WA lens for travel, 40mm or 50mm?

[dave_unwin]

Hi

 

This is my first post here so thanks for the absolute wealth of

information this place provides! I've enjoyed spending the last

couple of days reading a lot of the threads here.

 

Bit of background: I'm 23yo, and have basically learnt on digital.

1 month ago I bought a 503cw and an 80mm lens and have fallen in

love :). I?m off to france for Christmas and have decided to leave

all my dslr kit at home and just take the hassy. I?m not going

travelling without a wideangle though!

 

I?m looking for opinions on what would be best suited to general

travel WA photography. A 40mm C T* or a 50mm C T*? I realise that

newer versions of these lenses have better performance but at this

stage cost is a factor. I can buy either used at good prices (the

40mm is slightly more expensive).

 

I love wideangles but I?m a bit concerned that with the square format

the 40mm may be a little extreme ?vertically? if you know what I

mean. Coming from the 3x2 aspect ratio, I still have trouble

selecting focal lengths with the square format.

 

Those out there who have used both focal lengths, do you find 40mm

too extreme, or is the 50mm not wide enough for shots of landscapes

and buildings? What about lens quality? Are the older 40's that bad?

 

I plan to use the lens for skateboarding photos as well, but as I

will hopefully get the 30mm fish for that (a little later!) this need

is only secondary.

 

Thanks in advance for any help, its much appreciated.

 

Cheers

 

Dave

[pavelp]

40mm lens in 6x6 is somewhere around 22mm in 35mm if you do not crop and 25mm if you crop to 645. I used 55mm with my C330s this summer for travel in Europe and it was OK. I was hitting walls with my back more often than not when trying to use 65mm for streets in historical town centers.

 

You don't lose much by going wider, because you can always crop. However, if your lens is not wide enough, you are out of game. On the other hand at this length, I'd be little worried about ultrawide effects.

[smiling gecko]

hi dave,

from my limited and on-going experience with a 50mm lens on different 6x6 cameras i

have learned to include a bit more top or bottom while composing my final image.

 

i have used a variety of 6x6 cameras over the past years, primarily using a 75mm/80mm,

150mm, or 250mm lens - only occasionally using anything wider (except when i had a

hasselblad superwide).

 

i have been using a 50mm on my mamiya6 more and more - a rangefinder bringing it's

own framing accuracy issues to consider - and continue to learn how to best use what

sometimes seems to be an abundance of vertical space. sometimes i find a solution

cropping with my "telephoto feet"...sometimes not...meanwhile the learning process

continues. I hope this ramble has been helpful, despite the lack of technical information.

 

in regards to your paris trip...take and expose lots + lots + lots of film - film is "cheap"

and travel usually isn't...my trip to russia last fall made me wish i had taken more fast (iso

400 + 800) film with me.

 

bon voyage et bon chance.

smiling gecko

[Ed_Ingold]

I think the 50 is better as a first WA lens - more like a 28. The 40 is really wide for a 6x6, because of the large diagonal - less so if you crop. The 40 is also twice as expensive as a comparable 50, and the 40 CT* is a real jug (urn, perhaps) to carry.

 

If you have the money for a 40, get a 50 CF/FLE instead. The CF is a better optical design than the C - noticeably sharper, corner to corner.

[donald_ingram1]

Dave,

 

I'm a 40mm/80mm user, but often travel without the 40mm CF FLE because is too large and

heavy. I believe the 40 C T is a whopper of a lens - so the problem be exacerbated. I only

keep the 40mm to use it with the PC Mutar ( but that combo if pretty useless for action

photos ).

 

An option would be get the 50mm now and a 38mm SWC/M once you save up some more

money.

[charliexia]

Hi Dave

<br><br>

I have the 40mm c T* lens you mentioned... I must say it's a great lens for architecture, landscape, and skateboarding. The only downside to the lens is that it's extremely heavy, and you will need to use the rubber hood (extremely large) to keep flair out.

