CV 35mm V 40mm 1.4

[Gazzah]

Im looking for a faster wider lens, looking at these two the 40 is £125 cheaper - so basically Im wondering if I would miss the extra 5mm of width.
The lens woulod be used on a R3A (ideal for the 40) and an M5 (ideal for the 35), so would either one be best?

TIA

Gary H

[jsrockit]

I'd choose the one that is native to the camera you use the most.

[Krosya]

CV 40 is a fantastic lens - I dont see why CV 35/1.4 is more expensive as to me it is not any better. I really like my CV 40 and I use it on M5, Bessa R3M and Hexar RF. Works very well with all cameras. I dont think 35/1.4 is any better , plus I have CV 35/1.2 and M-Hexanon 35/2 for my 35mm needs.

[Gazzah]

Thanks for the replies - I didnt think there was that much difference between the two, so guess I iwll go with the 40 and learn to frame it on the M5.

Gary H

[ferider]

Pick the one that best fits your frame-lines. I.e., in the M5 case, I recommend the 35. For the R3* the 40 is better. You can always crop a 35 to 40, but not vice versa. Regarding rendering, the 35 has a little smoother OOF, and a little more distortion, when compared to the 40. No big/dramatic differences. BTW, the "40" is about 43mm long, so we are talking about 20% difference in FOV. Similar to comparing a 28 to a 35.

And in contrast to others, I've used both. I kept the 35.

Roland.

[Gazzah]

Originally Posted by ferider

BTW, the "40" is about 43mm long, so we are talking about 20% difference in FOV. Similar to comparing a 28 to a 35.

And in contrast to others, I've used both. I kept the 35.

Roland.

That could change things - I was already wondering if the 40 was wide enough, I have an old 35 Womura that is nice, just want a brighter lens, but with the 40 being even nearer to a 50..... I dont know now...

Thanks all..

Gary H

PS - guess I could just save my money for another while and an even faster 35 1.2