Jump to content

I finally 'get' the enthusiasm for the 40mm focal length


colint544

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, BradS said:

How can it be that 80mm on the 6x7 format is equivalent to 40mm on 135 format?

The aspect ratios are quite different (4:5 vs 2:3).

...unless one crops one format to make it have the aspect ratio of the other??

You're not wrong - the aspect ratios are different. Perhaps we shouldn't compare 35mm to medium format.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, colint544 said:

You're not wrong - the aspect ratios are different. Perhaps we shouldn't compare 35mm to medium format.

I don't know if one should or shouldn't. I just cannot work out how to do so in a manner that makes sense to me.

I do not do medium format but based on many years doing both 35mm and 4x5 (and a little 5x7 and 8x10), I've learned that even though the arithmetic works out, the look and feel is different. So, for example, based upn the arithmetic, one might reasonably expect 28mm on 135 format to be something akin to 90mm on 4x5,  in actual use and in un-cropped prints, the look and feel is not at all alike.

Edited by BradS
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, BradS said:

I don't know if one should or shouldn't. I just cannot work out how to do so in a manner that makes sense to me.

I do not do medium format but based on many years doing both 35mm and 4x5 (and a little 5x7 and 8x10), I've learned that even though the arithmetic works out, the look and feel is different. So, for example, based upn the arithmetic, one might reasonably expect 28mm on 135 format to be something akin to 90mm on 4x5,  in actual use and in un-cropped prints, the look and feel is not at all alike.

If I stand at my front window, the view over the city is dominated by a 26-storey residential tower block. I think it's a handsome building, but it stands on some rapidly appreciating real estate, so the council wants to demolish it, and replace it with cheap low-rise housing. Some people will become very wealthy off the back of this wheeze.

Anyway, if I point my Plaubel Makina 67, with its fixed 80mm lens, at this tower block and take a picture, I can only just get the whole building in the frame, There is only a small gap for sky at the top of the picture, and a small gap for Tarmac at the bottom. If I pick up my Canon EOS 1V, fitted with my newly-acquired EF 40 mm 'pancake' lens, the effect is precisely the same - I can just squeeze the tower block into the picture. The aspect ratio is slightly different so there is a little more to see in the picture at either side.

But, let's face it, the aspect ratio is a red herring here. If I had a Fuji 6x9 camera, the aspect ratio would be much more similar to that of 135 format. A Rolleiflex or Hasselblad with an 80mm lens would have an aspect ratio even further from that of 135mm format. You'd see less of the view either side of the tower block, but you'd still be able to - just - get it into the picture, top to bottom.

Ricoh have recently released a GR3x with a lens that's miles smaller than a 40mm. But they market the camera as having a '40mm equivalent' lens, and most of us understand what that means. If I had that camera to hand, I guarantee my picture of the tower block would look much the same as the one taken on the Plaubel, or on the EOS 1V.

My original post was really just explaining the route I took to arrive at the conclusion that 40mm lenses on 135 format are very useful. I never quite got it before, but now I do. A 40mm lens on 135 format is just barely a wide-angle lens. I've spent the past 18 months looking through the rangefinder of a Plaubel Makina 67, a camera fitted with a lens which is barely, minimally, a wide-angle, and have come to realise that it's a very pleasing (for me) angle of view. And, this being a Leica forum, I tied this reasoning to the Leica 40mm Summicron lens.

Aspect ratios, depth of field, quality of negative, look and feel, etc weren't my point, it was simply the angle of view. Regardless of the film/sensor size. And, as you say, the arithmetic works out.

 

If anyone would care to see this tower block, I have numerous views of it, and its colleagues here

Edited by colint544
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good stuff Colin. I love my 40mm and (as usual) can't resist a quick vote for the 40:2 Minolta Rokkor - same optics as the Cron but with more common 40.5 filters aswell as presumably updated coatings, being released with the CLE years later than the 40mm Cron/CL combo.

This was my entry point into M-mount and led to at least one of my Leica 35's later being underwhelming by comparison,  It's a fantastic lens  :D

Edited by grahamc
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, colint544 said:

If I stand at my front window, the view over the city is dominated by a 26-storey residential tower block. I think it's a handsome building, but it stands on some rapidly appreciating real estate, so the council wants to demolish it, and replace it with cheap low-rise housing. Some people will become very wealthy off the back of this wheeze.

Anyway, if I point my Plaubel Makina 67, with its fixed 80mm lens, at this tower block and take a picture, I can only just get the whole building in the frame, There is only a small gap for sky at the top of the picture, and a small gap for Tarmac at the bottom. If I pick up my Canon EOS 1V, fitted with my newly-acquired EF 40 mm 'pancake' lens, the effect is precisely the same - I can just squeeze the tower block into the picture. The aspect ratio is slightly different so there is a little more to see in the picture at either side.

But, let's face it, the aspect ratio is a red herring here. If I had a Fuji 6x9 camera, the aspect ratio would be much more similar to that of 135 format. A Rolleiflex or Hasselblad with an 80mm lens would have an aspect ratio even further from that of 135mm format. You'd see less of the view either side of the tower block, but you'd still be able to - just - get it into the picture, top to bottom.

Ricoh have recently released a GR3x with a lens that's miles smaller than a 40mm. But they market the camera as having a '40mm equivalent' lens, and most of us understand what that means. If I had that camera to hand, I guarantee my picture of the tower block would look much the same as the one taken on the Plaubel, or on the EOS 1V.

My original post was really just explaining the route I took to arrive at the conclusion that 40mm lenses on 135 format are very useful. I never quite got it before, but now I do. A 40mm lens on 135 format is just barely a wide-angle lens. I've spent the past 18 months looking through the rangefinder of a Plaubel Makina 67, a camera fitted with a lens which is barely, minimally, a wide-angle, and have come to realise that it's a very pleasing (for me) angle of view. And, this being a Leica forum, I tied this reasoning to the Leica 40mm Summicron lens.

Aspect ratios, depth of field, quality of negative, look and feel, etc weren't my point, it was simply the angle of view. Regardless of the film/sensor size. And, as you say, the arithmetic works out.

 

If anyone would care to see this tower block, I have numerous views of it, and its colleagues here

 

Some lovely pictures there. Thanks for sharing. I think that I'd enjoy seeing many of them printed (a little larger than the tiny insta thumbs :) ) .

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, colint544 said:

If I stand at my front window, the view over the city is dominated by a 26-storey residential tower block. I think it's a handsome building, but it stands on some rapidly appreciating real estate, so the council wants to demolish it, and replace it with cheap low-rise housing. Some people will become very wealthy off the back of this wheeze.

Anyway, if I point my Plaubel Makina 67, with its fixed 80mm lens, at this tower block and take a picture, I can only just get the whole building in the frame, There is only a small gap for sky at the top of the picture, and a small gap for Tarmac at the bottom. If I pick up my Canon EOS 1V, fitted with my newly-acquired EF 40 mm 'pancake' lens, the effect is precisely the same - I can just squeeze the tower block into the picture. The aspect ratio is slightly different so there is a little more to see in the picture at either side.

But, let's face it, the aspect ratio is a red herring here. If I had a Fuji 6x9 camera, the aspect ratio would be much more similar to that of 135 format. A Rolleiflex or Hasselblad with an 80mm lens would have an aspect ratio even further from that of 135mm format. You'd see less of the view either side of the tower block, but you'd still be able to - just - get it into the picture, top to bottom.

Ricoh have recently released a GR3x with a lens that's miles smaller than a 40mm. But they market the camera as having a '40mm equivalent' lens, and most of us understand what that means. If I had that camera to hand, I guarantee my picture of the tower block would look much the same as the one taken on the Plaubel, or on the EOS 1V.

My original post was really just explaining the route I took to arrive at the conclusion that 40mm lenses on 135 format are very useful. I never quite got it before, but now I do. A 40mm lens on 135 format is just barely a wide-angle lens. I've spent the past 18 months looking through the rangefinder of a Plaubel Makina 67, a camera fitted with a lens which is barely, minimally, a wide-angle, and have come to realise that it's a very pleasing (for me) angle of view. And, this being a Leica forum, I tied this reasoning to the Leica 40mm Summicron lens.

Aspect ratios, depth of field, quality of negative, look and feel, etc weren't my point, it was simply the angle of view. Regardless of the film/sensor size. And, as you say, the arithmetic works out.

 

If anyone would care to see this tower block, I have numerous views of it, and its colleagues here

I can relate to the Plaubel Makina, which I also owned way back when.  
 

One minor variable that I’d add to this discussion/comparison is that the listed focal length of any given lens may not be the exact spec, give or take some fractional mm.

In any case, having shot with many different camera brands and formats (and aspect ratios), from 35mm to 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 4x5, etc,  and with many different lens combinations, I learned not to try and compare, mathematically or otherwise, across systems. Instead, I just learned to ‘see’ with each camera/lens combination and accept it for what it offers.  Different is not the same, as a workshop instructor once advised.  
 

That said, I’ve never tried a 40mm lens on an M; the frame line discrepancy seemed a challenge.  But I can surely appreciate, conceptually, how an M lens that splits the two most popular focal lengths -35 and 50- could be a winner.

Jeff

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I used to use the 40mm Summicron on the M, but given the frameline issue, I tended to stick to 35mm. I also had a 35mm 1.4 ASPH at the time, and it was just a better, faster lens. But the angle of view of the 40mm is lovely, as was the size.

I am also spoiled by having had a Mamiya 7II and 80mm since 2002, and in that time I have taken many of my favorite photos with that combination. It is a true goldilocks combination, especially on 6x7, where the shallower depth of field allows for a bit more separation from the background as needed, but not so much as to make full DOF photos difficult. The Plaubel has that extra stop, which is oh so lovely. I am attaching a photo I made of my friend about ten years ago with a Plaubel and its 80mm Nikkor.

Meanwhile, I just recently got the GRIIIx for exactly this reason. I love the focal length and it makes the ideal compact snapshot camera. The quick photos from it are really appealing. I only got it recently, and it is pitch black right now, so I do not have too many good photos yet, but I will share one or two. The BW is the Plaubel (clearly), and the two color are from the GRIIIx. One from yesterday on the way to work, and the other from a few weeks back, when the sun still cleared the mountains.

 

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!

  • Like 12
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a Rollei 40/2.8 Sonnar HFT, which is an LTM lens that I've been using for about 10 years (I believe it's the same lens that's in the Rollei 35RF).  Even though I class myself as predominantly a 50 mm shooter I've found the tiny Rollei has often climbed aboard my M9P, M240, or M10 that I had at the time, ahead of its more exotic or expensive 50 mm Leica sisters. 

Part of it is the compactness, lightness, and ergonomics but as Colin points out there's something indefinable about what the 40 mm focal length in 135 format brings.

Pete.

The Baby in the Bubble.

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!

Edited by farnz
  • Like 11
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I used to use the 40mm Summicron on the M, but given the frameline issue, I tended to stick to 35mm. I also had a 35mm 1.4 ASPH at the time, and it was just a better, faster lens. But the angle of view of the 40mm is lovely, as was the size.

I am also spoiled by having had a Mamiya 7II and 80mm since 2002, and in that time I have taken many of my favorite photos with that combination. It is a true goldilocks combination, especially on 6x7, where the shallower depth of field allows for a bit more separation from the background as needed, but not so much as to make full DOF photos difficult. The Plaubel has that extra stop, which is oh so lovely. I am attaching a photo I made of my friend about ten years ago with a Plaubel and its 80mm Nikkor.

Meanwhile, I just recently got the GRIIIx for exactly this reason. I love the focal length and it makes the ideal compact snapshot camera. The quick photos from it are really appealing. I only got it recently, and it is pitch black right now, so I do not have too many good photos yet, but I will share one or two. The BW is the Plaubel (clearly), and the two color are from the GRIIIx. One from yesterday on the way to work, and the other from a few weeks back, when the sun still cleared the mountains.

 

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!

