Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/05/16

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] 180mm comparisons
From: Mark Rabiner <mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 11:47:38 -0700
References: <60.e8e9a16.2833f9ae@aol.com>

SthRosner@aol.com wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 5/16/01 11:22:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> icommag@toad.net writes:
> 
> <<  why are cinema zoom lenses so much faster
>  than for still cameras? I have three Angenieux cinema zooms, all quite fast.
>  For example my 9.5mm to 57mm is a f1.9, my 16mm to 44mm is f1.3. >>
> 
> How large is the film area these lenses are required to cover? Answer to your
> question is your lenses are corrected to cover a much smaller image circle
> than the 35mm format - 24X36. It's far easier (and cheaper) to compute a
> lens, whether fixed focal length or zoom, to correct aberrations to an
> acceptable level in a small image circle than a large one.
> 
> Seth Rosner     LaK 9

Another reason why half frame needs to make a come back.
We could use cinema glass on the camera!
But with modern design extremely sharp and compact lenses could be made.
Now that we have T grain technologies and better developers are more accessible.


Mark Rabiner

Portland, Oregon
USA

http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/

Replies: Reply from "Tom Schofield" <tdschofield@email.msn.com> (Re: [Leica] 180mm comparisons)
In reply to: Message from SthRosner@aol.com (Re: [Leica] 180mm comparisons)