Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/02/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Ok, Marvin, so how about a 28mm f/1.0 lens 2.8 inches in diameter, or
a 35mm f/1.0 lens 3.5 inches in diameter!
Art Peterson
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: [Leica] Re: Tri lens "Retrogressive?"/ Erwin / Marvin
Author: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us at internet
Date: 2/11/98 4:51 PM
In a message dated 98-02-11 15:07:50 EST, Erwin writes:
<<
I wonder why a 2.8/28 is considered a slow lens and a 2.8/280 is fast one.
I would not regard the TriElmar as retrogressive just by taking a look at
one parameter: the full aperture value. If that were the only criterium
consider every medium format camera hopeless out of times and unworthy
of any place in this high speed world.
========================================================
>>
Erwin - You know the answer to that as well as anyone ------------------
In optical theory, a 2.8/28 lens has to be only 1" in diameter whereas
a 2.8/280 has to be about 10" and therefore weigh a ton ------------------
Can you imagine a 280mm Noctilux f:1 ???? 28 inches in diameter !!!!
As for medium & large format photography, the larger formats are used
for a different purpose than available light, which is the "forte" of Leica.
Marvin