Shel, I mention later design solely because the SMC-M series were the first Pentax lens series designed with compactness as a major feature across the line.
-Adam Shel Belinkoff wrote: > I'm talking about the lens diameter, not the barrel diameter. For example, > the diameter of the front element of my 35mm Summicron (f/2.0) is about > 1-inch while the front element of my Pentax 35mm f/2.0 is 1.5-inches. I'd > be curious what the diameter of the front element is on an M or A 35mm 2.0 > ... anybody got that figure? > > You mention "later design." That implies that the lens diameter (just the > glass) is smaller than earlier models. If that's the case, then it should > be possible to design a smaller diameter lens for a DA than for film - at > least that's one way to look at it. > > Shel > > > > >>[Original Message] >>From: Adam Maas > > >>Shel, They are, because they have a far simpler aperture design. No >>aperture coupling or full-aperture mechanism is required for an RF lens, >>not to mention a smaller-diameter mount (which allows smaller-diameter >>barrels). But even so, fast RF glass isn't all that much smaller than a >>Pentax 50mm f1.4 of SMC-M or later design. >> >>-Adam >> >> >>Shel Belinkoff wrote: >> >>>I'm not sure that's correct ... I'll have to check the diameter of my > > Leica > >>>glass. It seems to me that the lenses for my Leica, compared to the > > same > >>>focal length/aperture of my Pentax glass, are smaller. > > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
