The 40mm M-Rokkor CLE [some snaps]...

8452338250_b117f912b8_c.jpg


8743610360_7e9b2166ce_c.jpg


8808864365_cb7bef0bd7_c.jpg


8889652757_0ab64a32ea_c.jpg


8934122664_07ee94a326_c.jpg


9047723602_5831e919f2_c.jpg


9012361121_416fbb7ac7_c.jpg


9395193889_1c41a65d8b_c.jpg


9521055299_58261418c0_c.jpg


9596962774_6191dba91b_c.jpg
 
Hmm... Guess I should bust the li'l beauty out, throw her on the M4-P, and take them for a spin... I need to use the M5 a bit more, too, but the balance is awkward unless the lens is suitably large enough (the M-Rokkor being delightfully small)...
 
Hey maddoc, are you currently exhibiting (or recently exhibited) your photos?

They sound a lot like a description I read on Tokyo Camera Style of a show at a small gallery.

I'd say that lens is a winner! Good work...I love the simple joy of going for a walk and making pictures.
 
Colin Corneau said:
Hey maddoc, are you currently exhibiting (or recently exhibited) your photos?

They sound a lot like a description I read on Tokyo Camera Style of a show at a small gallery.

I'd say that lens is a winner! Good work...I love the simple joy of going for a walk and making pictures.
Click to expand...

Colin, thank you for your kind words but unfortunately I had no exhibition of my work here in Tokyo yet (albeit a couple of times in Sapporo when I lived there). Hopefully at some time in the future! In Tokyo it is quite expensive to have an exhibition because almost all galleries are rental spaces, except for the TPPG, which is run by its own members including John Sypal (the guy behind Tokyo Camera Style). TPPG is always worth a visit!
 
Can anyone comment on why 40mm lenses seem to be so short and simple? I don't know of many, but the M-Rokkor and the recentish Canon 40mm EF lens are downright tiny. Same with the 40mm Voigtlander for E-mount, which is pushing the limits of pancake thinness. Then there's their super small 40mm 1.4...

I know that 43.5mm (ish, somewhere around there) is said to be the true standard focal length, whatever that means, rather than 50mm. I.e. the closest thing to human eyesight magnification and spacial relationships on the z-axis...maybe only for 135 film dimensions, I don't know. Though the master filmmaker, Yasujiro Ozu, thought 50mm on vertically fed 35mm film was the most comparable focal length to human eyesight, and thus the least distracting focal length. Anyway, what I'm trying to ask is whether or not the 40mm focal length is something special, like the simplest of all lengths for which to design. 35mm seems preposterously complex in comparison, but that could be because all the tech is focused there because of people's love for that length.

Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top