My first 40mm was a Zeiss Batis (for Sony). It is bulky. If you are used to 35mm, take a step back. The lens is anachronic. It is relaxed to shoot wis with less distortion than the 35mm. A Voigländer Nokton 40mm F/1.2 on the Leica stays on the camera for long periods of time. Liveview comes in useful as does Visoflex if you aim to modern camera sharpness level.
Ya i'm looking for something a little bit more compact for my sony a7cii, im thinking whether i should get the 40mm or the 35 from sigma. Anyways thanks for this video@@gerardneedham
Convincing, but balanced case, Gerard. I also have the Sony 40mm lens and like its performance, ergonomics, and field of view. Key point: IMO, our “optical field of view” and “photographic field of attention” differ. The field of attention drives our focal length choices for different compositions. Vision is typically wider than what captures our attention - subjects close in or further off. E.g., folks who do much cropping in post would, IMO, likely benefit from using longer focal lengths. Does that make sense? BTW, I didn’t get the “Do I smell?” gag. Must be a private joke.😊 Cheers!
I have the 40mm g lens and has become my most used glass on my A7Cii. Size, build, aperture, af, and sharp enough 👍🏻 Complimented with 24mm f2.8G & 85mm f1.8 in my sling for walk around prime kit. Nice to see a video on why it’s so great.
So I got a 40mm Zeiss Batis recently, and while I love the character of the Zeiss glass, there is one thing about the focal length that I'm still struggling with. I'm trying to get a "feel" for what it's optimal for. Different focal lengths often have a certain "vibe" to them that you get a feel for. I can't remember who I watched who said so, but I remember someone describing the 40mm as having an almost...dispassionate quality to it. More cropped in than a 35, and so less of the storytelling context that that focal length provides. Not as tight as a 50, so less of the layered focus that a 50 provides. It sits in the middle, and while there's elements about that that feels really cool, like "wow, I can kind of get the best of both worlds!", I'm actually struggling with a feeling that maybe it's a compromise by being in the middle? I just have yet to find an approach to using it for shots that I feel wowed by. Perhaps it will just take time and getting used to its "vibe", but so far I'm wondering lately if by getting something in the middle I'm not getting the best of both but less of either. 😕
I have the batis 40 since it came out, thinking it might be a great alternative for tight spaces studio portraits, it’s never been a great choice over 50mm. It’s quite a big difference actually. It might be of good use for outdoor or street photography. So you are not alone on this.
That middle 'meh' vibe could be a good thing in a way: takes the lens' character and bias out of the way of the shot and leaves only the content of the frame. Eg: pretty much anything you shoot at 85mm F1.4 is going to look "Wow!". Saeme for ultra wide. But the 40mm is the same compression as your eyes. So you can't rely on the gear to put in the 'wow'...that now has to come from the story that your frame is telling. Just my take on this. 😊
@@ArifKhan. I hear you, and I appreciate that. I'm trying to keep that in mind and give the lens a fair shake. I'm hoping it grows on me even if I haven't been initially wowed by it. Thanks for the input and for taking the time to leave a reply
I agree. 40mm (on full frame) is one of if not my favorite focal length for a prime lens. If I had to choose one prime to keep on my camera for a year it would be either 35 or 40.. I think 35mm has a bit of an edge when shooting more landscape etc. 40mm is pretty good at almost everything, so would make a better general and travel lens probably. Ideally, some zoom is nice, but also makes for bigger, heavier, etc. I’m really surprised 40mm is not more popular actually, but guessing part of that is there not being many options for lenses in that focal length (with the majority of them being 35 or 50).
@@gerardneedham There is the Sigma 40mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens - I've looked at it a few times, but not sure I want to deal with something that big/heavy.. Looks like a nice lens though.
Sure, a nice lens. But I would've preferred if they made this lens with at least f1.8. I understand that Sony want to have their "Baby-G"s pretty small, but f1.8 wouldn't have been really a problem. A big bigger would've been ok. For a prime lens f.2.5 is a bit.... mehhh. Not bad but also not really good. A lot of zooms have f2.8 and a prime should at least have noticeably smaller DoF, at least f1.8. I will stick with my 35mm f1.8.
Yeah or f2 like the sigma options For what ever reason sigma never made a 40mm f2 they made a 45mm f2.5 for what ever reason and a 50mm f2 Why would you buy the 45 when you can get a f2 50mm lol
Meh 🫤, I don’t really use my 85mm for fun, I find it easy to use but the photos are all very similar. I’m finding as get more experience as a photographer I’m shooting wider and wider, which is harder and harder But each to there own preference, there is not a best focal length
Agreed. Agreed AGREED! Love that 40mm 2.5, and the 40mm 1.2 Voigtlander and the 27mm 2.8 Fuji (40mm). Sold the Batis. Great job! That 40mm 2.5 has some great character as well for a newer lens.
In all honesty I resisted clicking on this video because I expected more algorithm fluff, but I found your points highly pertinent in a well curated video. Thanks!
40mm is great, I get more keepers than with the 35mm, however, the fewer 35mm shots that I like are also considerably better than anything I have taken on the 40mm, it just becomes more difficult to compose the wider you go.
Yes, same for me i love it! I think it's one of the best all around lenses, absolutely awesome for street photography with 40, 35, 28, 24 and 20mm all in one and coupled with 85mm, you have all you need!
Also the reason I bought the Tamron 20-40. Though, I wish the autofocus was better on my a7RIV… It’s decent (not great) on my newer a7IV, but still not near as good as I would have hoped for with a fairly new lens. To be honest, if I had it to do over again I might have passed on it (for using on my a7RIV anyway), probably would be much better on the new a7RV.