<br><br>

the 50mm c T* is much more compact, and is an excellent lens for walking around and taking street photography. but for me it lacks the extra punch of a wide angle lens.

<br><br>

When choosing a lens you must consider your over all outfit, I think the 40 and the 80 is a great combination, and later if you want you can add a 60 to your outfit (which is great for street photography as well as portraiture)

<br><br>

I choose 40-60-80 and never looked back... Check out my portfolio for examples... most of the architecture, and interior photos were shot with the 40mm c T*

<br><br>

Charlie

[dave_unwin]

Thanks a lot for your thoughtful replies! I'll add a bit more info which might help clarify things:

 

the 50 C T* is US$450 and the 40 C T* is US$600 so money is not a concern between the two. i can stretch to buy a 50 CF for around US$1100 but feel that the money is probably better spent elsewhere.

 

from your replies, I feel as though i might prefer the 40mm for everything except carting the thing around! Does anyone know the actual weight of the lens or of the 50mm? I come from a large lens background (400 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 etc) but weight is a factor.

 

pavel - did you ever wish for wider than the 55mm on your c330? you summed up my concerns well, i want wide but not so wide it looks bizarre.

 

smiling gecko - thanks for the travel tips. fortunately most of my MF purchases have been accompanied by rolls and rolls of film so i plan on taking a lot!

 

edward/donald - i appreciate the advice on weight. i don't want to miss shots because it was too heavy to bring.

 

charlie - thanks so much for pointing me in the direction of your portfolio. very very impressive. i really like the look of the shots with the 40mm. i think my problem is i've never really done a lot of travel and not quite sure what to expect.

 

because i can't try either lens out, i think my best bet is to set my WA zoom on appropriate lengths on my dslr and get out and about!

 

thanks again

 

dave

[gary_yeowell]

I would agree with Edward, if the 50 is your choice then make sure it is the FLE version as it really is much better than the older types both in sharpness and contrast at all distances and all apertures. If you cannot afford the later type my advice would be to just use the 80 until you can!! the 80 as a one lens outfit is very adaptable and will make you very considered. The 40 is also a very nice wideangle on 6x6 although probably less useful overall but when really wide is needed there's no sustitute. The aspect ratio thing of square vs 3x2 is part of the beauty of square and after a while you will find your groove.

[brunom]

Dave

 

If you buy the 50mm the chances are you will always be thinking ' what if ' - I know I did !

 

Considering only the horizontal angle of view the 40mm equates to a 26mm in 35mm photography terms, and is a very useful focal length. Of course you get the same field of view vertically which makes it seem wider.

 

The only problem you have is the size of the lens! and it's a shame that you have not considered the CFE version which I believe is also the smallest.

 

Your choice!

 

Regards

 

Bruno

[charliexia]

if you like it wide take the 40!

[charliexia]

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3358866" target="new">This</a> was taken with the 40mm at an elevation of 4800 meters above see level... the quality of the picture more than made up for the agony of trecking with 20+ punds of gear on my back in high altitude! ...Where there is a will, there is a way! go get it! once again, if you like it wide... get the 40!

[dave_unwin]

Great! These forums are all the same! now i'm considering selling some of my canon gear to get the FLE versions!!

 

By the way, how can you tell if the 50mm CF has an FLE or not?

 

Thanks again for the responses and samples.

 

Dave

[q.g._de_bakker]

Dave,<br><br>The CF/CFE FLE lenses have an extra 'focussing ring' above the shutter speed ring. It clicks in in 3 or 4 distance 'zone settings' and is used to manually 'float' the 'element'.<br>

[paul_neuthaler]

SWC/M with 38mm Biogon -- the ultimate travel "Point & Shoot!"

[pavelp]

Did I ever wish for wider Mamiya TLR lens than 55mm?

 

Funnily enough, not really. The widest lens that I've ever used is 24mm (35mm equiv) and 55mm is about 30mm in 35mm equiv. YMMV (especially if you really like WA).

