View Full Version : new Voigt 40mm 1.4 or 28mm 1.9?
I am beating my head against the wall trying to decide whether my last $400 should be spent on the new 40mm 1.4 or 28mm 1.9. Or maybe I should just spend the money on something frivolous like bills or groceries.
I want a FAST lens, since my 28mm 3.5 is just too shakey. I realize that the 28 is much wider, but...
Can't decide which would be a good low-light, all around lens. I always wanted the 35mm Summilux, but the prices were outrageous. Is 40mm that far off?
Of course it all depends on how YOU "see" and what other lenses you have. I think I'm safe in saying that MOST people "see" more like the 40mm lens than the 28mm lens, but, your mileage may vary! For an ALL-ROUND fast lens, I'd choose the 40mm.
Justin, I agree with Frank. 40 is a better all-around focal length for most, but most are not you.
I think that it also depends on what you are using them for. 28 is an excellent focal length for landscapes. You normally do not need a fast lens for this purpose. It is also a great lens for crowded interiors. Extra speed helps here. 40 is normally a better focal length for shooting people, although some swear by 28 for this purpose. Personally, I think that 40 & 28 makes a great 2 lens combination. With the 40, you have the extra speed when you need it; with the 28, you have the wider view when you need it. The rest of the time, you have a choice.
The 28 Ultron is considered a superb lens. The 40 Nokton has not yet seen the streets outside Japan - although that is changing as we speak. So, the jury is out on the quality of this lens. You may want to wait until the reviews are in.
Good luck with your decision! :)
Another vote for the 40. It is an excellent focal length for the day to day. My SC should arrive any minute.....although it seems like hours.....Warren
I agree with Huck that 40 and 28 make a great combination. They are different enough that one does not substitute for the other. So you'll need to determine which field of view is more 'all-round' for your taste.
Given that you already have a wonderful 3.5/28mm, adding the 40 is a natural. The 40 is so close the the field of view of the 35 that it's a reasonable substitute for that... And distancing it a bit more from 28 to make that an even more useful combination.
BTW, one consequence of using very wide apertures is limited depth of field; more limited of course with a 40 at f/1.4 than a 28 at f/1.9. This can be a creative tool or a problem. For my purposes, for instance, with environmental portaits, I like to retain some DoF so that environment can be seen clearly enough.
I've been using ISO 500 for shots in office/shop interiors, and generally manage around 1/60 at f/4, so I find the f/3.5 Skopar adequately fast.
Rent and groceries have their place, too, but clearly well behind new photo gear! :D
Doug, tell me more about the 3.5 Skopar . . . I assume you mean the 28. I'm in the market for a 28 & would prefer a more compact lens, but have been leaning toward the Ultron for extra speed indoors - & also because I have read such great reviews of it. I can't find any reviews of the 3.5. I normally shoot with ISO 400 & didn't think that f/3.5 would be fast enough. Now offices & shops are often better lit than homes, so . . .
I'd value any comments on the 28/3.5.
New guy! Welcome to the forum Warren!! :)
I'm thinking a bit about a 40 too. I want to see what the photos from it look like first though and they should be here soon.
Peter, you might want to take a look at this:
Yes I've seen these Huck, thanks for the link. Would like to see some film results really. ;) I can wait... :) I have a perfectly good 35mm to be honest and I would need some very persuasive reason to give that lens up. Right now I'm just thinking about the 40.
Originally posted by Huck Finn
Doug, tell me more about the 3.5 Skopar . . . I assume you mean the 28. Huck, I'm mostly passing on the enthusiasm I've read in various online fora about the 28 Skopar; wherever it's mentioned, it's admired.
As for my own use, I see by my records I've shot only one roll of film with it, and that an elderly Kodak Max from the 'fridge, showing its age too in dull colors. Sample below, camera was the CLE. Happily, I cannot detect any linear distortion with this lens.
I bought the lens to "replace" the 4/25mm Snapshot Skopar for use wide-open for interior environmental portraits. With the "35mm" adaptor on it, it works perfectly on my CLE, bringing up the 28mm framelines.
But this was also at the time I was assessing use of 645 format RF cameras for this portrait project. 645 won out, and the 35mm gear gets only occasional use.
Huck, you might wander about with a light meter clenched in your fist, haunting locales you'd like to shoot in, testing the light levels to see if f/3.5 is fast enough. :)
I've settled on Fuji NPZ800, pretending it's ISO 500, and this seems adequate for my use with the medium format f/4 lenses in the places I shoot. There are some rather dim interiors too, and then I just brace myself as best I can and squeeze it off using target-shooter technique. I figure these 645 lenses at f/4 give me about the same DoF as would f/2.8 in 35mm format equivalents, and that works for me.
Thanks, Doug. From past experience, I think I'll want the extra speed of the f/1.9.
The 28/3.5 is my first and only Voigtlander lens. Up till that point I was using ancient Canon and Leica lenses (including a lousy, in my view, early 35/2 Summicron). The Canon's are decent, but after seeing the results of this lens I was shocked by the beauty. I had obviously been living in a hole.
But I find that at night 3.5 is too slow. Maybe I should get faster film.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.