Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Lens size - was 35mm vs. 6x9

Subject: [OM] Lens size - was 35mm vs. 6x9
From: andrew fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 20:46:43 +1100
>However, you're definitely more limited in choice of lenses especially on
>the long end. Not to mention issues with size and weight. First off, there's
>the issue that every lens you have is a longer focal length than the 35mm
>equivalent, they're also usually bigger. My Mamiya's 80mm 2.8 is huge
>compared to my Zuiko 85mm 2.0 for instance.
>
>--
>Andrew "Frugal" Dacey


Always fascinated by this problem of size. Look at the 75mm f2.8 Planar on
a Rolleiflex compared to that Mamiya. Small, even with the shutter built in
although there is no focussing rack of course. I suspect that there are
other things at work here. SLR lens, 35mm or MF, have to be larger I
suspect to cope with the extended lens to film distance required, although
the Rollei has a fair distance in the box.
I just borrowed an old Olympus Wide-S rangefinder (late 50's?) which boasts
a Zuiko 35/2! In this incarnation, that beloved Zuik has a 46mm filter ring
(rather than 55) and is a lot smaller than the OM version, despite having a
Seikosha MXL shutter built into it!
AndrewF



< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz