Kevin Purcell noticed that on the anticipated compact Tokina AT-X 24–70mm ƒ/2.8 PRO lens, a full frame lens for Canon and Nikon mount, a setting for 40mm is marked on the barrel in addition to the "traditional" focal lengths of 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, and 50mm.
Either they're trying to appeal to the legions of fans of 40mm prime lenses, or 40mm is going mainstream. To quote Outkast, hey ya. (I got turned on to 40mm normal lenses by Sally Mann, and have been an aficionado of them ever since. Standouts include the Minolta M-Rokkor 40mm ƒ/2 in Leica M mount, the Olympus OM Zuiko 40mm ƒ/2 pancake, and the Panasonic 20mm [40mm-e] ƒ/1.7 for Micro 4/3.)
The new Tokina zoom will cost about $1,300 (unconfirmed), has 15 elements in 11 groups, and weighs 1,000g.
And by the bye, the U.S. Tokina importer changed its name from THK Photo Products, Inc., to Kenko Tokina USA, Inc., as of April '13, to bring it in line with the name of the parent company. Based in Huntington Beach, California, Kenko Tokina USA is a subsidiary of Kenko Tokina Co, Ltd of Tokyo Japan. It imports Tokina lenses, Hoya filters, SLIK tripods and Kenko photo accessories.
Contrary to rumor, Tokina was not founded by former Nikon engineers who wanted to market more adventuresome designs—that was Kino (Kiron), according to Camerapedia.
Mike
(Thanks to Kevin)
Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Arne Croell: "Forty millimeters is of course the focal length closest to the format diagonal (43mm) for the 35mm/FF format. It is interesting to note that for medium format and large format the common 'normal' focal lengths are much closer to the format diagonal—80/90mm for 6x6/6x7cm, 150mm for 4x5", 300mm for 8x10". The focal lengths equivalents of 50mm, i.e. slightly longer than the diagonal, exist (105, 180, 360mm), but are not as common."
Chad Thompson: "The only 40mm I've ever loved...Voigtländer 40mm ƒ/2 Ultron. More accurately, the only one I've ever owned. It's so tiny and renders scenes quite beautifully. Also that silly little thread-in close up lens that comes with it has saved me on more than one occasion."
ginsbu: "Speaking of, Panasonic is offering $80 off the 20mm now…."
Jim: "The Canon 40mm ƒ/2.8 pancake seems to be a huge hit as well. It's now my main lens on the 6D."
Steve P.: "Don't forget the 40mm Voigtlander Ultron SL II. I've got one on my D750 and none of the other lenses are getting much of a look-in at the moment. I can't help but marvel at the sheer quality of the files from such a compact package."
Rod Thompson: "Favourite lens for Fuji...27mm (40mm-equivalent). I like this more on my X-E1 than the X100 due almost entirely to the 40mm rather than 35mm point of view. Possibly sharper than most other Fuji lenses (see Photozone review) and nice look as well. I have the 60mm, 14mm and 18–55mm and this little guy stands proud."
Adam Weaver: "I think the 40mm setting is a wink to the old souls who look down through a Rolleiflex 75mm and say 'Just right....'"
Hans Muus: "My Fujinon 27mm ƒ/2:8 has a lot going against it. It doesn't have the aperture ring that works so very pleasantly on the other Fujinon lenses; attaching a lensehood is virtually impossible, and it looks and feels plasticky. But each time I use it because of its ideal angle of view (40.5mm equivalent) its images surprise me. I simply love the way it draws, reminds me of the (what was it, 75mm ƒ/3.5?) Tessar of my Rolleiflex T."
Don't sleep on the Canon 40/2.8 & 5D/6D combo, it's a joy to carry. That little lens, though inexpensive, is a real cracker.
Posted by: emptyspaces | Thursday, 12 February 2015 at 10:08 AM
Given the comment about a year ago from a Tokina engineer that they had resumed a relationship with Pentax to co-design lenses, I wonder if this optical design will be the new 24-70 lens for Pentax's new FF camera. BTW, Pentax also has had 40mm primes.
