Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/11/09

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] 40mm
From: Stephen Gandy <Stephen@CameraQuest.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 08:24:27 -0800
References: <200011080434.UAA20157@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> <5.0.0.25.0.20001108234039.02d5b6f0@206.34.200.40>

ah yes, but there are two factors here, the focal length and the lens quality.

I don't like the 40 focal length personally.  I prefer shooting with either the 35
or the 50 over it, from a standpoint of the view.

the 40/2 is a very sharp lens, and relatively inexpensive.   for decades a
beautiful sharp 20x30 hand held shot taken with the 40/2 on the CL was on the wall
at Riviera camera in Redondo Beach CA, taken by the shop owner of ....da da da...
his Leica rep at a camera show.  most people thought that it had been taken with 2
1/4.   I was also quite happy with the lens sharpness when I was shooting my first
M mount, a Minolta CL.  but I just never liked the focal length.

Stephen

"M.E.Berube" wrote:

> At 07:07 PM 11/8/00 -0600, Mike wrote about the 40mm:
> >Me, too. I like this angle of view best of all. Some people dislike it, such
> >as my friend Stephen Gandy.
>
> Really? On his page: http://www.cameraquest.com/leicacl.htm
> I read that Mr. Gandy writes:
>
> "VERY sharp lightweight 4.5 oz 40/2 <SNIP> In my experience the 40/2 is one
> of the best, and least expensive, Leica M lenses. "
>
> >A Summicron-C can be easily modified to bring up the 35mm framelines on an M.
>
> Cool, I'll ask Ms. K about it when I send in the M5 for a much needed CLA.
>
> It will likely, then, remain my only actual M mount lens.
> Thanks.
>
> CL,
> Michael E. Berube

In reply to: Message from "M.E.Berube" <MEB@goodphotos.com> (Re: [Leica] 40mm)