Carlos wrote:
> >I'm also pretty stunned at how compact this 40 is vs. the 35/2. How
> >does 5mm make that much difference?
>
>Well, the 40mm takes the doble-Gauss optical formula -- IOW, it's designed
>like a scaled-down 50mm standard lens. But *any* 35mm for SLRs should be
>closer to the film than the mirror would allow, so they must use a
>'retrofocus' formula -- much bigger and bulkier. OTOH, 35/2s *for
>rangefinders* may get much closer to the film plane, waiving the use of
>retrofocus design, thus they're quite small.
Aha, that does clear up the mystery a bit! I should've thought of
that. I have the info-sheet for the 40/2, and the cross-section does
resemble a conventional gaussian normal lens.
I agree that the field of view of a 40 does seem to be the most
"natural" match to what my eye sees. But as a matter of composition,
lately I've been more drawn to isolating and abstracting smaller
parts of the scene. . .
Carlos, you are the man with the pancakes! Some of those make the
40/2 look positively bloated! What is the tiny first one?
cheers,
-- Ross
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Do something foolish once, and it's a mistake.
Do it repeatedly and it's a philosophy."
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|