From: Paul Carmichael <>
Subject: Re: Physical size of lenses
Full headers:
From: Paul Carmichael <>
Subject: Re: Physical size of lenses
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 17:06:03 +0100
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: pXo/mM/CysF2QYnsUcncpQeQefeayEuInH9HrBv4wK3ZfP8+c=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:goV0wutIZDLQm6ImEIef8tHoRoA=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
In-Reply-To: <291120171025123623%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Content-Language: es-ES
Print Article
Forward Article
El 29/11/17 a las 16:25, nospam escribió:
> 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

Yeah, when I was googling it earlier, I bumped into a piece about why 50mm lenses are so 
much cheaper than 35mm. The article referred to retrofocus.

I also just remembered, my 35mm Samyang has aperture control from body, so I assume 
there's extra gubbins for that (motor etc.).