Reading mode: Light Dark

60mm lenses

Go to last post
Richard Ullakko2 said:
There are a lot of 50mm but very few lenses in the 60mm lengths. Is
there a reason for this other than marketing?
Just wondering.

Thanks
Click to expand...
No, not really. There are some "stamdard" focal lengths that seem to be popular with manufacturers.

--
'We have met the enemy, and he is us!
 
Classic 35mm lenses were made at 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, and 100/105mm focal lengths. Occasional oddities like 30mm, 40mm, 75mm, and 90mm appeared but they didn't become popular. Why? Beats me...

Maybe one of our resident graybeards can offer some thoughts on this.
--
Jim King - Retired Colormonger - Suburban Detroit, Michigan, USA; GMT -4h (EDT)



* * * * *
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
  • Sir Winston Churchill
* * * * *
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
  • Albert Einstein
 
Hi Jim, I read a lot of your posts.

I thought it might be something about the optical design or maybe the manufacturing. Just thought it strange, can't remember when I last saw something in the 60's last.

Thanks
 
I had a (wonderful) Contax/Zeiss 60/2.8 macro lens, and I believe Canon has a fairly new 60mm macro for their (APS) DSLR's. The rationale there is that (for film) a 50 is so short, you tend to get too close in macro shots, casting shadows and scaring the little bug you're photographing. Some of the very early SLR lenses were 55 or 58mm, as I recall -- don't know why. There's a tendency to consider wider lenses "normal" these days. Lots of photojournalists liked 35mm for film, hence the many highly corrected 35/2 and 35/1.4 lenses. I had a Contax G2 (rangefinder) with a wonderful 45/2 Planar "normal." For the Pentax with 1.5X crop factor, I've made the 31/1.8 my "normal" lens, but for most purposes the DA 40/2.8 (X 1.5 = 60mm) works very well. But often I want to back up a few feet.
 
Quinbus said:
I had a (wonderful) Contax/Zeiss 60/2.8 macro lens, and I believe
Canon has a fairly new 60mm macro for their (APS) DSLR's.
Click to expand...
Yes they do, and this FL makes a lot of sense on an APS sensor - it gives the FOV of a 90mm lens on film with slightly increased working distance vs. a 50mm macro, all in a reasonably compact size.
Quinbus said:
The rationale there is that (for film) a 50 is so short, you tend to
get too close in macro shots, casting shadows and scaring the
little bug you're photographing. Some of the very early SLR lenses
were 55 or 58mm, as I recall -- don't know why.
Click to expand...
I believe that it was to give greater clearance for the SLR mirror in some Japanese designs, such as the Miranda. I remember reading in Pop Photo that many photographers preferred the slightly greater length of the 58mm vs 50mm for portrait work.
Quinbus said:
There's a tendency
to consider wider lenses "normal" these days. Lots of
photojournalists liked 35mm for film, hence the many highly
corrected 35/2 and 35/1.4 lenses. I had a Contax G2 (rangefinder)
with a wonderful 45/2 Planar "normal."
Click to expand...
I have one of these (a G2) also and I agree that the tiny 45mm f2 Planar is a little jewel of a lens. Sometimes I dream of a digital rangefinder body which would mount the G2 lenses, but alas, now that Yashica is gone it will never be. :

You may remember that Mike Johnson, in his oft-quoted SMP column praising the original 3 Pentax Limited lenses, also praised the 5 Zeiss lenses for the G/G2 as well: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-05-02.shtml
Quinbus said:
For the Pentax with 1.5X
crop factor, I've made the 31/1.8 my "normal" lens, but for most
purposes the DA 40/2.8 (X 1.5 = 60mm) works very well. But often I
want to back up a few feet.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The 31mm Limited is a wonderful perfomer but it's a bit too expensive for most of us and a bit large/heavy. It would be great if Pentax could come out with a less-expensive DA30/1.4 or 1.8 for us "available dark" shooters.

Thanks for your post, Quinbus - lots to chew on...
--
Jim King - Retired Colormonger - Suburban Detroit, Michigan, USA; GMT -4h (EDT)



* * * * *
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
  • Sir Winston Churchill
* * * * *
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
  • Albert Einstein
 
Jim King said:
Classic 35mm lenses were made at 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, and
100/105mm focal lengths. Occasional oddities like 30mm, 40mm,
75mm, and 90mm appeared but they didn't become popular. Why?
Beats me...
Click to expand...
The Leica screw-mount rangefinder was the the most successful "miniature" 35mm camera in the first half of the 20th Century, with the Contax system coming in second. Other manufacturers, especially the Japanese, copied the designs. Early Nikon and Canon rangefinders look like the German cameras and have the same Leica screw mount.

Early Leicas came with a 50mm lens (f3.5 Elmar) and this became the standard lens for the 35mm rangefinder camera. Leica also made lenses in the 28, 35, 90 and 135mm focal lengths and these also became standard focal lengths (and were carried over to the M mount). There were also a few unusual focal lengths such as the 73mm Hektor. Canon and Nikon also made 25, 85, and 105mm lenses for the Leica screw mount. Contax had similar focal lengths as well as a 40mm. There were also long lenses used with reflex housings, including the Contax 180 and 300mm and the Leica 200 and 400mm. Of course, the built-in frame lines for certain focal lengths would make them more convenient to use.