I’m happy to know you shoot professionally with Tamron 24zoom and a7iv because that is my go to for events. I’m free of charge at the moment 😊and suffered from thoughts that my kit wasn’t pro level.
No "best" focal length. I have multiple 28s, 35s, 40s, 50s and zooms. With each you get something and you give up something. For me the 35 is a the best all-arounder. A 28 and 50 combo also works well.
I am sure you have put in a lot of efforts for this review. I am happy to see you doing it better every time. Going through every feature and experimenting with them takes time. Looking forward to more such work from you. And, Shekar is such a precious friend to have.
Couldn't agree more !!!! I shoot 40mm (equiv) on Fuji... And I shoot 45mm (actual) on Panasonic.. When I get my first Sony, the 40mm will definitely be my first lens !
i've gone full circle. started with DSLRS, had a whole range of lenses for different purposes. found i was only shooting with my 35mm and 40mm out of size/convenience, so i downsized to an X100F (35mm). downsized further to a Ricoh GRIIIx (40mm). after shooting for almost 7 years in this narrow focal range, i found my shots were starting to look very monotonous, and i got an itch to jump back into an interchangeable lens system. now i've got a Nikon Zf, and i'm having a ton of fun shooting with my old F mount glass, especially the crazy 10.5mm fisheye.
What’s the design flaw? I’ve had no issues, like they are not a perfect GM lens, hence the size and weight But your not going to spot what was shot on a GM lenses versus a compact G lens at the same aperture
I have found sticking to one focal length as a go to is the best way to shoot. I like the 28mm best and also shoot a lot with a 50mm. Whenever I go out I usually just bring one lens these days. Because also, changing lenses sucks.
Yeah I’m now stuck between the 24 and 28mm 😅 As 28mm + 40mm is not really much of a difference as 28mm + 50mm I think I’ll stick with 24mm and 40mm But I also use the tiny APSC 56mm (85mm) for Broll So that’s my current setup
That silent impatience from your model as you change lenses is deafening. It’s all in my head I know, but it kind of kills the vibe of the shoot and even the consistency of the photos, as well as my own enjoyment. I have settled on two cameras and two lenses - 35mm and 50mm equivalent - so I never have to fumble again.
Um I probably would go with the 23mm f2 as you can always crop to 40mm and f2 is pretty decent in low light and for subject separation But if you shootings images at f5.6 or f8 most of the time then the 27mm performs well
The 40mm focal length for full frame is a good focal length, but I do prefer a 35mm focal length for full frame (from 45 years experience of photography !).
One of the better videos on this lens! It's perfect, I haven't been very active with my photography as of late, but I'm very excited to try out this lens, I always loved primes for their lightweight and simplistic use!
00:00 Фокусное расстояние 40 мм • Автор рассказывает о своем опыте использования объектива 40 мм и его влиянии на его фотосъемку. • Он обсуждает, как это фокусное расстояние является оптимальным между 35 и 50 мм. 02:58 Универсальность 40 мм • Автор подчеркивает, что 40 мм является универсальным фокусным расстоянием, которое можно использовать для портретов, пейзажей и уличной фотографии. • Он также отмечает, что 40 мм является близким фокусным расстоянием к тому, как наши глаза видят мир. 04:54 Объективы 40 мм • Автор обсуждает различные объективы 40 мм, включая Sony 40 f 2.5 g и Fujifilm 27 f 2.8. • Он также упоминает о своем намерении купить объектив 27 f 1.2 Viltrox для портретной съемки. 07:01 Ограничения 40 мм • Автор признает, что 40 мм имеет некоторые ограничения, такие как отсутствие разнообразия объективов и сложность определения фокусного расстояния. • Он подчеркивает, что 40 мм не является идеальным фокусным расстоянием, и всегда нужно иметь более широкое фокусное расстояние для определения сцены или местоположения.
I accidentally started at 40mm because I wanted a 28mm like I heard my iPhone was back in 2012. Turns out I had an aps-c Canon camera, so my 28f1.8 was a more like a 40~. Turns out I loved it. It was the perfect width for single focus images. I still have the Ricoh GRIII with a 28 for those multi-focus or busier context images, but I think 40 is ideal for more casual doco stuff. At least for most people coming in new. Unfortunately there's no RF40 right now for Canon, so I've got the 35. It's fine. The difference is about as much as an arms length so I get 35 in the EVF, 40 in the LCD with these gorilla arms.
Oh that’s a cool story, you can always use the ef 40mm f2.8 pancake with the adapter it’s the same size as my Sony 40mm That canon 40mm is actually pretty good still. 40mm hit different
Thank you for the video. I’m a fan of the 40mm focal length and first used it on my Canon with their pancake EF 40mm f/2.8 (which i still own) and then again on the Fuji systems I owned with XF 27mm f/2.8. Since shooting Sony I bought the Zeiss Batis 40mm f/2 CF when it first came out. Last year when I first tried the A7C I bought the small FE 40mm f/2.5 G and now use it on my A7CR and A7CII. I do like those but hope Sony will someday create a f/1.8 or even faster G or GM version. I can hope. I did just take delivery of the Viltrox 27mm f/1.2 Pro for the Sony E mount two days ago and will experiment with it on my A6700 and A7CR but it looks great. Take care.
I agree! Also 40 is near to what the human eye replicates. Side note - I’m using the Ricoh griiix to get photos for hobbyist travel etc but want a hybrid camera for travel and filming long form podcasts at the apt. Does the a7cII fit the bill? A6700? Fuji is out for me due to AF.
