[Leica] 40mm

[Mike Johnston <michaeljohnston@ameritech.net>]

> I like 40mm for all the same reasons that have been mentioned. It seems
> most natural to my eye...not too wide but not 'normal.'


Me, too. I like this angle of view best of all. Some people dislike it, such
as my friend Stephen Gandy.

A Summicron-C can be easily modified to bring up the 35mm framelines on an
M. Then you just have to remember that, instead of there usually being a
little MORE on the negative than the framelines show, there is usually just
a little LESS. It's actually quite easy to get used to, in practice.

One of my favorite lenses was the 40mm f/2 for the Olmypus cameras. They
made 3,000 of them (tiny run for a mainstream SLR manufacturer, which
Olympus still was back then), only 1,000 of which came to the USA. Darn
thing hardly sold at all, and I remember them being "remaindered"
interminably in the late '80s for as low as $69 each, brand new. Well, now
they're all gone and still prized by Olympus photographers, so the few that
come up on eBay sell for more that $500! The cheapest one I ever bought was
in mint condition and cost $55. There are some times when the habit of
consecutively buying and then selling gear is a real loss.   <:-(

It wasn't a perfect lens--not as good as a Leica lens--but it had great
strengths and I got a lot of nice pictures with it. Its weakness was flare
degradation (Olympus never could coat lenses worth a damn) but in open shade
it was marvelous. I loved the bokeh, although some of my friends don't.

Some of the sharpest-looking pictures I ever took were with a 40mm f/2
Minolta Rokkor-M on a CLE. It often bested my 35mm Summicron-M (pre-ASPH)
which I used for a much longer period of time. I didn't use the Rokkor-M for
very long, but that lens, to this day, is one that consistently draws
admiring comments from non-photographers when they see the prints. Those
lenses are easily usable on the M6, though I'd recommend the frameline
modification.

- --Mike