Why is the Voigtlander 35mm f/1.4 much more expensive than the 40mm f/1.4 if the focal lengths are so close?
Asked 5/30/2014
2 views
2 answers
0
I'm comparing the Voigtlander Nokton 40mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/1.4. In practice, 35mm and 40mm seem very close, so why can there be such a large price difference between them? Is the extra cost mainly about focal length, or are there other practical differences I should consider when choosing between these two lenses?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
12y ago
2 Answers
4
You're right that the focal lengths aren't that different. Considering that alone, I wouldn't worry about it, unless you have a particular need. (35mm is a little nicer close quarters, but not by much.)
But note that that's not the only difference — the lenses have different optical construction, with the 35mm having an additional element. They do seem pretty similar, though, and that doesn't completely explain the difference in price.
Originally by user1943. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user1943
12y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
The focal length difference alone does not explain the price gap. In actual shooting, 35mm and 40mm are fairly close; 35mm is just a bit wider and can be a little more useful in tight spaces.
More important factors are:
- Lens design: The two lenses do not have identical optical construction, so pricing is not based only on focal length.
- Viewfinder framelines: On many Leica M bodies, 35mm framelines are common but 40mm framelines are not. Some cameras are the opposite. That can make one focal length more practical depending on your camera.
- Demand and age: If the 35mm version is more popular or newer, that can also raise its price.
So the real choice is less about “5mm difference” and more about which focal length suits your shooting style and camera. If you like a slightly wider normal view and your camera supports 35mm framelines, the 35mm may be worth it. If not, the 40mm can be a very similar practical option.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI12y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Why is a Nikon 35mm f/1.4 so much more expensive than a 35mm f/1.8?
Why do 35mm lenses with similar focal length and aperture vary so much in price?
35mm macro vs 35mm non-macro prime: which is better for street and general use?
Why does the Nikon 70-300mm AF-S VR cost much more than the 55-300mm AF-S DX VR?
Which Nikon lens is better if I want to shoot both portraits and macro?