Jump to content

Doubt... 40 C or 35 Cron IV? Long trip, Leica M6 and...


bruniroquai

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That's my main concern...

 

I'm reducing my gear to one camera, two lenses or one lens.

 

I'm planning do a long trip in September, going to Cuba or South India, don't know still.

 

I have a Leica m6 with the 0.85x which I find very pleasant for my 50 summarit 1.5 but I don't know if the 35 cron pre asph IV which I have is much better than the 40 C, or is better to keep the 40 C and sell the Cron..

 

There is any optical and quality difference between them? How accurate would be the 35 framelines or the 50 framelines with my 0.85x viewfinder?

 

Thank You very much to all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would rule out the closest focal lenghts and get rid the 40 mm lens if it has

to be. 35mm and 50mm are close enough, and each has it´s specific character which

you can easily see in your photos.

 

On the other hand, the 40mm is a splendid lens which would be an excellent backup

in case you want a VERY small package and you are not in a position to

decide between the other two ...

 

 

Best

GEORG

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I got the LEICA-SUMMICRON 50 and 35mm lenses, but quite often I grab the 40mm-lens

(a MINOLTA-ROKKOR specimen I got together with a CLE in the 70ies) and I´am always

surprised how good this tiny lens is.

 

It´s not as sturdy as the other lenses, but I decided not to let it go and I´am glad I didn´t.

 

 

Best

GEORG

Link to post
Share on other sites

A sensible decision.

 

Here we have a 40mm-shot, taken at f2.0, when I was too lazy to carry the other two around.

 

 

 

 

best

GEORG

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Considering the overall package the 35mm IV Cron is a much better lens.

I've posted a comparison between the two in the german forum.

Regardless the higher price I'd definitely choose the "real" cron over the "c-cron" in terms of sharpness, micro contrast and handling (the angular sun-shade is beautiful!).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the overall package the 35mm IV Cron is a much better lens.

I've posted a comparison between the two in the german forum.

Regardless the higher price I'd definitely choose the "real" cron over the "c-cron" in terms of sharpness, micro contrast and handling (the angular sun-shade is beautiful!).

 

Thanks!

 

I want it mostly for Neopan 400 and Ektar and Portra 160!

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Erwin Puts the quality difference between the two is minimal if any.

You must look for other considerations to decide. For instance the difference between a 50 mm lens and a 40 mm lens is so small that there is no rationale for carrying both on a long trip.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...I don't know if the 35 cron pre asph IV which I have is much better than the 40 C...

I have both lenses that i find very close but your 35mm framelines will be more accurate with the 40/2 at medium to long distance if you don't mind to file the flange of the latter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but.. I much prefer a lens which fix with the framelines.

 

I have this, the 35 IV, and a Summarit 50 1.5 which I Don't know if trade for the Sonnar 50..

I don't know if that trade would gain you very much. The Sonnar is a bit like a Summarit with more focus shift.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...