From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: Physical size of lenses
Full headers:
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: Physical size of lenses
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 10:25:12 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <291120171025123623%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info:; posting-host="2b4110c42fb6ef7a814be0edc7a55102";
logging-data="19322"; mail-complaints-to="";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19lXz4jvDW14sIGisklBZ8D"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xnVCsYXxTdzDf6F2Lq7DEBbQXWw=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<>, Paul Carmichael<> wrote:

> 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.

retrofocus design

more here:


> 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.

it's a much slower lens.