summicron 40 vs summicron 35

Funnlly enough, I was comparing the 40 Summi C against my 35 V3 about an hour ago, on my R-D1. The 40 fits the R-D1s '35mm' framelines like a glove, and is at least as good quality if not better, so I'm seriously contemplating ditching the 35.
 
Paul T. said:
I'm seriously contemplating ditching the 35.
Click to expand...


...seriously contemplating ditching the 35, and I'm seriously contemplating getting a 35, hmmmm ;)

Todd
 
In my case I like fast for my main lens -35mm Lux Aspheric. The others I don't sweat so much. That is my determining factor.
 
hello,

i am very pleased with my summicron-c bought from a member here
it has a very nice color rendition to my eyes, and sharp without paining eyes; others might concern about its smallish size, might hinder action for big hands; and filters and hood are a problem, too

i found myself using less of the canon 35 since aquiring the summicron-c; it goes perfect with a CL, and when it is mounted on a bigger M i use the 50mm framelines without much problem

the 35 summicron is just too much money for me anyway
 
I recently opted for the Summicron 40mm on an M6, because I have always been fond of this length when working with my Rollei 35; fits my sense of perspective just perfectly.
 
I love the 40mm focal length. I have the 40mm M-Rokkor, which I generally use on an M3 (with the 50mm framelines obliterated). However, I have a slight preference for the 40mm/3.5 Tessar of the Rollei 35. The 40mm/2.4 Summarit (on the Minilux) is in a class by itself. It is magnificent.

Richard
 
I would say teh FLs are too close. Sounds like the fingerprint is similar for the lenses you mention. A 28 or 75 would be my buy if you dont have these FLs.
 
The Summicron/Minolta 40/2 CL is one of my favorite lenses ever. It has a tight profile (so it fits anywhere); the image quality is "old school" -- not super sharp, but with lots of personality with its beautiful bokeh.
 
I did test them, Mike (my 35 is v3) and they do behave very similarly. Beside the FOV difference,
the 35 is just a little bigger, but better built and goes down to .7m instead of .8. Feels nicer
for me, on an M2 for instance.

But then the CLE Rokkor is pretty much as well built as the 35 Summicron.

If money were no object, I would pick depending on the 50 that you use.
If you 50 is sharp and general purpose, add a 35. If you 50 is a portrait type
(like a Sonnar, or a Canon 50/1.2, etc), the 40 makes a better addition to
the set, IMO.

Roland.
 
Last edited:
I would go for a 28mm instead, if you don't already have one. I'm a fan of the 35mm Summicron (have V 1 and V 4), but if I already had a 40, I think I would go for a 28 or 24 in order to get some real versatility. While the step from 28 to 35 strikes some folks as too small to bother with (I don't agree) certainly the step from 28 to 40 is large enough to be worthwhile.
 
I use the 40mm CLE lens on my M7. In addition to all the praise for contrast, bokeh, etc. I also find the lens matches up perfectly with the 35mm bright frame lines. It matches so well, that I think I would be seriously frustrated with amount of "slop" trying to compse with the 35mm lens.
You can easily have the lens modified to bring up the 35mm lines, or you can simply tape the frame selecter lever in the 35mm position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom