40mm or 35mm that is the question, for me at least.

Discussion in 'Rangefinder Forum' started by Sportera, Jun 19, 2006.

  1. Sportera

    Sportera Member

    Messages:
    933
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Location:
    New Orleans
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    I have been wanting a 35mm for my M6 for the longest time. I don't have a lot of cash to spend so price is an object and keeps Leica lenses far from my reach.

    I had made up my mind on the 35mm f2.5 skopar until I ran accross a thread in the range finder forum about the 40mm Nokton.

    I can't seem to make up my mind, do I give up 5mm of focal length to get 1.5 stop more light? or vice versa. What of their optical qualities? Or the ergonomics on an M body?

    Any information would help.
     
  2. Sportera

    Sportera Member

    Messages:
    933
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Location:
    New Orleans
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    BTW my current kit consists of a 21 F4.0, 50 Summicron, 90mm F3.5
     
  3. Petzi

    Petzi Member

    Messages:
    857
    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Location:
    Europe
    Shooter:
    Med. Format Pan
    I would go for the 35mm lens then. 40 is too close to 50, and the 35mm fills the huge gap between 21 and 50 nicely. :smile:
     
  4. Jim Jones

    Jim Jones Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,390
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Location:
    Rural NW MO
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I agree. 21, 35, 50, and up Leitz M mount lenses have worked well for me for several decades. Only if your style of photography requires very fast lenses is the 40mm better.
     
  5. raizans

    raizans Member

    Messages:
    130
    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    how about the 35/1.7 ultron?
     
  6. Earl Dunbar

    Earl Dunbar Member

    Messages:
    558
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2004
    Location:
    Rochester, N
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    40mm is not necessarily "too close to 50". It's not just how much field of view you have, it's also perspective and how a lens draws. Three of my fixed lens RFs have 42mm lenses (Oly 35SPs and Oly 35RC), and I find the way they render images significantly different than 50mm.

    35mm is a big change from 50mm, so if a big change is what you're looking for, then it is a good choice. For many years I used a 35mm as my "standard" lens, and I still love how it works for me, even though a 28mm is my current love for semi-wide angle.

    I think it's almost impossible to make a decision without trying them, so I don't know how you'll come to a conclusion. It also depends on the type of photography you do. I guess the question would be why you want a wider lens so badly.
     
  7. Uncle Bill

    Uncle Bill Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,380
    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Location:
    Oakville and
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I would go for the 40mm lens, I use a Canonet and I love that focal length and would love to get a lens for my Leica. It really depends what you are shooting.

    Bill
     
  8. narsuitus

    narsuitus Member

    Messages:
    791
    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2004
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    It really depends on your personal preference and your shooting style.

    For me the choice would be 35mm because of the 28mm, 35mm, 40mm, 45mm, 50mm, and 55mm primes lenses that I use on 35mm cameras, I find myself using the 35mm more than all the others.
     
  9. tony lockerbie

    tony lockerbie Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,363
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Location:
    Merimbula NSW Australia
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Yes Sam, I find that a35mm on your rangefinder would be the way to go. If you were going to stump up the money for a nokton I would suggest you get the 35mm Ultron.
    This is the lens that I use most on my Bessa R, the quality is excellent. Of course if you crack that lottery - a 35mm Summilux.....
     
  10. gnashings

    gnashings Inactive

    Messages:
    1,376
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Location:
    Oshawa, Onta
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    This is in the "I thought I read somewhere" category - but, isn't the Nokton optimized for low light, high contrast scenes and at near or wide open? This is a very specific mission statement for a lens and may actually detract from its performance in more general applications. I do agree as a QL17 user that the 40mm is a very nice focal length, all other things aside.

    Peter.
     
