Odd focal length lenses?
I have a Rodenstock Rodagon 84mm lens, Rodenstock Rotelar 270mm, Schneider Kreuznach Cinegon 4.8mm, a Cine Yashinon 6.5mm ( 1/4") and 38mm (1.5 inch) - both with metric designation, Old Delft 110, Gaumont 76mm (~3inch), Emo Wetzlar 65mm, Agfa 140mm.
People in other forums cry about the odd 58 and 55 mm focal length from the new Zeiss and Nikon lenses - but donīt think 18 or 28mm are odd
genji wrote:
...
Not sure how this applies to fast 55's like the Canon FD 55/1.2, the Contax C/Y 55/1.2, and the Yashica ML 55/1.2 though...
It is the same. With a (D)SLR lens one need the room for the mirror. A Double Gauss design which is more or less symmetric needs to be un-relaxed, gets more tension to get this room. The longer the focal lenght (with same mirror size) the more relaxed the lens is.
the solitaire wrote:
Nikons 43-86mm zoom is one of those focal length choices I never understood...
Real "normal" focal length 2x zoom. I would say it is one of the best understandable focal lengths for 24x36mm cameras with 43mm diagonal.
AhamB wrote:
Honest? I don't know of any lenses that are that far from their nominal focal length, so I think Pentax just wanted to offer something different (still close to popular FLs).
Pentax is being honest. Deviations of up to 5% between the marketed focal length and the true focal length are quite common. You can find examples in the ZE/ZF line. If all manufacturers would round the focal length to the nearest millimeter value, instead of to the nearest common focal length, this thread would not exist.
I find 50mm completely odd.
It's a focal length that's neither here nor there, too wide for portraits, too long for pretty much everything else, not enough dof to zone-focus, so I have no idea why people are buying them in such quantities.
I used to think that it's because it's an easy focal length from a design perspective, thus allowing manufacturers to make them really cheap, f1.4, small, and with fast AF. But then zeiss optus comes along and single-handedly destroys those last few advantages of a 50mm lens, and yet people are still jonesing for one... weird. All in the name of resolution I guess, but I cant think of a worse lens from every other perspective.
Lots more: Oude Delft 38mm, Schneider isogon and Kilfitt 40mm, and if Kinoptic counts, they have quite a number of unusual focal lengths.
It is not even certain that older optics actually are intended to measure up to their labels. Due to production variations, the glass would be measured after assembly, then matched to a longer or shorter mount. I once had a collapsible Summicron 50 marked by pencil with a number inside (possibly 52,.. or just another digit or two) inside. At the HauserTorwerk in Wetzlar where I once had some work done on a IIIC they explained and said this was normal.
I think the common distribution of focal lengths is strange and uneven. At the top of this graphic are those focal lengths, spaced according to field of view. On the bottom is how I would do it.
Spyro P. wrote:
then zeiss optus comes along and single-handedly destroys those last few advantages of a 50mm lens, and yet people are still jonesing for one
I've heard it called the Otis, Opus, but my new favourite is now Optus - an optical magnum opus, much better than what they actually called it...
Lee Saxon wrote:
I think the common distribution of focal lengths is strange and uneven. At the top of this graphic are those focal lengths, spaced according to field of view. On the bottom is how I would do it.
I don't think I've ever owned any odd/goofy FL lenses.
I tend to stick to what I like, which is normally an UWA somewhere between 17 and 21mm, a 35 and/or 50mm, and then a tele of 85, 100ish, or 135mm.
I generally prefer as a "daily carry" kit, a 17-35-50(or 85) 3-lens setup. Nice ~2x factor between 17, 35, and 85.
RustyBug wrote:
I always though the ideal distribution would simply be image circle size and multiples of 1.414 in both directions (1.66X looks good too).
i.e. a 43.3 (FF) is normal (call it 44).
15.5(15), 22, 31(30), 44, 62(60), 88(90), 124(125), 176(180), 250, 360
The 1.414 multiples are two thirds of the long steps in my figure, e.g. 35 to 50. The one third steps are multiples of 1,19. I find the 1,66 multiple to be a good spacing for my choice of focal lengths :-)
Nov 08, 2013 at 09:11 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
