How important is 40mm lens for you? (no GT1 for GRDIII)

[Mike-Bell]

I've ordered the GR111 and like the 28mm focal length. Personally I would find an add on lense a nuisance. Just move closer when the subject demands it. Wasn't it Robert Cappa who said something like "if your pictures aren't good enough you are not close enough"?

[BillBingham2]

I’ve been spoiled by CV glass and from all of the reviews I really never liked what I read about the Snap-On lenses. I’ve picked up a GX-100 and found the telephoto range while anemic from a length perspective, performance was good enough (read better than blowing up a 28mm to be a 70mm).

I’d much rather have a GR-TD with a kick a55 prime lens, say 70 or 75mm and about f2.8. Ricoh primes are so good, I’d rather spend the bucks on another body. Fiddling with snap-ons is a pain, I’d rather just reach for another body.

B2 (;->

[kosmoskatten]

I would love to see a 40mm f2 lens in a future GR camera, APS-C or full frame.
Think 40/2 Summicron sharpness and bokeh, no AA filter and Ricoh handling. Yum.

There is a recent lens patent from Ricoh on a 40mm f1.9 lens, although it could be filed for something completely different in mind.

[SLLRF]

Very important! My GRX has the A12 50mm module, my GR-D II has the GT40 conversion lens, and my Canon 6D has the EF40mm lens. For general shooting, I prefer a lens with a field of view similar to the human eye. I urge Ricoh to offer a 40mm f/2.0 lens for the GRX—I know that the likelihood of such a lens is near zero—or a GR2 with a focal length between 40mm and 43mm as well as an electronic viewfinder.