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.
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.
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).
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?
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.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
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.
Thanks and God Bless,
"The photograph isolates and perpetuates a moment of time: an important and revealing moment, or an unimportant and meaningless one, depending upon the photographer's understanding of his subject and mastery of his process." -Edward Weston
When asked how he felt about missing photographs while he reloaded his camera with film, he replied, "There are no photographs while I'm reloading." -Garry Winogrand
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
Thanks everyone for the help.
i just ordered a 35mm Skopar from Camera Quest.
[COLOR=DarkSlateBlue]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
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. [/COLOR]
Sam, what are the price ranges of the two lenses?
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.