Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/09/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>So what are yunz (Pittsburghese for 'you-all') planning to do for the >equivalent of a 35 on a film M? >The 24 Elmarit-ASPH becomes a 32, and a 28 becomes a 37. The Zeiss 25 is probably the closest match focal-length wise.? I'm planning to get a 35/1.2 for the speed - a Nocti has been my standard lens on my M7 for some time. For a 35 I'm undecided. >It should be easier to design a fast really wide lens for a small sensor More different than easier.? The increased requirement for telecentricity makes some of the optical design parameters more critical.? It certainly makes keeping the fast lenses small, which Leica has been outstanding at in the past, extremely tough. Every time the relative angle of view is discussed between digital and 35mm cameras, I marvel at the fact that no-one ever complained that medium format cameras with (for example) an 80mm lens had a different angle of view to a 35mm camera with an 80mm lens. I suppose that's because the lenses weren't directly useable on the cameras of different format, but it still isn't much of an issue. With a 1.3x crop sensor, about half a step back makes everything pretty much equivalent, unless you're a pedant, which a lot of people clearly are. As several folks here have pointe dout, it's not like the RF frames are that accurate anyway . . . Marty -- ___________________________________________________ Now you can search for products and services http://search.mail.com