, I still use the Rollei, a Bronica RF 645 and a Leica M. The normal lens on the Bronica is around 40mm in 35mm film equivalent, which I like (the wide angle lens is around 28mm in 35mm equivalent - also a favourite), so as Bob mentions above, I find a 50mm on a Leica seems like a short tele. If I'd started with a 50mm lens, my preference might have been different.

Steve
 
If I had to have only one lens it would be a 43mm 1.4 ... ;) Doesn't exist but I really think this would be the perfect focal for my photography... Right know I use the 35mm Lux on the M8, which is 46mm, I really miss a few degrees of angle of view nevertheless the 28mm (which gives 37mm) would be too wide.
 
For me it's the 50 because people look naturally placed in the perspective it creates (closest to how the eye sees). OK, one often feels too close and can't get enough in (the short tele) but with a 40 I always feel too far away. I'd like to try a 35. And I also once had a Rollei with a fixed 40 which was great.
 
I don't actually know why is the normal lens defined by the diagonal of the film frame/sensor, but that nevertheless is the definition. Also according to the wikipedia page.

Anyway, that diagonal is 43mm, so a 45mm (for example the Contax G 45/2 Planar) is the closest manufactured, as far as I know. Furthermore, like it or not, a 40mm is actually more of a normal than a 50mm. 40mm is 7% off the "absolute normal", 50mm 16%.

The Wikipedia page suggests that 50mm has become "the normal" mainly because of outer circumstances, not because its superior naturalness. Which is interesting.

All this of course assumes the "diagonal definition" of the normal lens. I'd still like someone to explane it in more detail.
 
noimmunity said:
My #1 subject is portraits, and I gravitate to either 75 or 35 depending on what I want to emphasize.
But since I got a 28, it looks like the 28 may, if I learn to exercise care, supplant the 35. So that induced GAS between the 28 and 75, and of all the 40s available I decided to try the 40/2.8 Rollei Sonnar, largely because Huck Finn has great things to say about its use for candid portraits.

As far as 40s go, I remember Roland did a test comparing the summicron and the nokton sc, and I thought the nokton was better in virtually every category: flare, sharpness, color, and yes, bokeh.

I was tempted by mabelsound's reports on the Pentax 43/1.9, but it looks like an ergonomic elephant in LTM (mabelsound was using the SLR version), whereas the ergonomics of the Rollei are supposed to be really fine.

by the way, there is a silver Rollei Sonnar on ebay right at this moment:eek:!
Click to expand...

where on ebay...can't find it.
 
Mike Johnston has an interesting article about the 40mm focal length here.

I sometimes use my Pentax DA40 on an autofocus 35mm film body, and find it excellent in use and gives excellent results, barring a softness in the corners wide open. I prefer 35 as my normal, and 50 feels like a tele, so 40 is a really good compromise.
 
Last edited:
Although 50 has been my normal lens, I'm coming to like 40 in certain situations. For street (as a "walking around" lens), for example, the slightly wider view is handy. But for me it's mainly the other qualities of the particular 40, a Rokkor-M for CLE: its sharpness and contrast, small size, f2 and the look it gives wide open. It's also the closest I'll get to a 35 summicron w/out having to pay 35 summicron prices. It's great on an R3A, and not too shabby on an M2 either.
 
i have long wanted to try a 40/2.8 rollei sonnar but never had the ready cash when one was available.

i loved the 40 rokkor on the cle, talk about an absolutely perfect pair!
 
75 lux

75 lux

the 75 is a wonderful focal length, both on the m8 as well as full frame.

i have an extra 75 lux if you are in need.
i agree that 40 is sweeter than 50, however i prefer my 35 on m8 to the 50 ff.

my 2c.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom