Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Non Rangefinder Cameras > SLRs - the unRF

SLRs - the unRF For those of you who must talk about SLRs, if only to confirm they are not RF.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

How can the Pentax 40/2,8 be so small?
Old 12-08-2012   #1
Griffin
Grampa's cameras user
 
Griffin's Avatar
 
Griffin is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Rotterdam
Posts: 499
How can the Pentax 40/2,8 be so small?

And why don't they make more lenses this way? Is it related to the focal length and image circle? Are there any drawbacks on this design? I'm just curious.
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-08-2012   #2
jwnash1
Registered User
 
jwnash1 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: The Old Dominion
Posts: 130
the Voigtlander Ultron 40mm and the Canon 40mm are pancake lens also. I do not know exactly why but it certainly seems to be something about the 40mm focal length that lends itself to compact or pancake lens style.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-08-2012   #3
johannielscom
985 & 532/16
 
johannielscom's Avatar
 
johannielscom is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 6,719
The Konica Hexanon 1.8/40 is pretty small too...
__________________
Cheers, Johan Niels

My photography & gear articles: www.johanniels.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-08-2012   #4
BlackXList
Registered User
 
BlackXList is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 347
I've read time and again that the Pentax 40 2.8 isnt a great performer, that these days it's markedly overpriced, and I already have the outstanding Konica Hexanon 40 1.8, but none of this seems to dampen just how much I'd like to have a play with the astonishingly small Pentax one
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-12-2012   #5
flyalf
Registered User
 
flyalf is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Norway, Tromsų
Posts: 190
The Perar is a bit smaller, and its built for FF. Please see
http://japancamerahunter.com/2012/02...super-triplet/
__________________
Regards, Alf Sollund, Tromsų, Norway
------------------------------------
http://alfsollund.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-12-2012   #6
mugent
Registered User
 
mugent is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 475
Even the standard 50mms you us to get for oly, Pentax etc.. were small, and fast, and good quality, these days, lenses tend to be much bigger, I think this is part AF systems, but more because people want a 'pro' look, either for ego reasons, or because clients expect a 'pro' look.
If someone showed up to my wedding with a Minolta tc1, it might just not look the part...
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-12-2012   #7
leicapixie
Registered User
 
leicapixie is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto.Canada
Posts: 786
i have the 40mm Pentax lens. It is actually too small! Mine the film version, not auto focus or anything..Maybe they are all same? I own a Nikkor 45mm GN lens which is pretty small but focuses the wrong way! The Nikkor is both sharper, better flare control and easier to use. Busy with a Minolta 45mm. Much larger but bigger aperture, f2.
A Pentax ME/MX with the 40mm is a very compact unit.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-12-2012   #8
dct
Registered User
 
dct's Avatar
 
dct is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Zurich
Posts: 1,091
For an SLR designed lens, the Pentax 40/2.8 is really small, though it includes AF.
I cannot believe that a 40mm FF prime lens (up to f2.5) for any SLR or mirrorless mount has to be essentially bigger. It could be even smaller for APS-C or 4/3 sensors. Shouldn't it?
__________________
photos
RFF gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-13-2012   #9
Bille
Registered User
 
Bille's Avatar
 
Bille is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Age: 36
Posts: 324
Obviously most people dont care a lot about size in SLR lenses. I find the bulk of a Canon 50/1.2 L ridiculous compared to manual lenses of the same speed.

The EF 50/1.2 L is almost 9cm in diameter at around 600g. Progress?
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-13-2012   #10
Bille
Registered User
 
Bille's Avatar
 
Bille is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Age: 36
Posts: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by dct View Post
For an SLR designed lens, the Pentax 40/2.8 is really small, though it includes AF.
The 43/1.9 Limited (AF) is almost as small and covers full frame. So does the manual 40/1.8 Hexanon.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-13-2012   #11
bastian a.
Registered User
 
bastian a.'s Avatar
 
bastian a. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 283
I think there is a recent Pentax 40mm pancake and an old one from the 70s or 80s. Athe first with AF, the second without.
Which lens do we talk about? So far about both I think
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-13-2012   #12
Ernst Dinkla
Registered User
 
Ernst Dinkla is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffin View Post
And why don't they make more lenses this way? Is it related to the focal length and image circle? Are there any drawbacks on this design? I'm just curious.
Often the design for a lens like that will be based on a Tessar or alike, the more if it is not faster than f2.8. The 40mm focal length helps too if used on an slr, shorter and a retro focus optical solution has to be used, longer the telephoto solution to keep the lens shorter than the focal length. Not all are Tessar designs though. the recently introduced Canon 40mm is a 6 element design. With Tessar types the resolution degrades more to the corners than with Gauss, Plasmat etc designs. Bokeh is often one of things sacrificed in pancake lenses.

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectra...ctrumviz_1.htm
December 2012, 500+ inkjet media white spectral plots.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-13-2012   #13
BlackXList
Registered User
 
BlackXList is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 347
Almost sliding off topic here, has anyone tried that Canon 40mm? opinions?

I think it's somewhat disingenuous to criticise the fact that the Canon 50 1.2 for being "almost 9cm in diameter at around 600g" because the front element is 72mm as opposed to 49 in the Pentax model, so there's a lot more glass in the Canon model, plus the neccesary gubbins to shift that extra glass around, so it's not just due to newer designs being bloated

That said I do greatly enjoy my Pentax lenses on my ME Super and it's very handy that it slips into a jacket pocket
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-16-2012   #14
Bille
Registered User
 
Bille's Avatar
 
Bille is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Age: 36
Posts: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackXList View Post
I think it's somewhat disingenuous to criticise the fact that the Canon 50 1.2 for being "almost 9cm in diameter at around 600g" because the front element is 72mm as opposed to 49 in the Pentax model, so there's a lot more glass in the Canon model,
The larger filter covers the whole lens, not only the front element which should be about the same in diameter as any other 50mm f1.2 lens.