These are really lovely. And I take my hat off to Ricoh for bringing out the GR3x. I've had the GR3 for the past two years, and I use it a lot more than I ever thought I would. It's so fast. If I ever have some spare cash in the future, I'll definitely consider the GR3x

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a huge fan of 40mm. Use the Summicron 40/2 on a daily basis. Has the same double Gauss optical formula as the second (and third) Summicron 35/2.
I also use the Canon 40/2.8 STM on my Fujigilm GFX and it covers the entire 44x33 format wit great success. Perfect at f/8 and up for the edges.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/4/2021 at 1:37 AM, farnz said:

I have a Rollei 40/2.8 Sonnar HFT, which is an LTM lens that I've been using for about 10 years (I believe it's the same lens that's in the Rollei 35RF).  Even though I class myself as predominantly a 50 mm shooter I've found the tiny Rollei has often climbed aboard my M9P, M240, or M10 that I had at the time, ahead of its more exotic or expensive 50 mm Leica sisters. 

Part of it is the compactness, lightness, and ergonomics but as Colin points out there's something indefinable about what the 40 mm focal length in 135 format brings.

Pete.

The Baby in the Bubble.

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!

I love this photo. I always find it challenging to make photos of kids that go beyond the family’s interests. This one, is really special and lovely! It is one of the image that convinced me to purchase a rollei 40 (I think it was two years ago). I love the lens too. It is perfect on a Minolta cle. I still miss the part behind the camera to produce such images 🙃

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Today I chose the M-Rokkor 40mm over my 7 Artisans 28mm and the Distagon 35mm because I wanted something light and unobtrusive. The Rokkor is absolutely fine as long as I'm not planning huge prints - which I have not done in ages.

Great walk-around lens on my nowadays ancient M240!

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!

Edited by markhout
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/3/2021 at 3:59 AM, colint544 said:

If I stand at my front window, the view over the city is dominated by a 26-storey residential tower block. I think it's a handsome building, but it stands on some rapidly appreciating real estate, so the council wants to demolish it, and replace it with cheap low-rise housing. Some people will become very wealthy off the back of this wheeze.

Anyway, if I point my Plaubel Makina 67, with its fixed 80mm lens, at this tower block and take a picture, I can only just get the whole building in the frame, There is only a small gap for sky at the top of the picture, and a small gap for Tarmac at the bottom. If I pick up my Canon EOS 1V, fitted with my newly-acquired EF 40 mm 'pancake' lens, the effect is precisely the same - I can just squeeze the tower block into the picture. The aspect ratio is slightly different so there is a little more to see in the picture at either side.

But, let's face it, the aspect ratio is a red herring here. If I had a Fuji 6x9 camera, the aspect ratio would be much more similar to that of 135 format. A Rolleiflex or Hasselblad with an 80mm lens would have an aspect ratio even further from that of 135mm format. You'd see less of the view either side of the tower block, but you'd still be able to - just - get it into the picture, top to bottom.

Ricoh have recently released a GR3x with a lens that's miles smaller than a 40mm. But they market the camera as having a '40mm equivalent' lens, and most of us understand what that means. If I had that camera to hand, I guarantee my picture of the tower block would look much the same as the one taken on the Plaubel, or on the EOS 1V.

My original post was really just explaining the route I took to arrive at the conclusion that 40mm lenses on 135 format are very useful. I never quite got it before, but now I do. A 40mm lens on 135 format is just barely a wide-angle lens. I've spent the past 18 months looking through the rangefinder of a Plaubel Makina 67, a camera fitted with a lens which is barely, minimally, a wide-angle, and have come to realise that it's a very pleasing (for me) angle of view. And, this being a Leica forum, I tied this reasoning to the Leica 40mm Summicron lens.

Aspect ratios, depth of field, quality of negative, look and feel, etc weren't my point, it was simply the angle of view. Regardless of the film/sensor size. And, as you say, the arithmetic works out.

 

If anyone would care to see this tower block, I have numerous views of it, and its colleagues here

How can demolishing a tower block and replace it with a few low-rise housing be economically viable?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Capuccino-Muffin said:

How can demolishing a tower block and replace it with a few low-rise housing be economically viable?

It isn't, and it's a disgrace. The land is very valuable - it's in a prime location, next to the west end of the city. It smacks of corruption.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...