To me, I just like shooting the 40mm focal length better. It is more natural to my eye to see. Combined with fast apertures like f1.2 or f1.4, subjects can really stand out but you still see the background.
^^I was in the same situation of the 50 vs 40. I decided on the 40 because....
-From what I've read, it's really 42-43mm, so sort of in the middle.
-I think the 40 will be a better "all in one" solution that'll handle landscapes as well as portrait, at least the examples here seem to suggest that.
-I went through shots I've taken with my Tamron 28-75...and many of them were around 40mm.
-When traveling with a lightweight MF kit, I think it'll gap better with my CV 15 & CV 21.
Don't think you can really go wrong. I tried to let my specific utilization needs dictate the decision.
40mm is the perfect focal length for me. It's amazing that I prefer 35 or 50mm for portraits, but 40mm is perfect for traveling.
My Voigtlander is really very good when stopped down, only with open apertures it could be a bit sharper, despite the great image impression it can create.
So the CV 40 1.2 I bought off the B&S board is here...landscapes are easy as always with MF, but f/1.2 portrait shots will definitely take some practice!
From samples I've seen of the 35mm, the bokeh has a more curved look sometimes that is distracting to me. I think the 50mm is very slightly sharper with less/no onion rings in bokeh. I very rarely see any onion texture in my shots with the 40mm though.
I would just go for the focal length you like best, any other differences are incredibly minor compared to that.
DaveFP wrote:
My understanding is that the 50 has the best overall IQ and that the 35 lacks the special look that the longer lenses have.
Is that true?
Where did you read this? I don't agree. The amount of blur changes as FL increases when one is shooting at same distance but imo, rendering "character" and quality is very similar with all three lenses. (they share very similar optical design)
At close distance, all three show noticeable spherical aberration when shooting wide open but perhaps it will be more visible with the 35mm because we tend to get closer to the subject at this FL. The closer, the more apparent SA.
Axial and lateral CA are pretty much equal for all three lenses as well. The 40mm has the lower resolution towards the corners at f/4 (where they are optimal) and the 50mm has the best corners. The 50mm is the sharpest at center.
The 40mm shows onion ring in the specular highlights and has a 10 blade aperture. Both 35mm and 50mm lenses do not show onion ring (improved asph. moulding process) and have 12 blades which means more circular bokeh when stopped down.
As far as copy variation, for some reason, the 40mm shows more variation compared to the other two in my experience. It's not as easy to find an optimal copy. (Original or SE versions)
grahamgibson wrote:
From samples I've seen of the 35mm, the bokeh has a more curved look sometimes that is distracting to me. I think the 50mm is very slightly sharper with less/no onion rings in bokeh. I very rarely see any onion texture in my shots with the 40mm though.
I would just go for the focal length you like best, any other differences are incredibly minor compared to that.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Where did you read this? I don't agree. The amount of blur changes as FL increases when one is shooting at same distance but imo, rendering "character" and quality is very similar with all three lenses. (they share very similar optical design)
At close distance, all three show noticeable spherical aberration when shooting wide open but perhaps it will be more visible with the 35mm because we tend to get closer to the subject at this FL. The closer, the more apparent SA.
Axial and lateral CA are pretty much equal for all three lenses as well. The 40mm has the lower resolution towards the corners at f/4 (where they are optimal) and the 50mm has the best corners. The 50mm is the sharpest at center.
The 40mm shows onion ring in the specular highlights and has a 10 blade aperture. Both 35mm and 50mm lenses do not show onion ring (improved asph. moulding process) and have 12 blades which means more circular bokeh when stopped down.
As far as copy variation, for some reason, the 40mm shows more variation compared to the other two in my experience. It's not as easy to find an optimal copy. (Original and SE versions)
Fred Miranda wrote:
Where did you read this? I don't agree. The amount of blur changes as FL increases when one is shooting at same distance but imo, rendering "character" and quality is very similar with all three lenses. (they share very similar optical design)
At close distance, all three show noticeable spherical aberration when shooting wide open but perhaps it will be more visible with the 35mm because we tend to get closer to the subject at this FL. The closer, the more apparent SA.
Axial and lateral CA are pretty much equal for all three lenses as well. The 40mm has the lower resolution towards the corners at f/4 (where they are optimal) and the 50mm has the best corners. The 50mm is the sharpest at center.
The 40mm shows onion ring in the specular highlights and has a 10 blade aperture. Both 35mm and 50mm lenses do not show onion ring (improved asph. moulding process) and have 12 blades which means more circular bokeh when stopped down.
As far as copy variation, for some reason, the 40mm shows more variation compared to the other two in my experience. It's not as easy to find an optimal copy. (Original and SE versions)
jhinkey wrote:
At mid-ranges outdoors in this kind of setting it really gives a unique 3D-ish image.
Mount Rainier National Park
Those situations are why I bought mine as well...get a cool mid-range shot at f/1.2, then stop it down to f/8 and stitch together a panorama a minute later.
