While waiting for my Rx1R ii to get a new sensor and LCD, I'm going back to using my ZV-E1 as a street camera (I love using it as well). My vintage Minolta 35mm lens is magic. However, I can get a great deal locally on a Zeiss Batis 40mm. I set the clear image zoom about 5mm in and really there is not that big a difference and I actually prefer the 35. However, the Zeiss is a great deal and I love shooting my Batis 25mm.
There is no general answer to this question. It is entirely a matter of individual preference. either choice can be better or worse depending on preferences and circumstances. You just have to pick one and go with it. ;-)
I prefer the 40mm (or equivalent) for most of my street photography, but i also often carry one or two additional focal lengths.
It also probably doesn’t make sense to own too many lenses with very similar focal lengths. My general rule is to look for about a 2:1 focal length difference among primes that I carry. If you are regularly making decisions that require you to swap out 25mm, 35mm, and 40mm primes… it probably makes more sense to simply use a zoom that covers that range.
Can anyone tell the difference between 35 and 40mm by looking through the viewfinder? A prime needs to provide me with multiple advantages to prefer it over a zoom. Macro(-ish) capabilities are a nice bonus. But the "Close Focusing" on the Batis really isn't very close. You get shorter MFD and greater magnification on some zooms covering that focal range including the Tamron 20-40 and 28-75.
I agree with @gdanmitchell, if there's much hand wringing over choosing prime focal lengths that are so close together, you're better off with a zoom.
The Batis 25 and 40 make a great street setup. I use them along with the Batis 85 and love how they all render very much the same. Post processing is much easier if you have a consistent lens set.
well I went and tested the lens.....just not enough difference for the $$. This would be one that I would probably not use much and would sit on my shelf. . I do use the 25 and I also have a 28mm and 50mm.
If I only had the 28mm, I could see buying it. 35mm, for me, is my sweet spot lens.
I swap between 35GM and 40G all the time as walk around depending on how small a kit I want with my A7CII. Don't really notice the difference, I've bounced around between 35 and 40 for decades and both are fine, interchangeable as general purpose single focal length for me, especially with hi res bodies as I'm more likely to want to crop than go wider.
Here's visualization of 24, 35, 40, 50mm to give you an idea of difference (link doesn't pass parameters, so copy and paste): "http://vahonen.info/FOV/?a=24&b=35&c=40&d=50"
Count me as another person who didn't really notice the difference between 35mm (the GM) and 40mm (the Batis) in terms of focal length. IQ wise, however, I was never a fan of the Batis (esp. wide open) and ended up selling it. It was also not the most reliable lens in terms of AF in my experience (on A9 and A1). My preferred lens for street is actually the Zony 55mm, but for anything indoors the 35GM is usually on my camera.
As a note to the conversation, the Sony-Zeiss 35mm on the RXR series actually measures to be 33mm (the right direction for my tastes for general street photography).
I sold my RXR1 II some years ago, but do sometimes miss it for traveling. I have considered re-purchasing a used one, but the dust issue has given me pause. If you are willing to share the information, I would love to know what the cost is for replacing or cleaning the sensor.
Rx1rii sonar is magic. 35 GM is stellar as well but bigger. Just picked up a Voigtlander 40mm f1.2 for the fourth time. Love the 40mm focal length and this lens.Think I'll finally keep this one since they don't make the SE anymore. That said if they ever make an Rx1riii I'll be first in line.
'Count me as another person who didn't really notice the difference between 35mm (the GM) and 40mm (the Batis) in terms of focal length.'
The Batis 40mm delivers around 6% of focus breathing from infinity to MFD, the GM 35mm is much more inclined to breathe over its range. So if your focus distances are mostly quite short, this difference comes into play. As has been said over the decades, it is not a real problem for most stills work, but now we have video assuming greater presence in the lens landscape.
The CV 40/1.2 is used very often for near focus, being a very fast lens. I haven't found anything definitive on its breathing. We may not be bothered by focus breathing but I sure want to know about it.
There are reasons to be happy about it, because the designers used the laxity to fix other things.
The Sony FE55 breathes considerably, I always wondered why it looks so good - I also use it for general purpose and near distance people photography. It's probably near 60mm at 1.5m.
Anyway, something to keep in mind, as it helps explain some of what you see. Most reviews neglect this aberration entirely, but a few photographers do their own and post it. (I don't believe you are ever better off with a zoom, they make the flat look the industry is steadily moving away from.)
I'm a Sony pro member and a new sensor and new LCD was $750 ish (I don't have the invoice in front of me). I was actually ok with everything, even the pressure mark in the lcd, however, I was using the camera much more than I thought and decided to have the camera looked at. If it were just a sensor - lens cleaning, it would have been free by being a Sony pro member.