  11. willie_901

    willie_901 Member

    Messages:
    15
    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Location:
    St. Louis, M
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    I also have a Canonet with a 40mm lens.
    Recently I started to use Zeiss ZM Biogon 35/2.
    For me the 40 mm lens always felt a bit tight. I now know I prefer the 35 mm field of view.

    willie
     
  12. Lee Shively

    Lee Shively Member

    Messages:
    1,325
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2004
    Location:
    Louisiana, U
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I think you would be happier with the 35mm.

    I'm being presumptuous here. Forgive me.

    It's really not a matter of the 50 and 40 being too close in focal length, it's a matter of getting a focal length to fit within your current system. The 21mm to the 50mm is a big stretch.

    Besides, the 35/2.5 Color Skopar is a really nice little lens.
     
  13. MattKing

    MattKing Subscriber

    Messages:
    16,814
    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Location:
    Delta, BC, Canada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Unfortunately, I don't have a Leica rangefinder, but if I did, I would probably look to match my favorite (Olympus OM) lens kit - 24mm, 35mm, 85mm.

    A 35mm and 85mm (or 90mm) pair seems to fit (if you know what I mean).

    Matt
     
  14. DBP

    DBP Member

    Messages:
    1,896
    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Location:
    Alexandria,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I use 15, 35, 50, 85, and 135 on my screw mount rangefinders. I never miss having one between 35 and 50, but keep lusting after a 25 and a 21 ( and a 12 for that matter, but that's irrelevant to the question at hand. The 40 and the 50 are both basically normal lenses for 35mm, one slightly wide and one slightly long. I'd add a lens that really makes a difference. To me, increasing your field of view by 17 degrees is worth changing lenses, for a ten degree shift, I would just take a few steps. Besides, do you even have a 40mm frameline?
     
  15. ampguy

    ampguy Member

    Messages:
    76
    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Location:
    N. Calif.
    Shooter:
    35mm
    If you have a 50, all other things being equal, you might want a 35. I use 18, 35, and 50, but will soon be trying a 40, but the 40 will always be on a body seperate from the 18 and 35. 35 and 50 are a big gap for primes, so I can certainly see where eventually you'd want a 35 and a 40, even if the 35 is just hanging on a fixed lens body.
     
  16. Chuck A

    Chuck A Member

    Messages:
    2
    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2006
    Location:
    Central PA
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    Don't make it so hard on yourself. If you want to try a 40, then get a Summicron-c or M-Rokkor. They are f/2 so you will lose a stop but they are pretty plentiful used. They run about $250.00 and if you don't like it you can always get your money back out and get a 35. I haven't done any verification of this but they are supposed to have better bokeh than the Nokton 40mm.
     
  17. Markok765

    Markok765 Member

    Messages:
    2,266
    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Location:
    Ontario, Can
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I hate wide angles. when i use my 35 i find that i have to move in closer, and i hate it! i can never get close enough. i almost always my 55 or mt 105
     
  18. Sportera

    Sportera Member

    Messages:
    933
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Location:
    New Orleans
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    Thanks everyone for the help.

    i just ordered a 35mm Skopar from Camera Quest.
     
  19. Curt

    Curt Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,561
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Location:
    Pacific Nort
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I hate wide angles. when i use my 35 i find that i have to move in closer, and i hate it! i can never get close enough. i almost always my 55 or mt 105
    __________________
    Marko Kovacevic

    What does this have to do with the decision to buy a 40mm or 35mm? Some more bullshit from Marko who just interjects anything at anyone at anytime.


    Sam, what are the price ranges of the two lenses?

    Regards,
    Curt
     
  20. mcgrattan

    mcgrattan Member

    Messages:
    506
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2005
    Location:
    Oxford, Engl
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I'm generally with Marko, I think.

    I find most of the time I prefer the 50mm field of view to almost any other length (on a 35mm camera). The rest of the time I am usually using an 85mm lens.

    I have a couple of fixed lens rangefinders with a 38mm or 40mm lens, which I don't mind.

    However, after using my Fuji GS645S a lot on holiday I have a hankering for a 35mm lens for 35mm RF. In my case that probably means a cheap Jupiter-12 though.