pagpow
Well-known
Don't mean to hijack this thread, but I'd be interested in why you have both Rokkor and Nokton 40s. I also have both because I wanted to compare them and am starting to think about whether I should keep one or both.
Spavinaw
Well-known
Yes, the diagonal of the 24x36mm negative is about 43mm. This would be exactly right for a full frame 8x12 inch print. However, consider that lots of enlargements are printed on 8x10 inch paper. We are now only using only a 24x30mm part of the negative. And what's the diagonal of 24x30mm? It's 38.4mm. This is even closer to 40mm than 43mm. It seems 40mm just does the job either way you print!
If more cameras had 40mm framelines, the 40mm summicron would be priced at 2-3 times the price it is right now.
gliderbee
Well-known
I also have both; I first had the Nokton 40/1.4 and I used it filed down a bit to show the 35mm lines on my Hexar instead of the 50mm lines.
On the CL, it still "shows" the 40mm lines (it has no choice), but on the CLE I use now, it shows the 28mm lines, hence I bought another CL with the M-Rokkor attached, and I'm using that one now on my CLE. The second CL is up for sale now.
I can't really compare the lenses yet: I like the Nokton, but I got the Rokor so recently that I still have to finish my first roll of film with it. I do like the feeling, seize and weight of it though.
On the CL and CLE, the Nokton with hood attached obscures the second RF window slightly when focussing close, so in that situation, the RF patch only partially "works": the right-under half is more or less dark.
Stefan.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Well, one reason is probably that I'm a gearhead. Just wanted to try them both out. The Nokton is a stop faster, and I think a little sharper. The Rokkor is a little more compact, possibly a little more discrete for street work.
David Hughes
David Hughes
And don't forget the Olympus Trip 35 and the Ex USSR Cosmic Symbol both come in 40mm.
BTW, Leica have always recommended the f/2·8 35mm and 90mm for a classic and cheap outfit. So it would make sense to develop a lightweight two lens compact Leica and make the normal lens a Summicron at f/2.
Regards, David
BTW, Leica have always recommended the f/2·8 35mm and 90mm for a classic and cheap outfit. So it would make sense to develop a lightweight two lens compact Leica and make the normal lens a Summicron at f/2.
Regards, David
pagpow
Well-known
Thanks Stefan and Rob --
A lot of similarities here. I know we had a couple of threads in the past comparing these. I'd be interested in subjective comparisons of the several 40's, both in IQ and in handling.
Maybe we should start another thread for that.
Back, on thread I used to think a 40mm lens was a PIA and got some 35's. I had an M3 so I got an M2. Then I discovered that the 40 worked just fine full finder on an M3 and was a nice fit for the 35mm frame on the RD1 and more recent Leicas. That meant I could avoid auxiliary VFs, free up the money from an M2 -- and carry one lens, the 40, instead of two lenses, 35 and 50. All of that and I really liked the performance of the lens.
So did I take advantage of this and sell the M2, the 35s, and the 50s? Hey, would I be at RFF if I had done that? Not likely, but some of those will likely be offered up soon.
Thanks to everybody for the incredible sharing of info on this site.
Giorgio
Giorgio
A lot of similarities here. I know we had a couple of threads in the past comparing these. I'd be interested in subjective comparisons of the several 40's, both in IQ and in handling.
Maybe we should start another thread for that.
Back, on thread I used to think a 40mm lens was a PIA and got some 35's. I had an M3 so I got an M2. Then I discovered that the 40 worked just fine full finder on an M3 and was a nice fit for the 35mm frame on the RD1 and more recent Leicas. That meant I could avoid auxiliary VFs, free up the money from an M2 -- and carry one lens, the 40, instead of two lenses, 35 and 50. All of that and I really liked the performance of the lens.
So did I take advantage of this and sell the M2, the 35s, and the 50s? Hey, would I be at RFF if I had done that? Not likely, but some of those will likely be offered up soon.
Thanks to everybody for the incredible sharing of info on this site.
Giorgio
Giorgio
Bingley
Veteran
I've had similar thoughts: a 40/2 and 90 would be a nice lightweight kit for Bessa R3* or a Leica M. You could add a tiny 21, 25, or 28 if needed for really wide.
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
My Nokton 40 is good and I absolutely love the Canonet's lens, but 35mm seems a better focal length, somehow -- just a wee bit wider. The 40 is like a cross between a normal and WA lens, being both and neither at the same time. Will I continue to use it? Sure. Why not? The Nokton and Canonet lenses are both knock-your-socks-off good.
akremer
Established
I've always thought it was to cut out the need to own a 35 and a 50.
Same with my G2s 45mm I guess.
Same with my G2s 45mm I guess.
There's no doubt the 45 Planar-G is a great lens, but it's "long" for its nominal focal length, at 56.9mm according to the Contax specs.
I think most lenses vary from their nominal focal length and f/stop designations, but it's not so common to see the true numbers published. I feel that the 40 Nokton is a little longer than the Rokkor, maybe around 42mm, as I have the Pentax-L 43mm to compare as well (assuming it's actually 43mm).