Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/01/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I think it has now Bob. I think they can correct the hell out of a 35mm lens now. They do it in their sleep. 43 - 35 = 8 50 - 43 = 7 They are a millimeter away from each other in being the same diff from being normal. Normal being 43. Its just that the 35 is going to be retrofocal. A tele lens looked through from the wrong direction. But we have computers now and asph glass so that's a no brainer for those guys. I have a Summicron asph but for my Nikons I don't have a decent 35. A damn shame for me that may change soon. My first lens which I still have was not a 50 its was the 45mm 2.8 G lens. I now often used the Cosina version make for Nikon with Nikon on it P lens. Which hurts your fingers like a mother when you focus it but its good pain. Keeps you sharp. You cant used the lens with globs. Maybe rubber globs. On 1/18/13 8:10 PM, "Robert D. Baron" <robertbaron1 at gmail.com> wrote: > ==On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 2:34 AM, Mark Rabiner <mark at > rabinergroup.com>wrote: > >> If there's anything more useful than a 35mm lens I don't know what it is. >> A 50 really is a short tele. > > > When I was first learning about using 35mm film cameras back in the 1950s > many people considered the 50mm focal length to be the 'standard' lens. > The 35mm focal length was considered too prone to distortion, particularly > at the edges and particular when shooting people, to be used on a regular > basis. > > I guess that must have changed. > > --Bob > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information -- Mark William Rabiner Photography http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/