> Prev
From: Paul Carmichael <wibbleypants@gmail.com>
Subject: Physical size of lenses
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Paul Carmichael <wibbleypants@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Physical size of lenses
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 11:09:04 +0100
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <f87fa0Fh1fjU1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net D/7L6g9GlPVGAWPXbbQwjA/8e2Gobk/ORvd2ooykd2TQXQ9l0=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Cdc2+rxpdzaHI8JWQscmZEz8Qm8=
X-Mozilla-News-Host: news://news.individual.net:119
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.4.0
Content-Language: es-ES
Print Article
Forward Article
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.

-- 
Paul.

  https://paulc.es/
  https://asetrad.org 

	
From: Roger <nospam@veggie.org.net>
Subject: Re: Physical size of lenses
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!.POSTED.2.97.91.42!not-for-mail
From: "Roger" <nospam@veggie.org.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Physical size of lenses
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 10:44:24 -0000
Organization: Netfront http://www.netfront.net/
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <ovm302$16aj$1@adenine.netfront.net>
References: <f87fa0Fh1fjU1@mid.individual.net>
Injection-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 10:43:15 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: adenine.netfront.net; posting-host="2.97.91.42";
logging-data="39251"; mail-complaints-to="news@netfront.net"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
Print Article
Forward Article
"Paul Carmichael"<wibbleypants@gmail.com> wrote in message
news: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.
>
> 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.
>
> -- 
> Paul.
>
>  https://paulc.es/
>  https://asetrad.org

Hello Paul.

I suspect that the difference between your two 35mm lenses is due to their
maximum apertures. f1.4 is much larger than f2.8.
The difference between your two Samyang lenses is probably because the wide
angle lens is optically more complex than the telephoto lens.
Bear in mind that the effective focal length of a lens is not always the
same as the physical length of a lens. I have a 55-250mm lens which is
(front element to lens mount) approx 11cm long at the 55mm setting and
approx 16.5cm long at the 250mm setting. I have a 10-22mm lens that is a
constant 9cm long.
I suppose the best example would be a mirror lens where the light path is
folded within the lens and so its effective focal length(typically 400, 500
or 600mm) is a lot longer than its physical length.

Let's see what other people have to say.
Regards, Roger. 

	
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 

	
From: Paul Carmichael <wibbleypants@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Physical size of lenses
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news-2.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Paul Carmichael <wibbleypants@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Physical size of lenses
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 12:54:55 +0100
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <f87lgfFifgqU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <f87fa0Fh1fjU1@mid.individual.net>
<0001HW.1FCECC4701C1EBC2700003A012CF@news.giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net 7tATzSi2csGmTSRLPJtCzAZCozHOncDOZEhR7b18qSs+HJSNQ=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MpVV3OpN6/CeidlLKx7vCwiVHa8=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.4.0
In-Reply-To: <0001HW.1FCECC4701C1EBC2700003A012CF@news.giganews.com>
Content-Language: es-ES
Print Article
Forward Article
El 29/11/17 a las 12:06, Savageduck escribió:

> 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.
> 

Out of curiosity, I just looked through both here in my office. The Vivitar seems to have 
a slightly wider view. The Samyang just looks "cleaner".

-- 
Paul.

  https://paulc.es/
  https://asetrad.org 

	
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: Physical size of lenses
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
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: <f87fa0Fh1fjU1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="2b4110c42fb6ef7a814be0edc7a55102";
logging-data="19322"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19lXz4jvDW14sIGisklBZ8D"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xnVCsYXxTdzDf6F2Lq7DEBbQXWw=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<f87fa0Fh1fjU1@mid.individual.net>, Paul Carmichael<wibbleypants@gmail.com> 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:
<https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2011/03/zeisscompare.jpg>

<https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/03/the-development-of-wide-ang...
lenses/>

> 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. 

	
From: Paul Carmichael <wibbleypants@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Physical size of lenses
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Paul Carmichael <wibbleypants@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Physical size of lenses
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 17:06:03 +0100
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <f8847bFlt13U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <f87fa0Fh1fjU1@mid.individual.net>
<291120171025123623%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net pXo/mM/CysF2QYnsUcncpQeQefeayEuInH9HrBv4wK3ZfP8+c=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:goV0wutIZDLQm6ImEIef8tHoRoA=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.4.0
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<f87fa0Fh1fjU1@mid.individual.net>, Paul Carmichael
><wibbleypants@gmail.com> 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.).


-- 
Paul.

  https://paulc.es/
  https://asetrad.org 

	
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: Physical size of lenses
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
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: <f87fa0Fh1fjU1@mid.individual.net> <291120171025123623%nospam@nospam.invalid> <f8847bFlt13U1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="2b4110c42fb6ef7a814be0edc7a55102";
logging-data="11286"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";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<f8847bFlt13U1@mid.individual.net>, Paul Carmichael<wibbleypants@gmail.com> 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. 

	
Next <
From: android <here@there.was>
Subject: Re: Physical size of lenses
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin3!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!peer02.fr7!futter-mich.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: android <here@there.was>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Physical size of lenses
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 18:30:59 +0100
Organization: the center
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <f8896jFn001U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <f87fa0Fh1fjU1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net /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: <f87fa0Fh1fjU1@mid.individual.net>
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! :-))

<https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/26493/retrofocus-lens-what...

<http://tinyurl.com/ycbepfga>
-- 
teleportation kills