Hi, all.
>Does anybody know why almost no 60mm lenses were built in the past ?
I don't know why, but I don't feel the need for anything between 40
and 85mm. On the EOS-300D, a 40mm 'behaves' like an odd 64mm, which
may be fun for portraits:
<http://cjss.sytes.net/atachaos/audrey40.jpeg> (most likely taken @
f/2.8)
>There were a few 58mm standard lenses around, especially in the fast
>glass category (Canon FD?)
Yes -- just the older version of the mount: FL 58/1.2, with a
somewhat protuding (sp?) rear element which caused incompatibility
with several bodies. Later replaced by a *larger*, *much* heavier FL
55/1.2 which suited most FL/FD cameras (it was a poorer performer,
too). Later designs were just 50mm, like the surprisingly small FDn
50/1.2 -- sorry for the OT ;-)
I think it was difficult in the fifties to achieve a 50mm focal
length in SLR mount *without* retrofocus design -- the *first*
(1959-1963) Nikk*r-S 50mm f/2 was indeed a mild retrofocus (7
elements), whereas later versions (Nikk*r-H) were plain 6-element
'normal' designs (the so-called 'double-Gauss'). Also the first f/1.4
of Nik*n was 58mm. There were many 55-58mm 'standards' in other
brands, too.
Enjoy,
--
Carlos J. Santisteban
<cjss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<http://cjss.sytes.net>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
