Nokton 40.14 SC vs Nokton 50/1.5

[5nap5hot]

I am looking to buy one of these lenses for my Leica M6 ... that i am buying shortly. I want a good low light lens for street photography. Does anyone have any experience with these lenses? They are about the same price...roughly. How much difference is there between them?

Thanks!

 

[MinorTones]

40mm lenses are strange to me, because not many cameras have frame lines for them...certainly not the M6.

I'd go with the 50 just so I don't have to guestimate or use an external finder. And the 1.4 or 1.5 thing seems negligible to me.

-Mitch

 

[Trius]

I've never tried to frame with a 40 using 50 framelines, but I would think (and others have confirmed here) that using the 35 framelines would be much easier.

I find 40 to be a great focal length, a perfect compromise between 50 and 35, and very close to human FOV. I'm considering the Bessa T and 40mm Nokton as my re-entry into M mount.

 

[Huck Finn]

Besides the obvious difference in focal length, the other key difference between these two lenses is the minimum focus distance, which is 3 feet for the 50/1.5 & 28 inches for the 40/1.4. Do you need to focus closer than 3 feet?

 

[5nap5hot]

I would hope I am not taking street photography shots at less than 3 ft. It kinda intrudes on the shot. lol

 

[Huck Finn]

If you're interested in test results, Popular Photography tested both of these lenses. The 40/1.4 scored better wide open & at the wider apertures generally (F/1.4 - f/2.8). The 50/1.5 scored better at mid apertures (F/4 - f/8). Both scored very well overall with the 40/1.4 having the edge in their tests. They called it "an instant classic." You can check their back issues for the reports.

These are two very different lens designs. The 50/1.5 is a modern design & uses an aspherical element. It seems to be designed for maximum sharpness. The 40/1.4 is a classic double-gauss design & seems to be diesigned to evoke more of the traditional look of the pre-aspherical era.

 

[Trius]

I would hope I am not taking street photography shots at less than 3 ft. It kinda intrudes on the shot. lol

Yeah, but that is a HUGE difference for me. Lots of times when shooting on the street I come across an architectural detail or other object that begs for close focus. Three feet just doesn't cut it for me.

 

[5nap5hot]

It seems the 40/1.4 is more versatile then

 

[BillBingham2]

Trying to cut down on size, I like the 40/1.4 because it's smaller. I have to admit, I do not have the 50/1.5 and doubt I would ever have one (unless I get an RD-1s). I'm just not a big 50mm fan.

I use the 40 as my main lens on my M6. I had it tweaked @ DAG to bring up the 35mm frame lines on my M6 and love it. It's fast, small and sharp. My main kit is a 15/4.5, 40/1.4 and 105/2.5. For me, it's the perfect all around lens.

The 50/1.5 just looks big to me. If I were not into small, I would go with a 35/1.2.

B2 (;->

 

[Huck Finn]

Have you seen this recent thread?

www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30185

In regard to the 40 being more versatile, well it depends on your point of view . . . . . Pun intended. 😀 Actually I was using 40 as my primary lens for a while, then I switched to 35, & now I'm using 50. But that's me. :bang:

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

There is a difference in size for one thing, the 40 is much more compact.

And this is very subjective, but I find the 50's OOF rendition wide open to be much more pleasant.

Both are very competent lenses.

 

[kneedropper]

Hei. I'm not saying this because I'm selling my 50/1.5 (I'm selling all my RF gear, poor me), but I had a 40 and sent it back because of its poor bokeh, like Tom notes. The 50 became my favorite instantly. Bigger, yes, better, also IMO.

 

[Sparrow]

The 50s nice, bit big but nice where it counts