Next <
From: android <here@there.was>
Subject: Re: Physical size of lenses
Full headers:
From: android <here@there.was>
Subject: Re: Physical size of lenses
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 18:30:59 +0100
Organization: the center
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: /moVyPUSuMIpu6ojkc6kRQPua5Qi6RuwoH1JhxK5IWG+neenS8
Cancel-Lock: sha1:baMGEcRryTW92IfvCE29beSCz7g=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Received-Bytes: 1584
X-Received-Body-CRC: 2606504725
Print Article
Forward Article
On  2017-11-29 11:09, Paul Carmichael wrote:
> 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.
> 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.
Making an 85 can pretty straight forward but a 35 FF SLR requires a 
technology called retro focus, thus giving you sorta two lenses in one! :-))


teleportation kills