Good points, Moose.
I think I'm most inclined to believe #1 and least inclined to believe #3. If
physics demand the barrel length in order to achieve the macro focus, then
itcannot be ignored, but Oly seemed intent on breaking the monolithic molds
of Nikkor design. I prefer to believe that the obstacle couldn't be
overcome.... #2 would just be a natural result of #1.
:-)
-Mickey
----- Original Message -----
From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 6:33 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] lens sections - I was bored at work today
> Three reasons, I think.
> 1. To acomodate the extra long focusing helicoid.
> 2. As a built-in lens shade. Oly says neither the 50/2 nor the 50/3.5
> requires a lens shade.
> 3. Because that's how the granddaddy of all these lenses, the 55/3.5
> Auto Micro Nikkor was designed. I think all manufacturers at the time
> the 50/3.5 was designed were tempted to emulate the look of this then
> legendary lens. Besides, it's a logical design.
>
> I don't think smaller was a big design consideration for the macros.
>
> Moose
>
> Mickey Trageser wrote:
>
> >Nicely done! Begs the question... Why all the dead-air space in front of
the
> >front element of the 50/3.5macro? The lens would be smaller than the
pancake
> >40 without it.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> < 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 >
>
>
< 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 >
|