Menu

The Magic Of 40mm Lenses & 6 Films Shot Entirely At This Focal Length

40mm lenses have an incredibly rich history in cinema, and have been used (almost) exclusively by a handful of filmmakers.

Much like the sought after 28mm focal length, there is an intangible quality that 40mm lenses offer – although for entirely different reasons.

28mm lenses are a little wider than the natural perspective of our eyesight, which adds a layer of stylization that can work wonders. They skew reality just enough to transport you into another world by slightly manipulating your perception.

40mm lenses however, do the very opposite. They create the most realistic perspective – one that is nearly identical to human eyesight. The 35mm focal length is often thought of as the most “normal” lens. But according to many DPs (who I agree with), 40mm is in fact the closest to our vision. At least when paired with a Super 35mm camera.

You don’t always want to exactly re-create reality of course, but when you do the 40mm is often your best bet. The ultimate case in point is the late Gordon Willis.

Gordon Willis

For those who need to brush up on some film history: Gordon Willis was an Oscar winning cinematographer known for his work on countless feature films, including All The President’s Men and The Godfather trilogy, which is just the tip of the iceberg.

His aesthetic was incredibly distinct, but not because he over-stylized his shots. He was known for putting the story at the forefront of the audience experience, and finding ways to make the camera get out of the way.

He very often relied on what was later called the “Gordy Forty” – a single 40mm lens that would capture an entire movie.

By shooting everything on a single lens (and choosing the most natural focal length), the viewer never felt manipulated. Every shot felt life-like and truthful, rarely drawing attention away from the scene.

It’s the type of impact that an audience feels, even if they are not conscious of it.

Gordon certainly wasn’t the only DP to embrace the 40mm focal length though. It’s been used extensively (and in some cases exclusively) on a number of notable films throughout the decades.

Movies Shot Entirely On 40mm Lenses

Thousands of movies have used 40mm lenses for individual shots or scenes, but there are a handful of films shot entirely at a 40mm focal length.

Below are 6 examples of films shot at least 95% using a single 40mm lens. There are almost certainly other films that could have been included too, but most are not as well documented as the following 6:

  1. Chinatown
  2. Royal Tenenbaums
  3. Rushmore
  4. Son of Saul
  5. The Godfather
  6. 1917

Despite their exclusive use of 40mm lenses though, these movies all have distinctly different looks. Differences in lens type (anamorphic / spherical) and capture format (large format / super 35) completely change the effect that any lens produces.

Several films on this list – like 1917, shot on Alexa Large Format – definitely veer off from the classic 40mm look that Gordon Willis and others were after. To me, that’s where the true magic of 40mm lives, and where it shines.

But the versatility of 40mm is undeniable. It’s middle of the road in the best way possible, making it useable (even to capture an entire feature film) on practically any format or aspect ratio. That’s in part why it’s been used as the sole lens on such a variety of project types.

If you’re an owner/operator, it’s a great focal length to own. Especially if you own multiple cameras with different capture formats.

Pair it with Super 35mm for the most natural look, large format for a wide angle, or Super 16 for a telephoto.

Right now I am shooting a feature film entirely using one lens as well. But I am using a 50mm focal length. You can read more about the project here.

Anamorphic Vs. Spherical

It’s worth noting the difference in field of view between an anamorphic 40mm lens and a spherical 40mm lens. This is one of the major factors that differentiates the look of the films above.

Like any other anamorphic lens, a 40mm anamorphic will produce a wider image than its spherical counterpart. De-squeezing from anamorphic creates many other distinctions too – from bokeh appearance to field of view. As a whole, anamorphic lenses create more stylization than spherical, with some exceptions.

The list of movies above includes films shot on both anamorphic and spherical 40mm. This is why you will see a distinct visual difference between a movie like Chinatown or The Royal Tenenbaums (Anamorphic) and The Godfather or 1917 (Spherical).

Both type of lenses can of course produce beautiful visuals, but the aesthetics will be noticeably different. Not to mention the impact on your aspect ratio.

For DPs like Gordon Willis who wanted the most natural look, a 40mm spherical was the way to go.

40mm Glass On Super 35

Many 40mm lenses can be paired with a variety of film gauges or sensor sizes – from Super 16mm to Full Frame. But to get the most “honest” look, I recommend pairing your 40mm lens with a Super 35 recording format. Again, this is the sweet spot.

Most classic movies shot with spherical 40mm lenses (like The Godfather) were captured on 35mm motion picture film. This is how Gordon Willis shot his movies, and surely what he considered to be the most natural pairing.

On a full frame sensor, a 40mm lens will look more like a 28mm would on Super 35. It creates a totally different look. On a Micro Four Thirds sensor, a 40mm lens will look more like an 80mm telephoto.

As mentioned above, this makes 40mm lenses super versatile, which is good. But you certainly need to take into account crop factor (or lack thereof), if you are seeking the classic 40mm natural aesthetic.

You can try to emulate the 40mm motion picture look by pairing a 60mm lens on your full frame camera, or by shooting with a 30mm lens on a Micro Four Thirds camera. Both will give you an “equivalent” 40mm field of view. But the results will never be exactly the same.

If you really want to capture the most classic 40mm look, pair the lens with a camera that records in Super 35. Or if you have a camera that can crop into a smaller area of your sensor to emulate the Super 35 field of view, that works too.

What are your thoughts on the 40mm focal length? Leave a comment below!

And for more exclusive articles like this every Sunday, sign up for my newsletter here.

About Author

Noam Kroll is an award-winning Los Angeles based filmmaker, and the founder of the boutique production house, Creative Rebellion. His work can be seen at international film festivals, on network television, and in various publications across the globe. Follow Noam on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook for more content like this!

15 Comments

  • Paul
    at

    How close am I to the look? I have a Zeiss Batis on the Sony A7SIII.

    Reply
  • Hernando
    at

    Great article with new information to consider. I’m raring to pair my 40mm Summicron with my X-T3 and see how that goes!

    Reply
  • Fantastic article, Noam. Longtime reader. Huge fan of what you do – especially of your genuinely independent thinking in the kind of things you choose to write about (a rare quality, that gets harder and harder to find.)

    Particularly, your piece on the oft slept-on 28mm focal length was quite validating (which, like you, I grew quite fond of on-set, for me – while directing & operating my 1st feature) And so is this one, about the 40mm! I’ve cherished whenever I’ve gotten that field of view, but unlike 28s – why are 40s SO FUCKING HARD TO FIND?

    From what I can tell – in the stills world – or even in the used cine lens market – it seems like a 32mm (another iconic focal length with an intangible magic) in that unless you’re looking at rangefinder cameras, you won’t find a stills counterpart. Any 40 I find seems to have electronic aperture, be incompatible with EF-modding, or worse – just seem cheap, like the EF pancake lens. Best I can find is the older Voigtlander glass so far. What has your search been like? Or are you mostly kicking it via renting proper cine lenses vs self-owning? I’ve done both.

    Anyway cheers from Burbank.

    Reply
    • Thanks so much for the note, Soren. I have mainly rented 40mm lenses, but would definitely consider the Voigtlander too. I love their glass!

      Reply
  • Thomas
    at

    I think the m43 equivalent would be 30mm and not 20mm. M43 should be half of the FF, not half of the s35mm. Since FF is 60mm half would be 30mm for a 2x m43. That makes sense since 25mm is considered typically the normal FOV like 50mm on FF. So 30mm would be slightly tighter than 25mm.

    Also not all m43 is exactly 2x. On the P4k for example 2x crop is when shooting UHD. DCI 4k is a 1.9x crop factor which would need roughly a 32mm lens. When using a Speedbooster at 0.71x the crop factor is 1.42x for UHD and 1.35x for DCI. That changes the equation as well to needing a 42.5mm or 45mm.

    Not that s35mm is a perfect standard anyway. s35mm sensors tend to be all over the place in terms of crop factor so nothing is 100% perfect.

    On my Canon R6 it has a APS-C 1.6x crop factor which puts it roughly at 37.5mm which is not very common and right smack in the middle between 35mm and 40mm.

    The joys of crop factors.

    Reply
  • tim
    at

    CHINATOWN – use’s a 40MM “C” series in the 2.40:1 format – but Polanski skewed toward wider 35MM for many shots and scenes – ALONZO would many times talk him into a 75MM for close-ups of JACK – but he tried to stay very much on the wider 35MM as there still was not a prevalent 28MM “E” series for the Panaflex they had on set. I have the 40MM “C” Lens from that movie – just a dumb fact (sorry) – The Godfather thing with the 40MM also not really correct. Also Boogie Nights is mostly 40MM – lot of HARD EIGHT – BOTTLE ROCKET is mostly 28MM – so many things to write here. Check out archive issues of American Cinermatogrper Magazine for better details – also just watching most trained eyes can spot 40MM vs. 35MM vs. 28MM . vs. 50MM vs. 75MM – on and on. Much of DARK KNIGHT (that was shot in Panavsion format) is on a 75MM and 40MM “C” series – but that movie is sooooooooo all over the place with formats.

    Reply
  • Kazuya
    at

    I was very impressed with this article.

    I was also impressed by the excellent depiction of the feature film “1917”. By reading this article, I learned that most of this film was shot with a 40mm lens.

    Can you please tell me, “If I were to try to achieve almost the same angle of view as this work with a super 35mm sensor camera, I would be using a lens of about 28mm”? 
    I suspect that “1917” was shot with a full size sensor camera. If so, I would like to know what focal length lens would be needed to get the same angle of view as that piece with my super 35mm sensor camera.

    Noam, I am in need of your advice.

    Reply
    • I believe you would want to shoot at 28mm in that case!

      Reply
  • paul
    at

    Life begins at 40!

    Great article and I couldn’t agree more. I love shooting street photography stills on full frame with my beloved Voigtlander 40mm f2.0 Ultron SL-II.. It has, to me, just the right combination of wideness and background separation. Maybe it’s because it matches our natural vision so closely, it just makes you feel very present. and somehow has a quite vintage feel due to the framing that was more common in the 40’s and 50’s.

    I’ve been wanting to experiment with shooting a whole feature on this lens but was always scared off by using it on super 35, so this article is very pertinent. If it’s Good enough for Gordon then it’s certainly good enough for me!

    I remember reading that Spielberg’s most commonly used focal length is a 27mm which on super 35mm is the exact equivalent to 40mm on full frame.

    Interestingly enough the 14mm Panasonic pancake that the original BMPCC was always advertised with is also a 40mm equivalent frame on its super 16mm sensor, so it’s a definitely a secret cinema weapon.

    Reply
    • Roney
      at

      40/1,5 If you use Sony ir Nikon, 40/1,6 If Canon.

      Reply
    • So glad you enjoyed this, Paul. Thanks for the note!

      Reply

Leave a Reply