The sensor had a few dead pixels (which after they pointed it out I would have kept noticing-I thought those dead pixel dots was the LCD since I did not notice on pictures). The Lcd had a "pressure" mark dead in the center.
Luckily I got the camera super cheap and it was used sparingly. Precision stated that the rest of the camera, shutter, etc. looked great.
I asked them if they could get me a shutter count...I have not heard back. It may be a week or so for the parts to arrive. The rest of the camera looks brand new.
The Batis 40 doesn't have the eye-tracking AF issue anymore? Then I'd get the 40 f2.5G instead.
I prefer 40mm over 35 for a bit more compression for portraits, however it's insignificant difference, so either 35 or 40mm go for price, rendering, size, speed instead of the focal length. It's hard to beat the 35GM for all-round, 35 f1.2 Art for portrait rendering, 40 f2.5G for size, and Voigtlander 40 1.2 for the size and rendering if MF only acceptable.
ArcPhotography wrote:
I'm a Sony pro member and a new sensor and new LCD was $750 ish (I don't have the invoice in front of me). I was actually ok with everything, even the pressure mark in the lcd, however, I was using the camera much more than I thought and decided to have the camera looked at. If it were just a sensor - lens cleaning, it would have been free by being a Sony pro member.
The sensor had a few dead pixels (which after they pointed it out I would have kept noticing-I thought those dead pixel dots was the LCD since I did not notice on pictures). The Lcd had a "pressure" mark dead in the center.
Luckily I got the camera super cheap and it was used sparingly. Precision stated that the rest of the camera, shutter, etc. looked great.
I asked them if they could get me a shutter count...I have not heard back. It may be a week or so for the parts to arrive. The rest of the camera looks brand new. ...Show more →
Here's my thinking: a 40mm lens is interchangeable with a 35mm lens in 99% of situations, all else being equal. But! But...
I don't consider lens purchases in isolation. There are other factors, and the primary one here is the focal lengths of other lenses I intend to carry around. A 35mm would be better as a part in a tight 28-35-50 triplet. A 40mm lens is better for a wider range triplet like 28-40-65mm.
At the same time, if I was forced to pick just one lens, like on a fixed-lens camera, I'd go for the 40.
The Voigtlander 40 1.2 poisoned my mind. I needed an AF lens and got Sigma 35 f1.2. It was close to 40 1.2 rendering, a bit less DOF but every other aspect better. The problem was the size, so I got the 35GM. It's a perfect lens, but I lost that 40 1.2 magic, so I decided to get the 50 1.2GM. I have had that lens for a year now, and I took almost identical number of shots both 35 and 50GM. 50 1.2 is far better than the 40 1.2 was, but it's a bit tight focal length so lot of time I grab my 35 GM as a safe option. It's insane to replace a MF lens for two AF lenses that total price is 5-6 times of the Voigtlander. Of course they are AF and far superior optical quality, but it's a quite investment.
And here is the next catch, I have 20 f1.8G as a wide angle, like it very much, but I have also a focal length problem, most time it's too wide and use it in crop mode. I think 24GM would more suitable for my need. I couldn't sell my Voigtlander 21 3.5, so I have 21mm for landscape when I need wide.
I wish if I can replace 35GM and 20G with 24GM, but I'm afraid I'll end up with 24-35-50GM trio.
old-gregg wrote:
Here's my thinking: a 40mm lens is interchangeable with a 35mm lens in 99% of situations, all else being equal. But! But...
I don't consider lens purchases in isolation. There are other factors, and the primary one here is the focal lengths of other lenses I intend to carry around. A 35mm would be better as a part in a tight 28-35-50 triplet. A 40mm lens is better for a wider range triplet like 28-40-65mm.
At the same time, if I was forced to pick just one lens, like on a fixed-lens camera, I'd go for the 40.
I think you are on the right track in recognizing that how a particular prime fits into a system of other primes is important.
However…
It does make sense to think about what lens is most typically on your camera. Are you more likely to feel constrained by the tighter framing of a 40mm lens or by the lessened ability to fill the frame with our subject at 35mm? There’s no right answer to this in a general sense, but you need to be clear on your own preference. (Either way, sometimes either lens will seem right. a sometimes the other would make more sense.)
As to your “tight… “triplet” of lenses, my feeling is that if you are going to be that particular about focal length (e.g. - covering a smaller than 2:1 focal length range with three lenses) you might be better off with a zoom lens. For me, I’m generally comfortable with focal length ratios between adjacent lenses of about 2:1. I’d rather live with that (or use a zoom) than change lenses as often as you might if you really need to move from 35mm to 28mm.