Posted by: Michael Perham | Thursday, 12 February 2015 at 11:04 AM
My Minolta HiMatic 7sII had a 40/1.7 that I loved to use. When I got my first APS-C DSLR (the Konica Minolta 7d) I ordered an old Minolta 28/2 off eBay. The seller accidentally shipped a 35/2 that I tried, but then returned for the wider lens. The 28 remains my favorite lens on APS-C. (I've since switched to Nikon and am suffering with the DX 35/1.8).
I have a new Sony A6000 (since Xmas) and am contemplating picking up a normal prime for it (I have 3 lenses that were sitting in a closet because they were purchased for use with a NEX-5 which I grew to hate). The Sony 35/1.8 is appealing because of the max aperture and OSS, while the Sigma 30mm is only f/2.8 and the upcoming FE 28/2 lens is going to be more expensive and lack OSS.
So I looked through images in Lightroom, filtering photos taken with each of the lenses (28/2 and 35/1.8) and looking for the better (favorite) images with each, and I found a world of difference. The 35mm shots were typically subject-oriented; almost used like a "close up telephoto" in many cases, if that makes any sense. Subjects more often filled a lot of the frame, but not in the same way they do when you get up close with a wide angle; you don't get the same sense of up close perspective nor the wide background. The 28mm images, on the other hand, "breathe". They're relaxed; they're environmental. The subject doesn't fill the frame in so many, but even when it does, there's more context. It feels close to being a wide angle lens without really feeling like a wide angle lens. The difference is significant enough that it's pretty clear that I should buy either the upcoming 28 or the Sigma 30 and forget about the OSS lens.
The other thing I found interesting is that photos taken with zoom lens at those same settings don't have a similar look at all; there's a big difference in the approach I take with a prime (looking for photos that can be shot well with a 28) versus a zoom (looking for anything interesting, then picking a FL to frame it). I keep meaning to go through my entire catalog and rate photos, so I can get a better sense of how I shoot my best/favorite pictures.
Posted by: Dennis | Thursday, 12 February 2015 at 12:07 PM
The 40mm is an absolute godsend for vertical 3/4 portraits! The 50 just kinda "floats" the subject in space, the 35 stretches it too much- the 40 hits the ever lovin' sweet spot.
PS- The 40mm Ultron pancake should be on that list of superlative performers!
Posted by: Stan B. | Thursday, 12 February 2015 at 12:11 PM
Funny ... 40mm's alright for me, but I got really addicted to slightly-over-30mm-e when I was shooting with the Pentax 21mm (x1.5 = 32.5mm-e). Then for a while I had a Canon 20mm (x1.6 = 32mm-e) which I also liked.
Both were stolen, and I lived without this focal length for a long time, then got a hankering for it again and bought a 15mm (x2 = 30mm but see below) for my m4/3 camera.
Since I crop to 3:2, it's effectively slightly longer -- I dunno how to calculate that, though.
Posted by: Ben Rosengart | Thursday, 12 February 2015 at 01:00 PM
Whoa, no CAPTCHA today! Frabjous!
Posted by: Ben Rosengart | Thursday, 12 February 2015 at 01:00 PM
Your mention of Kino brings back memories. I used to be their Manager of Marketing Communications. Among other things, I wrote their brochures, instruction books, and dealer collateral. Tokina was a strong competitor even back then.
Posted by: Gordon Lewis | Thursday, 12 February 2015 at 01:02 PM
I loved the CLE/Rokkor 40/2 back in the day but here I'm adding a shout for the SLII Voigtlander 40/2.0 pancake. Lovely, affordable compact and crisp both as full frame 40mm and with adaptor as a short portrait 80mm on m.f.t. Snuk up on me over the last few years to became the most versatile and fave lens in my bag. IQ far better than the 20/3.5 skopar from the same family...
jonno
Posted by: jonno | Thursday, 12 February 2015 at 02:13 PM
"Either they're trying to appeal to the legions of fans of 40mm prime lenses ... and the Panasonic 20mm [40mm-e] ƒ/1.7 for Micro 4/3.)"
Oh dear! Do I now need to dispose of mine? Don't you hate it when you choose something for simple utilitarian reasons or highly personal reasons of taste, then some bunch of Yahoos make it a cult thing?
The difference between 35 and 40 is far too small and subtle for me to worry about, a step forward or back, or leaving a tree or rock in or out on one side.