Here is a picture:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/rebel-xti.htm
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-16-2012   #15
BlackXList
Registered User
 
BlackXList is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 347
You're absolutely correct there, my mistake, even so the amount of glass in it is significantly more than the other Canon 50s (differing max apertures I know) plus the autofocus mechanism of course, so I think it's a little odd to expect parity with older manual focus designs.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-16-2012   #16
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 6,539
As far as I can tell there are three such lenses: M, limited, and the Mark Newson K-01 lens. Which are you talking about or does it matter. I think it might, because the OP asked about image circle; two are APC-s and the other may be FF.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-16-2012   #17
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 6,539
You might want to look at these, it seems it is a good performer. Not like someone above says:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensrevi...cake-Lens.html

and this is the K-01 lens which is good just not quit as good. But at $249 it is a deal:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensrevi...m-f2.8-xs.html

Sorry no image circle information on these sites.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-16-2012   #18
oceanpriest
Registered User
 
oceanpriest is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by charjohncarter View Post
As far as I can tell there are three such lenses: M, limited, and the Mark Newson K-01 lens. Which are you talking about or does it matter. I think it might, because the OP asked about image circle; two are APC-s and the other may be FF.


yes, it covers the image circle of fullframe, tested

Quote:
Originally Posted by charjohncarter View Post
You might want to look at these, it seems it is a good performer. Not like someone above says:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensrevi...cake-Lens.html

and this is the K-01 lens which is good just not quit as good. But at $249 it is a deal:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensrevi...m-f2.8-xs.html

Sorry no image circle information on these sites.
both da 40 limited and da 40 xs (mark newson k-01 lens) cover image circle of fullframe
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/p...ts-thread.html
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/penta...old-200-a.html
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/penta...8-40mm-xs.html
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-16-2012   #19
LKeithR
Improving daily--I think.
 
LKeithR's Avatar
 
LKeithR is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Langley, B.C.
Posts: 340
A "really" tiny lens is the Industar 50-2 50/3.5 M42 lens. Here's a shot of one with my old Pentax ME with M 50/1.7 lens mounted and the DA 40 2.8 Limited keeping them company. The 40 would be smaller if it didn't have the rear cap on but it's still not a whole lot smaller than the M 50...
Attached Images
File Type: jpg L1001309.PPAC.web.jpg (82.2 KB, 20 views)
__________________
Keith
http://lkeithr.zenfolio.com
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ........................................
"Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed." - Mark Twain

  Reply With Quote

Old 12-16-2012   #20
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 6,539
Thank you OceanPriest, at least someone answered one of the OP's questions (finally). I use an ZX-5 similar to your camera. I don't understand why more cameras were not made this way: shutter speed DIAL and APERTURE ring. You really know where you are, and if you want; complete auto. The auto is for the digital types that want to shoot film once in a while.

To help the OP maybe a little (as I only have one close to 40mm lens); my 40mm lens (maybe it is a 42mm) on my (RF) Olympus 35RC is really the best lenses for 35mm I have.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-16-2012   #21
btgc
Registered User
 
btgc's Avatar
 
btgc is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,351
Over time I've come to conclusion pancakes aren't my dish, I leave it for kids Seriously, focus ring on Revuenon 45/2.8 (quite similar design to other manual focus 40-45mm pancakes) is very narrow (one line of knurling), it's slower and thus very little harder to focus than Rikenon 50/2 lens which by many ebay sellers is wrongly described as a pancake (which it isn't, but is just a little bigger) but has proper 6 elements instead of 4 in real pancake (well, good photos aren't by number of optical elements, we know) and is a bit brighter. And costs 10-20 times less than that

This is like w/ phones - there were time when everyone wanted to go smaller but now when phones aren't just phones and screen is everything, they instead get bigger!
__________________
MyFlickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-16-2012   #22
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne VIC
Posts: 4,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bille View Post
Obviously most people dont care a lot about size in SLR lenses. I find the bulk of a Canon 50/1.2 L ridiculous compared to manual lenses of the same speed.

The EF 50/1.2 L is almost 9cm in diameter at around 600g. Progress?
The 50L is also one of the best fast 50mm lenses in existence - so it sort of makes up for its weight problem.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-16-2012   #23
Griffin
Grampa's cameras user
 
Griffin's Avatar
 
Griffin is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Rotterdam
Posts: 499
Thanks for the replies all. I was really interested in the boring technical stuff about how this lens is so small and if it would be possible to make other focal lengths this small. I was in fact referring to the manual focus lens, but the one for digital Pentax' cameras is pretty much the same size (or so it seems from web pics).

My conclusion is that a Tessar design, combined with the 40mm focal length, hits some sort of sweet spot size-wise, whereby the various elements/groups can be placed closer together. Am I correct?
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-17-2012   #24
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 6,539
Tessar has 4 elements in 3 groups, while the manual Pentax 40/f2.8 has 5 elements in 4 groups. So probably not a classic Tessar. Someone that knows more about lens design might jump in, I'm certainly not the person to ask.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-17-2012   #25
tom.w.bn
Former RF User
 
tom.w.bn is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bille View Post
The larger filter covers the whole lens, not only the front element which should be about the same in diameter as any other 50mm f1.2 lens.

Here is a picture:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/rebel-xti.htm
They use the ring-usm autofocus. Lot's of advantages but on the downside it makes the lens bigger because the AF is around the lens elements.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 19:48.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.