 

However, several times I wished that the 55mm Sekor would be faster than 4.5. The picture on the focusing screen could use more contrast and the split image often gets one half completely back (this is a known problem with slow lenses). You get used to it just until the point when you put on 80mm/f2.8 and see the difference.

[johnmarkpainter]

Dave,

 

I often travel with a Hassy SWC (38mm). I also own a 500cm and a 50. I would more often

like to take photos with the 50 (just my taste).

 

The 50 is a better lens than the 40.

 

jmp

[todd_phillips1]

Dave,

 

I've had a 40, 50, and a 60. I should say that I'm a professional photographer who is a member of ASMP and PPA. That said, I simply couldn't shoot without a 40. I have a 40CF and use it all the time.

I have five or more magazine covers taken with it. The 50 is nice, but the 40 really opens up the view. I sold my 50 and got a 60 which I use a lot as well. It is my standard lens for wedding receptions.

 

If I were traveling abroad and taking medium format, it would be the 40 and the 80. I'd add the 180 if someone was carrying all this for me, otherwise just those two lenses.

 

The 40 CT* IS a huge lens. If you opt for the 40, then really look for a CF in "user" condition. Yes, it will be more expensive....but you'll have it forever!

 

IF you choose the 50, you'll probably find yourself using it almost all the time (which is something you can do with a 60), but I'll bet you'll be wishing for something "a little bit wider"...

[dave_unwin]

Thanks again, the answers really have been most helpful. I've pretty much decided that 40mm is what i'm looking for. I've been searching high and low for a 40mm CF at an 'acceptable' price but failing that i might go for the older version and upgrade when i get the chance.

 

hopefully the 80 and 40 will make a good combo.

 

Much appreciated

 

Dave

[jean-louis llech]

Dave,<br>

I bought at first the 50mm Distagon, in in some situations, like narrow streets in old cities, I had no recoil enought to cover the whole subject. Thus I bought a 40mm Distagon, and now I use both undifferently.<br>

The Distagon 40mm has no distorsions, unlike the 30mm fisheye.<br>

The difference of coverage between a 40 and a 50 is much more important than between the 50 and the 60 mm.<br>

If you want to see the difference in 6x6 format, go to the Carl Zeiss Website. There is a kind of simulation of each Zeiss lens coverage on a photo.<br>

Here is the link to the page <a href="http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B58B9/Contents-Frame/545B96746192711FC12569590045CF25">"Changing lenses - Interactive"</a><br>

[al_bowers]

Dave,

 

I started shooting Hasselblad in the mid-70s (won a few contests with my photos even). I suspect this will depend on your "eye" for images, mine runs towards wide, expansive panaoramas. I have both the 50 and the 40. On my recent trip to Zion, Bryce & Arches National Parks (UT, USA) I could not have gotten by without the 40, though the 50 was nice to have at times. The 40 is a real boat anchor, but it's worth it (and I hike a lot). As for the SWC v 40 arguement, I can see the SWC being useful (as a lightweight PNS Hasselblad, it's probably ideal) but I really did think about this one long and hard. SLR viewing won out for me.

 

Grab one and don't look back.

 

Al Bowers

[dave_unwin]

thanks again.

 

i've found an older version of the 40mm. it should arrive on monday! i realise it will take some carrying but i'm a surf photographer who's used to carting round 600mm's and waterhousings so this should make a nice change :)

 

it is so helpful to be able to hear personal opinions of people who have been through this situation before. i come from a small town which is great for photos but not so good for advice!

[charliexia]

looking forward to seeing some or your pictures!

[al_bowers]

Dave,

 

I too have the "old" 40 C. It is a fraction soft close up for the most critical applications compared to the 50, but for scenics and nearly all the work I do, it's not an issue.

 

Interesting on the surf photography as I do a bit of the same, but with a Nikonos III system (28, 35, 80) as well as long lenses off the beach. Also outstanding for outrigger and kayak ocean racing...

 

Gil Ghitelman thought the reputation of the old 40 C was quite a bit below their actual performance. I followed Gil's advice and have not been disappointed...

 

Best,

 

Al