Subsitute???...40mm for 35mm

P

photobizzz

Speak of the Devil
Local time
8:24 AM
Joined
Sep 15, 2007
Messages
538
Location
Eagle River, AK (Anchorage Area)
View My Gallery
Thinking of exchanging my CV 35/1.7 for a 40mm M-Rokkor or CV 40/1.4....

Am I going to miss the change in FOV?

I am trying to minimize my kit and the R3A has the 40mm frame lines, not that I couldnt just adjust for the bit larger frame in my head. My next wider lens is a CV 21/4 and I have nothing in between (ie 25 or 28) so I am hesitant to make the switch. However from what I have read and the sample photographs I have seen on the net the 40mm M-Rokkor is a pleasure to use, and is one sharp lens with a beautiful bokeh signature.

I have read a few threads here of RFF that address this issue in a way but was looking for someone who has made this switch and is willing to share their thoughts on why they did or did not like their decision.
 
Exchanged CV lenses

Exchanged CV lenses

I had the CV 35 lens briefly but quickly exchanged it for the 40/1.4. I wear glasses and it was too hard to see the 35 frame lines. Now... with the 40, I feel more comfortable that the viewfinder is showing me a good approximation of the the 40mm FOV. By the way, the 40 produces lovely images, and the little bit of extra speed doesn't hurt for indoor and evening shots. I also have the 25/4P lens.
 
I'm interested in others opinions on this too. I'm interested in possibly switching 35 for 40 because of a combination of price, speed and size. I just have no way of giving my self some time comparing the two FL's.

However, I've heard the CV is probably actually a little longer than 40, and longer than the rokkor or cron. That puts me off the CV a little, and the rokkor and cron don't interest me; it's not enough difference in speed for me to switch from my 35.
 
I think the world divides into those who view 40 as a narrow wideangle, and those who treat it as a wide standard. I fall into the latter camp. For me it fills a number of slots. It is my fastest lens, and means I don't have a 35 or 50 'lux. It is a compact travel lens, even with the vented hood, and is quick to snap into focus. It is great for street photography, using the 50 framelines as it gives you some margin for error. I like the bokeh (YMMV) and generally consider it my "desert island" lens. In pairing terms, I find it goes well with a 90. 35, on the other hand, I tend to pair with a 75.

Regards,

Bill
 
I gave up both my 50 and 35 for the 40mm Nokton and I've been very pleased.
There isn't a huge difference in fov.
I also appreciate the 40mm Nokton's closer focusing.
 
When I had the 40 Nokton and an M6TTL, I found the 35 framelines were nearly a perfect match from 10ft. to infinity. Anything within 6ft. and I cheated about halfway to the 50 framelines. I'm not sure how the 40 matches up to the framelines in the older M's.
 
I looked at a several links and could not find any reference to this lens being incorrectly marked. Do you have the link? Was it way off like 43mm, or just a 40.5?
Click to expand...

Its not incorrectly marked as such its just that sometimes lens manufacturers round up or down a few mm so that it appears as a focal length that you commonly find. The Voigtlander 40 is in fact 43mm and the 40mm Summicron/Rokkors are 39.7mm.
 
I owned the Nokton and the Rokkor at the same time and while I didn't do a 'scientific' back to back test, I saw nothing in my use that showed they were nearly 4mm apart in focal length. I used the 35 framelines of the M6TTL to frame both lenses, as a matter of fact.
 
I completly agree with Fred. There is a big difference in using a 40/2 Summicron-C
and the Nokton for instance. Almost 10% loss in frameline coverage, around 20%
in area. Here is an example of a Nokton shot:

228196599-M.jpg


Taken with your lens, Kevin, BTW.

I wish the tree on the right was just a little more inside the frame ....

.) it depends on which body you use. The Bessa R2* and Leica M6 and up are easy to
use with 40, the 35mm framelines are very conservative. 40mm works safely from 3m onwards.
.) the M2 (and I would guess M4 as well) works much better with 35.
.) You should think of the R3a 40mm framelines like 50mm framelines on an M2 or M3.

There is also the question of minimum distance. The Ultron focuses down
to .9m, the 40 Nokton to .7m. Makes the Nokton much easier to use for
shallow DOF portraits.

For me it also depends which other lenses I use. 40 works well with 28, for instance.

These days I use 40 to replace a 35/50 combo. The big advantage of the 40/2s is that
they are so tiny. Focus down to .8m, BTW.

In the end you use a lens long enough, you get used to it.

Roland.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
Originally Posted by itf
However, I've heard the CV is probably actually a little longer than 40, and longer than the rokkor or cron. That puts me off the CV a little, and the rokkor and cron don't interest me; it's not enough difference in speed for me to switch from my 35.


I looked at a several links and could not find any reference to this lens being incorrectly marked. Do you have the link? Was it way off like 43mm, or just a 40.5?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'd just read it somewhere on here in a discussion. I'd really like to see shots taken from the same position with each lens to see what the difference actually is though. According to Ferider it seems the CV is actually a little narrower though which is a pity (for me).
 
I owned the Nokton and the Rokkor at the same time and while I didn't do a 'scientific' back to back test, I saw nothing in my use that showed they were nearly 4mm apart in focal length. I used the 35 framelines of the M6TTL to frame both lenses, as a matter of fact.
Click to expand...

I completly agree with Fred. There is a big difference in using a 40/2 Summicron-C and the Nokton for instance. Almost 10% loss in frameline coverage, around 20% in area. Here is an example of a Nokton shot:
Click to expand...

I own all of the 40's and as Ferider has pointed out when you use the Nokton you really Notice the tighter crop to your photos. The difference is more like 3mm, the review I originally read it on said it was 42 point something quite close to 43mm. The review that stated the actual focal lengths was a Japanese one that directly compared four 40mm lenses. The 2 Noktons, a Summicron and a CLE Rokkor although the link I have for the review no longer seems to work. I still have a copy another review of the Summicron and CLE Rokkor that state the 39.7 figure. They list in the reviews as "Stated focal length" and "Actual focal length" in separate columns . A figure of 43mm isn't that far fetched when you consider lenses like the Pentax 43mm lens, I think that Pentax were just more realistic in their statement. Leica used to stamp the actual focal length on the lenses barrels at one point on some lenses. I have seen a number of standard 50mm lenses listed as 52mm for their actual focal length. In the case of the CLE 28mm Rokkor it is 28.82 for the 28mm and the 90mm is 90.78 grant you the gap in the case of the Nokton is great but it certainly makes the lens more salable calling it a 40mm and its clearly visible when you using a Summicron/Rokkor side by side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

kxl
I WANT (not need) another 35mm lens.
2
Replies
27
Views
958
38Deardorff
38Deardorff
R
Where to get 3rd party lens hood for Canon Serenar 50mm f1.8?
Replies
9
Views
381
kodachrome25
K
R
Wide angle lens on M3?
Replies
19
Views
1K
ellisson
ellisson
aoresteen
FujiFilm Caps for 40mm filter Size Lenses
Replies
0
Views
108
aoresteen
aoresteen
gzisis69
Help with new street photography setup
Replies
3
Views
779
ddutchison2
ddutchison2
Back
Top Bottom