I think that the traditional Leica focal lengths simply became the de facto standard. Wide angle lenses were 35 or 28mm and telephotos were 135mm. Pentax certainly made (and still makes) lenses in a variety of focal lengths including some oddball focal lengths (like the 31 and 77mm), but the traditional focal lengths still seem to be popular with most manufacturers. And, of course, the advent of zoom lenses allows users to have just about any focal length they may want.
 
if 50mm was the standard length then half that would be 25 [28]... half way between would be 37.5 [35].
Twice the 50 would be 100 [105] and half way would be 75 [77].

Personally i think 10,20,30,40,50,60,70,80,90,100 etc would be better
--
Shane,Gold Coast Aussie. Lens list in profile.

 
Maybe cameramakers should offer a series of lenses with a 1.5x increase in FL to keep the FOV steps about equal:

20mm, 30mm, 45mm, 68mm, 102mm, etc.
--
Jim King - Retired Colormonger - Suburban Detroit, Michigan, USA; GMT -4h (EDT)



* * * * *
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
  • Sir Winston Churchill
* * * * *
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
  • Albert Einstein
 
Jim King said:
"You may remember that Mike Johnson, in his oft-quoted SMP column praising the original 3 Pentax Limited lenses, also praised the 5 Zeiss lenses for the G/G2 as well: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-05-02.shtml "
Click to expand...
Jim: That very article is what gave me the idea to buy into the Pentax system. I did it for the lenses, wanting some primes that could equal my late lamented Zeiss-G's. I bought a used DL body and the 31/1.8 to see whether M.J. was talking through his hat. Results convinced me he wasn't, so I went on to the 50/1.4 and 21/3.2. I didn't expect the 21 to be nearly as good as it is. Buoyed by that pleasant discovery, I went on to the 40/2.8, another happy surprise. These are damned good prime lenses, at least in terms of IQ.

I'm not sure what's so good about the Limited lineup -- don't know whether their quality could be predicted by measuring their contrast or resolution or some other numbers. I suspect it's not just "sharpness," whatever that is in fact. In any case, those I've tried have the snappy, brilliant look I wanted, and they're standing in very well so far for the good ol' Contax/Zeiss.
 
I had that Contax 60mm macro too - an incredibly sharp lens; it was really hard to part with when I got my DS and kit lens, but I had to stump up the cash from somewhere...

Now I've got a couple of Pentax primes, I'm very happy with their quality in comparison. The DA 21 and FA 50 are serving really well. I'd really like a 17mm prime to serve the job that a 28mm would have done on 35mm format, but you can't have everything :)

Interesting what you say about the 40mm, sometimes the 50 is too narrow and the 21 is too wide. Could be a much cheaper and lighter alternative to the 31mm I've been thinking of grabbing...

Thanks for your thoughts, and excuse my ramblings,
-Steve M/
Quinbus said:
I had a (wonderful) Contax/Zeiss 60/2.8 macro lens, and I believe
Canon has a fairly new 60mm macro for their (APS) DSLR's. The
rationale there is that (for film) a 50 is so short, you tend to
get too close in macro shots, casting shadows and scaring the
little bug you're photographing. Some of the very early SLR lenses
were 55 or 58mm, as I recall -- don't know why. There's a tendency
to consider wider lenses "normal" these days. Lots of
photojournalists liked 35mm for film, hence the many highly
corrected 35/2 and 35/1.4 lenses. I had a Contax G2 (rangefinder)
with a wonderful 45/2 Planar "normal." For the Pentax with 1.5X
crop factor, I've made the 31/1.8 my "normal" lens, but for most
purposes the DA 40/2.8 (X 1.5 = 60mm) works very well. But often I
want to back up a few feet.
Click to expand...
 
I have a 58 mm Helios f2 lens, screw fit, which I have stuck on a Panagor auto macro converter, and then a 42 to k mount adapter. The 2 lenses cost me about 20 pounds I think. Sadly, so did the adapter.

Then I bought myself a Tamrom 90 mil before I ever used the Helios...

But I will try the combo out over the weekend and post some shots, if they are any better than my usual dross. I think I am going to lose about 3 stops by using the converter, which is a bit of a shame.

58mm equates to about 87 mm with the 1.5 multiplier, which makes it a decent f2portrait lens, and apart from the poor coatings (if any) I seem to remember the Helios being ok for sharpness.
 
chris gunn said:
Jim King said:
Maybe cameramakers should offer a series of lenses with a 1.5x
increase in FL to keep the FOV steps about equal:

20mm, 30mm, 45mm, 68mm, 102mm, etc.
Click to expand...
Or 14, 21, 31, 46, 70, 105, ...

46mm !? we have 43, 50 but not 46!
Click to expand...
Sounds good to me, Chris. Let's set up shop to make these and go into business. Sigma and Tamron, watch out!
--
Jim King - Retired Colormonger - Suburban Detroit, Michigan, USA; GMT -4h (EDT)



* * * * *
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
  • Sir Winston Churchill
* * * * *
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
  • Albert Einstein
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top