Abram Posted March 19, 2018 Share #61 Posted March 19, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) Welll ... those are all very different lenses. The Nikon 45/2.8 is a 4 elements in 3 groups Zeiss Tessar (1), not really sharp until f/8. The Voigtländer Ultron 40mm f2 SL is a modern lens - 6 elements in 5 groups, 1 aspherical. The Pentax is something in the middle - 7 elements in 6 groups, but its kind of very soft at the borders (1): Due to the relatively small number of just six air to glas surfaces, the Tessar was very popular lens design before the invention of lens coating. It was so extremely important to Zeiss that the Zeiss logo was for a long time that of the double element group of the Tessar - apparently its sometimes even used today. Once lens coating was invented though everybody quickly switched to the much sharper Planar and Sonnar designs instead. German link about that: https://www.zeiss.de/corporate/geschichte/firmengeschichte/das-zeiss-logo.html - Even people who cant speak german can still see the many Zeiss logos formed of the backside double lens element group of the Tessar. My Nikon 45/2.8 is sharp at all the apertures, on APS-C cameras at least. It is one of my favorite lenses but i'm in love with the Tessar design so i'm not impartial . BTW the Elmar-M 50/2.8 is a Tessar design as well and is at least as sharp as the Nikon, both with little flare and smooth bokeh, other features of Tessar lenses since 1902 or so AFAIK. As LCT mentioned the later version of the Nikon 45mm is actually quite good at all apertures. I found it to be far better than my earlier GN-Nikkor version. I don't have mine anymore as I sold off my last SLR but it's definitely a good lens. That being said, I know I said earlier that I was griping about 40mm on an M but I'm going to give it a go with the M-Rokkor 40mm. It's one of those lenses that has a really nice rendering and I figure it's worth trying out. I do use 35 and 50mm but I am primarily a 35mm shooter. I happen to quite like 40mm as I feel it gives the most natural perspective to how I see the world and it pairs really well with a wide like a 21mm. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 19, 2018 Posted March 19, 2018 Hi Abram, Take a look here 40mm on the M - what am I not getting?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
friedeye Posted March 21, 2018 Share #62 Posted March 21, 2018 I'm one of those people who finds 50mm generally too long, and 35mm generally too wide. I do, primarily, street photography and document my family. Bought a Nokton 40 1.4 for my M9, filed the flange so the 35mm frame lines would come up, and have never looked back. It's the goldilocks frame for me. I also appreciate and use the wide aperture, as I shoot a lot of film and interiors; that extra stop is helpful. I also own and use a pre-asph Lux 35 - very similar, as the Nokton, I believe, is a lux knock-off with modern coatings. But the lux focuses to 1 meter -- the CV 40 to .7 -- which, when shooting family, can make a difference. And, again.... I always seem to be wanting to crop the frames I shoot with the Lux. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milko Posted March 24, 2018 Share #63 Posted March 24, 2018 (edited) I have the 40mm Rollei HFT 2.8 sonnar, CLE Rokkor f2 , and CV Nokton 1.4 which I use on a Rollei 35RF, Bessa 3A and M4-P or 6. All have their strong points but I'm about to start thinning the herd. At this point, I think I will be keeping the Rokkor only. And picking up an M3. Your mileage may very well vary! Edited March 24, 2018 by Milko Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.