CV 40 1.4 MC + a 50mm

[thomas_hardy1]

I have a CV 40mm lens and was wondering if a 50 (maybe a Nokton 1.5) would be too close in focal length to even bother with (sort of like

35 and 40)

 

Does anyone have both a 40 and 50 for RF? For some reason I've really been wanting a 50mm.

 

Thanks

[john_gleason1]

What other lenses do you have, or aim to acquire? And what framelines do you have available?

 

If your goal is, say, a three-lens kit with 21mm and 90mm at the ends, then 40mm and 50mm are pretty close to interchangable as the lens in the middle.

 

On the other hand, if you do nearly all of your shooting in the 35mm--75mm range, then a 40/50/75 might be a nice kit. I'd personally prefer 35/50/75, but you might not.

[thomas_hardy1]

I forgot to include current lenses.

 

Currently, a 21mm Skopar, 40mm Nokton, Leica 90mm 2.8, Tele-elmarit. I also have a 58mm FSU somewhere.

 

Thanks

[gadge]

Firstly, I agree with the first reply above.

 

You don't say on what camera but on M6 and newer a 40 works well with 35 frameline at anything over say 10'.

Under that it may be wiser to try the 50 frameline.

 

Therefore 35 and a 40 overlap too much to need both unless other issues make it worthwhile e.g. lens physical size, max aperture etc. i don't think the same is so true of 40 and 50mm which do overlap a little but both have a use.

 

35 - 50 - 90 has long been considered the Holy Trinity on Leica M but 40-50-90 will work well too.

 

Leica used a 40-90 combo on their CL to make an ideal lightweight travelling set giving 40 for light wide/general work and the 90 for portrait/tele work. So do you need the middle lens?

 

In summary, if this is going to be your second lens and you like to shoot close portraits, then you really should try a 90 before making up your mind. I think you will find it really useful. If you already have a 90 and you fancy a 50 to round the outfit off, or to use on one lens only days out, then why not?

 

Gadge

[gadge]

as can be readily seen, I was writing my reply whilst you added the extra info. :-)

[frank_scheitrowsky1]

Just think of the 40 as a 35.

[mark_amos]

Thomas, 40 and 50 are not so close as to limit yourself to owning only one or the other (especially if you like getting new lenses), but I have 35, 40, and 50, crons all, and very rarely take two of those at one time together. I also have a VC 28 Ultron and seldom take it with any of the other three. Perhaps similarly to you with your 21 and 90 TE, I have gotten into the habit of doing one of two things: I either have just one semi-normal lens only meaning the one on the camera (28,35,40 or 50) or when I want more I have one of those and my VC15 and 90 Elmar C, which add incredible range in such a very compact package. This holds for even those things that I do that are important to me. If doing something really critical, I might take them all, but it is rare.

[Rob F.]

I see no problem in adding a 50, since you really want one. If you are shooting with any Leica more recent than an M4P, the 50mm frameline is significantly undersized. This goes for the M6, M7, and MP. It only covers the field of a 60mm lens! I use my 40 with the 35mm framelines on those cameras.

 

Since you have a 21 and a 40, something I think you really should have is a 28mm to fill the gap. I just spent 5 days shooting in Toronto, with a 21-28-40mm lens set that did the job very well. That said, there were a few shots where I might have liked a 50 for tighter framing.

 

Just be aware that while you can intuitively know whether you need a 21, a 28, or a 40 (for example); or a 24, 35, and 50, without even having to look through a finder, it is harder to know whether you need a 40 or a 50, since they are closer together. So for a minimum lens kit, I prefer them to be a little farther apart.

[paul_m__austin_]

Just my two cents here, but if I were you, I would not get the 50 nokton if you already have the 40 nokton. Not because of focal length, though. I would get something with a different signature, so you have a distinctly different look even if the focal length is not that far off. Maybe something like a Zeiss Planar, a Voigtlander Heliar, or an older Leica lens. You'll still have low light covered with the 40mm. Just an idea.

[thomas_hardy1]

Paul, good point about getting something which will offer a different look.

 

Thanks.