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 11:18:50 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <291120171118506696%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <> <291120171025123623%nospam@nospam.invalid> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info:; posting-host="2b4110c42fb6ef7a814be0edc7a55102";
logging-data="11286"; mail-complaints-to="";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+eWqp9NJMhVsNMTcn8+BjM"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BfG/TBqoQTPBq1DORaRkOTgmZuY=
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
> 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.).

the motors make it slightly thicker, not longer.