I tend to think of lenses in their 35mm equivalents. Ok, so I don’t own a 40mm lens, but I have the fabulous Plaubel Makina 670 with the stupendous fixed mount Nikkor 80mm lens. That’s the 6×7 equivalent of the smaller format 40mm lens. Yes, there are some quirks with using the Plaubel, but it’s truly my all time favorite, because of the camera operation, the lens itself and the perspective its focal length provides. But there is another reason … it just may be the perfect focal length for the vast number of subjects I’m interested in or come across … and it may be the same for you!

I’ve always considered myself a 50mm kind of guy, and historically that lens or its equivalent has been my focal length of choice. But as time goes by, the more I think about it, it seems I’ve been drawn to medium format cameras that use an 80mm lens, be it the Mamiya 7/7II or the Plaubel Makina. I’ve owned and used three Plaubels during the last 40 years, and now that camera/lens combination has essentially become my go to.

Why?

I think in large part, the single most compelling reason is that it enables me to accomplish just about anything I want for almost any situation I find myself in. In 35mm terms, there’s no thinking about whether I need to switch from using my go to 50mm for the 35, or when I’m using 35mm whether I need to go back to the 50. Of course with my Leica’s I can use both my M3 and the ridged 50mm Summicron along with my M2 and the 35mm f/2.8 Summaron. While I’ve done that many times, but found that I often seemed to finish a roll of film in the M3/50mm but not in M2/35mm, with the unfinished roll sitting in the M2 for a long time.

I’ve have gotten away from that approach when using 35mm cameras and have gravitated towards just using my M2 with both the 50mm and 35mm lenses. But here’s another problem … once I mount a particular lens on a camera, especially when I’m on the street, I tend to leave it on and adjust as opportunities present themselves rather than change lenses back and forth. In fact, that is exactly what happened a couple of weeks ago when I photographed the No Kings protest here in Doylestown. I don’t feel this has kept me from making good pictures, but maybe I could be making better ones, or doing less cropping in the darkroom for example if I switched lenses as appropriate.

In medium format land, the 80mm solves that problem wonderfully. Perhaps one of the reasons is that it turns out to be very close to the way the eye sees. A 40mm lens on a 35mm camera would do the same thing.

So where does all this leave me? I still want to be able to have the option of using other lenses when the occasion calls for them, e.g., making photographs of murals might require using both wider and longer lenses.  And I still will be using a 35mm camera as the situation calls for it, or just maybe when the mood happens to strike me.

I promise this isn’t a sudden GAS attack, but maybe I’ll find either a 40mm lens that will most likely work best with my M3 (supposedly I would have to judge composition just outside the 50mm frame lines), or get a Leica CL or Minolta CL (the camera bodies and lenses are the same … apparently they were jointly designed by Leitz and Minolta), or possibly a Minolta CLE with its updated lens. All three were designed to use the 40mm natively. Finally, I might even try a much cheaper option, but one that could work just as well sans the Leica cachet, and pick up an old Olympus 35RC with its fixed and apparently quite good 42mm f/2.8 lens. Nice ones can be had for about $150 bucks!

Fun fact … I discovered that Henri Cartier Bresson had used a CL to do a project in nearby New Jersey!

Is it a sign?

I guess you can tell I’ve started to think about this!

Trouble is I really love my vintage Summicron and Summaron lenses!!!

Stay well,

Michael