New CV cameras and 40mm/1.4 lens!

[rover]

I should have paid closer attention to the red flower on the bottom right of that last one.

Have you ever seen a talking tree?

 

[Pherdinand]

"To date I have not cut off anyone's head" - well head not, but feet yes, Rover, both of them 😀 😉

PS: i discovered that it's very different to frame with my yashica GSN's finder than with an SLR or TLR. I was used to frame with the edge of the finder, not some vague framelines within the finder's field of view...
So, guess what... I nicely cut off some feet and other body parts 😉

 

[rover]

Good catch Pherdinand. That is user error I am sure more than the framelines. Positive reinforcement for me to keep my eyes open as to what is happening all over in my viewfinder.

In the first I am sure I was looking at the top and right of the finder, second I was looking left and the third top right and lower left to fit in the tree and the kids.

 

[peter_n]

I got a reply in another forum about the difference between the Classic and S.C. The theory (and I emphasize that it's a theory) is that some manufacturers multi-coat their lenses to mask optical design deficiencies in color transmission. However the optics are presumably identical in the case of the S.C. and the Classic.

Since I mostly shoot in B&W I wouldn't be too interested in differences in color transmission issues. But I would like to see test shots of both B&W and color side-by-sides 'cos I want to make sure...

 

[Huck Finn]

Peter, that may be true, but I think that various levels of coating are used to correct spherical aberrations that can't be corrected any other way. The planar is a much used design these days, but was not so before advances in the use of coatings because its aberrations could not be corrected any other way. Yet it is an excellent lens design - & once elements are coated, in many ways superior to lens designs that preceded its current use.

When I read Leicaphiles make such statements, I wonder what it means to "mask optical design deficiencies." Isn't the point to get high quality pictures? If that can be done with coatings, so what? All lenses have apherical aberrations which challenge lens designers. Corrections can be achieved in various ways & compromises are made in design to achieve the ultimate desired goals. Does it matter whether these goals are achieved through lens design or a combination of lens design & lens coating(s)?

 

[peter_n]

Does it matter whether these goals are achieved through lens design or a combination of lens design & lens coating(s)?

Not to me it doesn't, Huck Finn. Actually I think "mask optical design deficiencies" may be code for "Leica glass is godlike" but that's just my opinion.

I'm no nearer knowing how these two variants of the same lens differ in terms of their image reproduction... 🙁

 

[Pherdinand]

AFAIK, lens coating is part of the lens design. Today, at least.

 

[Huck Finn]

Peter, it sounds like an interesting question to pose on the CV Users Group since Stephen Gandy coordinates that & sometimes posts there. Good luck!

 

[rover]

Sounds like the Japanese Photo Mags will be the first to have a look at these lenses, and the distributors will be playing with them in 2 weeks. I don't think we will hear anything for a little while.

 

[peter_n]

Peter, it sounds like an interesting question to pose on the CV Users Group since Stephen Gandy coordinates that & sometimes posts there. Good luck!

Good idea. I'm not a member of that goup but I'm a Gandy customer so I sent him email. 🙂

 

[Huck Finn]

BTW, Peter, I thought I'd check on the cosina website to see what distinction they draw. Odd, but they don't even mention 2 different levels of coating.

 

[Huck Finn]

Interesting indeed. I wonder how it compares to other 40s? I haven't seen the dimensions of the f2 Leica C or Minolta Rokkor CLE, but they are both very compact, and that is only 1 stop slower than the new CV 40. Perhaps there is something to the 40mm focal length, closeness to "normal," that allows optical engineers to design more compact lenses?

Rover, I stumbled across the length of the Leica 40 Summicron-C. It is 23.5 mm - almost identical to the CV 35/2.5P II! To keep it to that length with an extra half stop . . . good job, Leica. I thought that the Minolta 40 Rokkor is essentially the same lens. I know that it was based on the same Leica design.

 

[peter_n]

BTW, Peter, I thought I'd check on the cosina website to see what distinction they draw. Odd, but they don't even mention 2 different levels of coating.

Interesting. Well, Stephen wrote back to say that all he knows is already on the web page. So that's that... 🙁 At least he's prompt with the replies!

 

[GeneW]

Peter, I use my 40/2 CLE with the 35mm frame lines of my R2. To date I have not cut off anyone's head or missed my target, so I would say it works really well.

Same here. I use my 40mm Summicron-C with the 35mm framelines of my R2. There's not much difference, so if you prefer or already have 35mm framelines but want a 40mm lens, go for it!

Gene

 

[Gerold]

Gene - when you're using the 35mm framelines for the 40mm - do you actually compose using EXACTLY the 35mm framelines, or do you guesstimate, using "imaginary" 40mm framlines? Cheers Gerold

 

[rover]

Gerold, I have used the actual 35mm framelines.

 

[GeneW]

Like Rover, I use the actual (exact) 35mm frame lines for composing. It's so close to 40mm I don't notice any difference in the final image. The worse that could happen is that I would need to crop a tiny bit.

Gene

 

[Gerold]

Rover, Gene - thanks - your answers add a point to the R2A-score. If the 40mm is easily manageable via the 35mm brightlines, then there's little advantage in the 40mm brightlines of the R3A - plus the R2A will play well with 35mm lenses ... which is likely less true for the R3A. But then again, this 1.0-finder ... and my strong preference for 45 and 50 mm lenses ... these will do superbly on the R3A ... a tendency emerging here ? Could be.

 

[Huck Finn]

Gerold, a 35 mm lend should have even less of a problem with 40mm framelines than the other way around. The 35 mm lens will take in more than the 40mm framelines show, so there is absolutely no danger of cutting something out of your picture. If more precise framing is desired in a given situation, the outer edges of the viewfinder become your fallback alternative.

As an example, I use a 75 mm lens with 80mm framelines on my Rollei with no problem, knowing that I can frame it very tightly & will still have a little extra leeway.

For precise framing, an SLR is the way to go.

 

[Gerold]

Huck - that's helpful. Some getting used to it, some test shooting, and the 35mm lens will be happily manageable by the 40mm brightlines ... or the finder frame. I guess there IS a tendency ... it's gonna have a 3 on it !