Well, OK, I dissemble. I chose the 20/1.7 in spite of the 40 mm nutters. I wanted something wide-ish, small-ish and fast.
The Oly 17s are on one hand too big, on the other too slow and of so-so optical quality. The Panny 25/1.4, is too big and heavy and the Oly 25/1.8 and Sigma 19/2.8 didn't exist.
The Panny 20/1.7 is small, light, good optically. Just right said -
Goldilocks Moose
Posted by: Moose | Thursday, 12 February 2015 at 02:20 PM
I got my fourth 40mm equiv. lens last november.
It´s the 27mm fuji pancake. I bought it together with a xE-2 and really recommend it. The colors are delicious and the sharpness is there with a little pop, somehow in an elegant way. Very powerful and to me a real surprise.
Another recommendation: RawTherapee 4.2.1 on Mac, especially for the fuji-files.It gives nice detail and sharpening, plus very good noise reduction.
Posted by: knufi | Thursday, 12 February 2015 at 02:58 PM
Another Voigtlander Ultron fan... as I've said here before. My favourite lens for fun stuff. Have only used it on full-frame Nikons - an F100 and D700. It'll near enough always be on one of those two. Have used it everyday this week, so far. Nothing's perfect, and at wide apertures there's coma to be wary of. I can live with that, and the manual focus.
If I lost all my gear, I would be tempted by that Canon 40mm, on an old 5D Mk1 - two excellent bargains to be had these days... says a Nikon fan!
Posted by: Dave Stewart | Thursday, 12 February 2015 at 04:08 PM
How timely, I'm currently prototyping a big and bright optical viewfinder for 40mm (or equiv FL) lenses. Hopefully going into production this summer.
https://www.polaroidblipfoto.com/entry/2005300488244824292
Want to be a beta tester Mike?
(Don't worry I've cleaned that filter)
Posted by: Tony Collins | Thursday, 12 February 2015 at 05:44 PM
I have a Leica Minilux with a 40mm f 2.4 Summarit that was a joy to use. Very nice lens.
I remember reading that 40mm was Mary Ellen Mark favorite focal lenght, but I am not sure.....
Posted by: David Lee | Thursday, 12 February 2015 at 06:22 PM
Wait till the end of the year and the Pentax FA43 f/1.9 Limited will be a 40 again :-)
Small, light, beautifully crafted and with optical character. Street shooter / reportage lens par excellence.
And it is not just close to 36mm diagonal, it is its diagonal.
Posted by: Robbie Corrigan | Thursday, 12 February 2015 at 07:26 PM
The 27mm f/2.8 Fujinon X-mount is just a little sweetheart. It stays on my Fuji X-A1 99% of the time, and it's 35-e 40mm FOV proves very flexible and versatile for everyday photography.
BTW, the little X-A1 is one of the most under-rated cameras on the market, available for about $450, it's image quality surpasses any of the Olympus OM-D cameras.
Posted by: Stephen Scharf | Thursday, 12 February 2015 at 09:21 PM
Yet another Voigtlander Ultron fan. It is almost permanently mounted on my D3, where I first tried it as a visual joke, but loved so much that there it stays.
Posted by: Michael Bearman | Thursday, 12 February 2015 at 09:30 PM
Since when did Sally Mann shoot 40 mm, small format? She's always been a large-format shooter.
[Not always. Before she was famous she did local freelance in Virginia and shot with an Olympus OM for jobs. She liked the 40/2 Zuiko. --Mike]
Posted by: Ed | Thursday, 12 February 2015 at 11:50 PM
You photographers -- always having to go back to 35mm comparisons.
With a FF sensor, its a ~0.5 steradian FOV lens. That explains everything, right;?
Posted by: Mao | Friday, 13 February 2015 at 02:12 AM
I am in the 6D + 40mm pancake camp too, albeit my 6D mostly has the inexpensive but awesome 85/1.8 on it most of the time, since I use it mostly for portraits.
Nevertheless the 40mm is an excellent lens focal length.
Posted by: Tamás Kádár | Friday, 13 February 2015 at 04:13 AM
Very interesting to see the popularity of this focal length... (the Ultron is also my favourite). Hopefully Nikon will begin to understand that "40mm" is not an oscure subculture and produce a full frame 40mm autofocus lens.
Posted by: Manuel Falcão Malzbender | Friday, 13 February 2015 at 05:20 AM
If I may be permitted, this is a link to a recently made threesome, all with the Fujinon 27/2.8. http://www.hansmuus.com/1179245/new-walking-the-hoornsche-dijk
Posted by: Hans Muus | Friday, 13 February 2015 at 05:45 AM
You say you particularly like the 40mm [M-] Rokkor. Is that compared to other 40mm lenses (the Summicron springs to mind) or just on it's own merits?
I have both and use the Summicron probably because of the name. They are pretty similar overall.
[Both fine lenses but the M-Rokkor has better coating. --Mike]
Posted by: Doug C | Friday, 13 February 2015 at 10:27 AM
My first 35mm camera (for about 10 years) was a Rollei 35 with a 40mm lens. Quite nice, once you got the hang of zone focusing.
Posted by: Chuck Albertson | Friday, 13 February 2015 at 11:50 AM
I love 40ish lenses, and even blog-posts about them. Wasn't it you Mike, who wrote about a photographer that used a SRT-101 or so and the 40/2 Zuiko (not Sally Mann), and brought to me the idea of 40mm?
I just wonder, how does the Panasonic 20 compare to the M-Rokkor... any thoughts?
Btw. I also think, that using a zoom atn the 40mm setting is not the same (as one commenter mentioned above).
Posted by: Andreas | Friday, 13 February 2015 at 12:17 PM
Hey, what about the Summarit 40/2.4 on Leica Minilux?!
Posted by: PVS | Friday, 13 February 2015 at 03:07 PM
Mike, I have long heard the rumor that Minolta CLE 40s were "multi-coated" but is ther any truth to that? The coatings on my Rokkor look exactly like the coatings on my Summicron. And since reflected light is what coatings are supposed to do, is there any possibility of a difference?
Extensive testing on my two lenses (by the previous owner) suggested that the Summicron was slightly more crisp in some situations, otherwise they are quite similar. Typical Mandler 6 element Summicrons, not a bad thing at all.
Posted by: Doug C | Friday, 13 February 2015 at 11:11 PM
In addition to the lenses mentioned here (I've used the Minolta 7Si versions,) the 42mm (that counts right?) on the Olympus 35SP is lovely. It's not the sharpest, but there is something about it that I really love. The 42s on the 35RC and the Trip 35 are other examples and are great performers.
In the Hexanon world, the Hexanon 40/1.8 AR is spectacular, IMO.
This Hexanon/40 shot was on Ilford Pan F+, at f4 if I recall correctly, and souped in Rodinal. Everything seemed to come together for the shot.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/edunbar/3998734926/in/photolist-dfWPb6-dfXgiB-dfYrXt-dfYW8E-djicyT-76mSGN-76myzC-7A6MX1-7A331V-djp3Pu-deG7Wy-djiEgx-djpwhc-dfaSqz-76ikJt-76mmhA-dfxo25
Posted by: Earl Dunbar | Saturday, 14 February 2015 at 02:22 PM
Great article - thanks. I agree - 40/45 is the most versatile focal length, surely. With it you can get a wide-angle look for landscapes and a semi-tele effect as well for people. I'm not sure how it works that way but it does. I've used this FOV on medium format, 35mm and digital and it's the right length 90% of the time. The stand-out lenses are the 75mm Mamiya for the Mamiya 6 and the Rokkor 40mm for the CL/CLE... and the amazing 40/45 lenses on the Sigma DP series.
Posted by: IanC | Sunday, 15 February 2015 at 06:05 PM
Hello, I just posted to say that I, too, love the 40mm focal length. The 20mm Panasonic never leaves my camera.
Please, include my posts into any relevant market research about ideal focal lengths.
keywords : ideal focal length, 40mm, pancake, large aperture, contrast, olympus, sigma, mft, FF, aps-c, 6x6, 6x7,
ps.: I just ordered an old olympus 35 LC for that g.zuiko 42mm Earl Dunbar just mentionned. I'm excited.
Posted by: Sylvain G. | Monday, 16 February 2015 at 04:50 PM