Which 1.4? 35 or 40?

T

toksuede

Established
Local time
9:14 PM
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
73
Hello there.

I just bought my first ever RF (thanks Aaron) and it's a Zeiss Ikon. I did have a Contax G2, but you know what I mean. :)

Now I'm pondering which lens to get and since money is always short, I've narrowed it down to these two compact ones (don't want anything big):

35mm 1.4 Nokton
40mm 1.4 Nokton

Coating is not really imporant for me...

My evil plan is to use it with a iso 400-800 BW film and fully open. Ah and I will be shooting football (sometimes soccer).

I think the 5mm difference in focal length is negligible and if I use the 35mm, I can use the frame thing insdie the viewfinder, but with the 40mm, I need to file it down (so says the internet) so I can use it with the 50mm frameline.

Sharpness and contrast are the characteristics I'm looking for.

Any advise, opinion, or random comments will be appreciated.

Ryu
 
Thanks Jon.
So, is the 35mm frameline easier to see with the 40 1.4?

Have you used the 40 1.4?

I do keep on tellin myself that the extra 5mm won't make that much of a difference, but part of me is telling me that it will.

But at the same time, I like shooting wide for football...
 
It depends whether you like wide angle or not.
I have the Bessa R3A and I bought the 1.4/40 Nokton with it. Next lens was the CV 25mm with external viewfinder which I find very useful and the 75mm which I use much less often. I also have the 15mm but that's not much used. Great when you want it, but it's a special purpose lens.
Now I also have the R4A. For it I got a 35mm and an external viewfinder for the 75, so I can swap and change lenses, films, viewfinders in almost any combination. I also have a Leica Summitar 2/50 which (with and LTM-M adaptor) I can use on either camera if i want.
In your case, I'd be thinking 35mm and 50mm, rather than the 40.
 
Thank Juan and jon.

Since the 17-35 on the D3 is my goto lens, I feel the difference between 17 to 24 is greater than 24 to 35. Thus my logic was that 35 to 40 won't be that big of a difference...

But it's also very true that whenever I shoot with the 35, I do feel it's a bit too short.

Mmm...

So multicoat is better and does it reduce flare by a lot?
 
I don't have the 35 but do own the 40 (in the SC version). The 35mm has the very obvious advantage that there is actually a frameline for it in most cameras; 40mm is more of an oddball focal length! As for the compact size; yes, it is handy but yes, I do have a number of shots with a finger in the frame because of it. I do need to get a hood for it.
 
Leigh:

I LOVE wide angle. But if I want to use anything wider than 35mm, I would need an external viewfinder on the ZI, no?

As much as I want to swap lenses on the ZI, for the time being (and me being lazy and clumsy), I'm going to have to stick with one lens. What I'm not really convinced is that the focal length of 40mm is neither long or wide...
 
StaalesS:

Yes, the 40mm is a weird length. Now I'm telling myself that 35 is a better option.

And I don't want too many fingers in my shots. :)
 
toksuede said:
Leigh:

I LOVE wide angle. But if I want to use anything wider than 35mm, I would need an external viewfinder on the ZI, no?

As much as I want to swap lenses on the ZI, for the time being (and me being lazy and clumsy), I'm going to have to stick with one lens. What I'm not really convinced is that the focal length of 40mm is neither long or wide...
Click to expand...

The ZI has framelines for 28, and if you use the whole VF, it approximates 25 (although I prefer being able to see outside the framelines--it is one of the things that is cool about RF viewing).
 
toksuede said:
Leigh:

I LOVE wide angle. But if I want to use anything wider than 35mm, I would need an external viewfinder on the ZI, no?

As much as I want to swap lenses on the ZI, for the time being (and me being lazy and clumsy), I'm going to have to stick with one lens. What I'm not really convinced is that the focal length of 40mm is neither long or wide...
Click to expand...

I _like_ 40mm as a focal length, myself. It's just the practicality of it that bothers me a bit :p
 
StaaleS said:
I _like_ 40mm as a focal length, myself. It's just the practicality of it that bothers me a bit :p
Click to expand...

I think you need to look beyond the moment and decide what lenses you would like to have either side of the 35 or 40. It's probably the differences between what you get now and what you get as later additions that will end up being more important than the differences between 35 and 40. I could live with a 28 instead of the 25, but in that case I'd probably pick a 50 and a 90 as my other lenses. A 28 is far too close to a 35 in my view, so if you don't want to go to 25 and an external viewfinder on the ZI then the 40 is probably a more logical choice for your first prime lens, followed by a 28 and maybe the 75.
 
Okay, I just convinced myself that the 40mm is not a good focal length for me.
I was never too crazy about the 50mm (too restrictive) and I feel that the 40mm will make me feel that it's somewhere inbetween....

....so should I even consider the 28 2.0?
 
I'd like to have the 50mm to shoot portraits for work and 25mm for an actual wide lens.

I think the problem here is that I can't picture (no pun intended, none at all) what the 40mm will give me.
 
The 40mm focal distance is pretty close to the old Leitz 35mm's, like the Summaron 35mm f/2.8 and the Summicron 35mm f/2 (first type, 8 elements). These lenses have a real focal length of about 38mm. Therefore, a 40mm Nokton should work great on an M2 with the 35mm frame activated. I haven't tried this combination myself, but maybe someone who reads this, has.

Erik.
 
The fact is that there's no difference in picking one normal lens. 35-40-50. Closest to "normal" is the 40mm. You'll be able to get from it a normal view, and also some "close to tele" portraiture, and some "close to wide" landscape.

What I meant before (previous post) is that even if you buy a 35mm you'll soon feel it isn't wide, at all! And believe me: you'll need a wide one.

So my recommendation was not to take the decision thinking that a 35 will be wide enough... No matter if you buy a 35, a 40 or a 50, that one will be just your normal lens.


Cheers,

Juan
 
Have you taken into account that the 35 is much more expensive than the 40? I have owned both and there is more difference in field of view than I expected.
 
Reason in part is that 40mm focal length is considered THE sweet spot by designers: they can make, precisely in that focal length, lenses being several things at the same time, all of them important, without sacrificing other ones: sharp, small, very fast, light, contrasty, and flare free, to name a few. That's why when Leica decided to make a great small camera to sell in a massive way, they designed the CL with the Rokkor 40mm. They did succeed so much that their other models sales were dangerously touched...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Juan: I know the 35mm isn't going to be wide enough, but I'm not looking for a wide lengs as my first lens. Rather, I'm looking for whichever one will be better for what I intend to do (read op).

If there are no discernible difference between the two except for the focal length, I'm leaning a lot to the 35...

Kshapero: Yes, I know it's 200 dollars more, but I would rather go for the one I want now rather than regretting later...
 
toksuede said:
Juan: I know the 35mm isn't going to be wide enough, but I'm not looking for a wide lengs as my first lens. Rather, I'm looking for whichever one will be better for what I intend to do (read op).

If there are no discernible difference between the two except for the focal length, I'm leaning a lot to the 35...

Kshapero: Yes, I know it's 200 dollars more, but I would rather go for the one I want now rather than regretting later...
Click to expand...
I ended up going for the CV 35/1.2 just a superb lens, then added the CV 35/2.5 as a light daytime lens. Strange combo but works for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom