From: Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
Subject: Re: Physical size of lenses
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 05:06:47 -0600
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 03:06:47 -0800
From: Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Hogwasher/5.17
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <0001HW.1FCECC4701C1EBC2700003A012CF@news.giganews.com>
Subject: Re: Physical size of lenses
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
References: <f87fa0Fh1fjU1@mid.individual.net>
Lines: 38
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-x8RAHTs2aWNbg5JwF+h5rQvPYI6XDOKZkDSYi1lRAaPsMgfQa0Gkicgh3bCIr30UFfjzpseKsutUgOR!T0DBOUGt1+8TyD7VFCUGuVrZQZkdo9DaTwHlnfLXGIajPbitNiVuD4sxg13pSri2P4mP4F5M2ZIJ!mzjoLxGsSTk=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2602
Print Article
Forward Article
On Nov 29, 2017, Paul Carmichael wrote
(in article<f87fa0Fh1fjU1@mid.individual.net>):

> Good morning everyone.
>
> I have a trivial question:
>
> On my desk in front of me are two lenses. Both Samyang primes. One is a 35mm
> f1.4 and the other is an 85mm f1.4.
>
> I'm just curious as to why the 35mm is so much physically longer than the
> 85mm.

To start with both of those lenses are very capable, and of producing fine 
photographs provided you are comfortable with manual focus. Both are fast 
f/1.4, so one needs to look at the specs. An initial look shows the 35mm with 
a larger filter size of 77mm vs 72mm for the 85. Next is the number of 
elements in each the 85mm has 9 elements vs the 35mm with 12 elements. That 
is where the answer to your question lies, the 35mm requires the additional 
36.8mm of length to contain the 12 elements.
>
>
> And a related question: I have a Vivitar 35mm f2.8 that fits in the palm of
> my hand, whereas the Samyang is huge. I suspect the answer is obvious, but not to me.

Even if you take the f/2.8 vs f/1.4 into account, the Vivitar is a marginal 
quality lens, whereas the Samyang, even though it could be considered a 
budget lens, is of far superior quality in both construction and optics. That 
said the obvious answer lies in the speed differences of the two lenses. 
However, if the Vivitar has worked for you, and there are times a more 
compact lens is required don’t let my opinion stop you from using it 
when you need to.

-- 

Regards,
Savageduck