Focal length question: 40mm vs 35 & 50

[Mr.Q]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I recently sold my 35/1.4 FLE and 50/0.95 Noctilux and replaced them with a 40/1.2 Nokton. The rendering is fantastic with a 3D pop that rivals the Leica's. Love that it can focus down to 50cm. I came out with over $10k and a lighter bag as well. No regrets.

[AceVentura1986]

And also one day you'll want a 50mm and a 35mm and these are far enough apart to make a big difference in view, and then worry the 40mm is too close to either and makes a smaller difference in view. As the datum point I'd go with a 35mm lens (maybe if on a budget the 35mm Nokton f/1.4) knowing then the next lens will be a 50mm, then a 28mm, and so on, leapfrogging between longer and wider.

 

And that’s ultimately why I’ve never gotten a 40 for my Leica, as I own both a 35 and a 50. He spread on my Canon system is now 28, 40, 50, and 85. The Leica, tho, would be too narrow a spread to justify the cost.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[adan]

There's a certain amount of historic contingency surrounding the 40mm focal length.

 

In theory, it is a closer approximation to the correct "normal" focal length for a 24 x 36mm picture (theory being that "normal" = "diagonal of the image on film" = 43.2mm for 24x36). But for whatever reason, Leitz/Barnack/Berek settled on 50mm back in 1925 (contingency 1). Most other 35mm-camera-makers followed suit.

 

Yet by the 1950s-60s, something closer to "40mm" was being adopted as normal for fixed-lens consumer rangefinders - Petri (45mm) Canonet/Olympus/Konica (38mm), etc.

 

Leica's first 40mm was for the CL, which was partly aimed at that "compact P&S RF" market. But since it used the M-mount, it had to be fitted into the existing (contingency 2) set of three M framelines 35/50/90. The 40 needed to use either 35 or 50mm framelines if used on a regular M, and Leica always had a horror of people unintentionally cutting off something important in a picture, and someone might want to mount their existing 50mm on the CL, so they chose to "key" the 40mm to show 50mm lines (and designed the CL's viewfinder to show both 40 and 50 lines at once).

 

Come the M4-P in 1982, with 28mm framelines squeezed in, and the 35mm lines reduced in area a mm or two to make room (contigency 3) - and suddenly the 35mm lines were a better match for a 40mm, at longer subject distances. But by that time, Leica's 40's were all assigned to show 50mm lines.

 

Along comes Cosina/Voigtlander with their first 40mm in the 2000's, and it would have made most sense to build that lens to bring up 35mm lines. But someone just might want to use their lens on a CL, so they stayed with Leica's original plan. (contingency 4)

 

And then (contingency 5) Leica "adjusted" their own digital framelines to be a bit wider again (M8.2? M9P? - set to be most accurate at 2m (maybe even 2.5m on the M10), instead of minimum focus of 0.7m)

 

All in all, both Leica and Cosina did what seemed like "a good idea at the time." And then times changed....

Edited August 27, 2018 by adan

[ktmrider2]

I wrote a longer reply earlier so I will keep this short.  Of the seven M mount lenses in the closet (25 to 135), my absolute favorite is the 35f2.8 C Biogon from Zeiss.  I know it is not on your list but it was suggested earlier you might want to look at other manufacturers.  It is small and light and great for my favorite type of photography (travel).  Cost is about the same as the lenses you listed and I own a couple Zeiss, a couple Voightlander and a couple Leica so I am not slavishly devoted to one company.

 

However, the three lenses you listed are all great.  

[sblutter]

Just switched back to Leica so this will be the first lens purchase. 

 

I mostly shoot street and landscapes...been thinking about getting into the brick wall genre, but I want to keep my goals and expectations somewhat in reach

If that's most of your shooting, I'd be thinking 35 or 28

[lct]

[...] And then (contingency 5) Leica "adjusted" their own digital framelines to be a bit wider again (M8.2? M9P? - set to be most accurate at 2m (maybe even 2.5m on the M10), instead of minimum focus of 0.7m)

All in all, both Leica and Cosina did what seemed like "a good idea at the time." And then times changed....

 

Indeed the Summicron-C & M-Rokkor 40/2 were my favorite compact "35mm" lenses before the M8.2. The flange of my samples was filed to bring up 35mm framelines that i found more accurate than with real 35mm lenses then, at long to medium distance at least. Great match with Epson R-D1 & R-D1s as well. My M8.2 and M240 put an end to that adventure though due to their VF being set to be accurate at 2m instead of 1m previousy. This new setting was welcome for all my M lenses but the 40/2's that i found inaccurate with both 50mm and 35mm framelines to the point that i don't use them on rangefinders anymore since the M8.2. They gained a new life on mirrorless cameras though fortunately.  

[Gregm61]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The 35mm f1.7 CV Ultron VM is as good as it gets from a 35mm focal length perspective. I just wish it was 6 bit coded. I want the FL listed in the EXIF data and HATE having to remember to manually code one lens (no M10, just an MP240, M262 and M246), then set the camera back to automatic for the other lenses in my system that are 6 bit coded, or risk having dozens and dozens of shots with the wrong FL because I left the camera coded as a 35/1.4 for the Ultron.

 

That said, of the 35's I own (35mm f2 ASPH, 35/1.4 FLE, f2.4 Summarit and the 35/1.7 Ultron), the Ultron is the overall better performer when it comes to sharpness and contra-light performance. Against the light the 35mm f2 ASPH is a flaring fool and the 35 FLE frames often wind up with the little crescent-shaped flare "signature". The 35/1.7 Ultron rarely exhibits flare. I have seen some in 1-2 images I guess where the light hit it just right but for the most part it just works against the light with no issues. 

Edited August 27, 2018 by Gregm61

[lct]

Sharpie hand coding of current CV and ZM lenses is not difficult thanks to a recessed part in the flange of the lens. Only problem is recognition of the lens by the camera eventually. The CV 21/4 is recognized as Elmarit 21/2.8 pre-asph on both my M240 and CL for example. No problem with ZM 50/1.5 coded as Summilux 50/1.4 pre-asph either. I have no experience about hand coding of 35/1.7 or 50/1.5 CV lenses though.

[250swb]

Sharpie hand coding of current CV and ZM lenses is not difficult thanks to a recessed part in the flange of the lens. Only problem is recognition of the lens by the camera eventually. The CV 21/4 is recognized as Elmarit 21/2.8 pre-asph on both my M240 and CL for example. No problem with ZM 50/1.5 coded as Summilux 50/1.4 pre-asph either. I have no experience about hand coding of 35/1.7 or 50/1.5 CV lenses though.

 

Respecting the aforesaid CV 40mm 1.4 this can't be coded to register the lens automatically because there is a screw on the flange that gets in the way (unless CV have modified this in recent years).

[lct]

Respecting the aforesaid CV 40mm 1.4 this can't be coded to register the lens automatically because there is a screw on the flange that gets in the way (unless CV have modified this in recent years).

 

The current CV 40/1.4 has a recessed part for 6-bit coding and no screw getting in the way AFAIK.

[thedwp]

here are a couple of quick snaps. one from the CV40 1.2 and the CV50 1.5.

 

No editing or cropping on either. 

 

Why would there be moire on the 50 and not the 40? 

 

Maybe this is a dumb question but wouldn't that be a sensor thing vs a lens?

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/142276283@N04/43601370264/in/dateposted-public/

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/142276283@N04/43601371624/in/dateposted-public/

[jaapv]

Both show strong moiré, one shows colour aliasing as well. A matter of matching of frequencies.

[lct]

[...] Why would there be moire on the 50 and not the 40? [...]

 

The 40 looks softer.

[Lonescapes]

50 F2 (Summicron or Zeiss ZM) and be there. I use 35 and 40 more, but the percentage of keepers is always highest with the 50.

[Jon Warwick]

Both show strong moiré, one shows colour aliasing as well. A matter of matching of frequencies.

Genuinely interested here, hopefully not too off topic - in the image that you says shows both (which one?), can you point out what is Moire and what is colour aliasing?

 

Are they caused by the same thing, and are some lenses better at avoiding Moire and / or colour aliasing?

 

I’m really interested because for landscapes (in particular), if there are fine rocks in the far distance, I often see something that looks like “colourful coarse pepper” (mainly oranges and blues) that is scattered into the image, so I’m trying to figure out if it’s moire or colour aliasing!

 

Thanks for any pointers.

[Ko.Fe.]

50 F2 (Summicron or Zeiss ZM) and be there. I use 35 and 40 more, but the percentage of keepers is always highest with the 50.

I had Zeiss ZM 50 2, no focus shift and this is all good I could say about it. No, neutral bokeh and sharp as well. For the rest it just not Leica lens, IMO.

Summicron is too wide prescription. I had collapsible, Rigid and VI. Nothing beats collapsible on BW film, IMO and Rigid, IV are two different lenses on digital.

[stephengv]

I highly recommend the 35mm. I also own a 50 and 28mm. The 35 is a compromise between a "wide" and a  short "tele" lens. The 35 is a good travel lens. Its very versatile, it can capture landscapes, documentary and portrait. 

 

The 50mm has a very shallow depth of field compared to the 35mm. So when shooting snap shots of family, the depth of field of the 35 is an advantage over the 50 when shooting indoors of family events. 

[jaapv]

I would hardly call a 35 mm a tele lens

[thedwp]

Decision made. The 40’s going back. I like the size and the ‘idea’ of an in-between FL. I’m not fond of the rendering, to warm (reds and oranges) for my taste, and it’s not as sharp as I thought (could be this particular lens)...So it’s going to be me and the 50 for a while.

 

Thanks for all your comments and advice.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[anachronist]

 

I'm in the process of considering ONE of three lenses, all Voightlander (This is more about focal length vs the brand): 

 

- 35mm/1.7 Ultron

- 50mm/1.5 Nokton

- 40mm/1.2 Nokton

 

If you had to choose only one of these which would it be?

 

 

I think it depends what finder magnification you have unless you use live view – then it's purely a matter of personal preference.

I've used the 40mm Nokton 1.4 with a M3 (.91x) finder for a time and found that the 40mm covers the full finder view (outside the frame lines) quite nicely.

A one-lens-quiver for me mostly means 35mm. I do like the combination of 28 & 50mm though.

I'm not familiar with the quality and rendering characteristics of any of the lenses you mentioned, so can't speak to that.

Good luck with your decision.