Is the Holy Trinity unique to Pentax?

Fogel70 · 06-14-2015, 12:16 AM

Originally posted by normhead

Those are such odd lengths 45 and 75. I wonder how they came up with those focal lengths.

No Pentaxians would be interested in something so out of the ordinary.

Not sure if you are joking, but...
They are basically equivalent of classical 85mm and 135/150mm on FF.
Then there are also Olympus 25/1.8, 17/1.8 and 12/2.0 for MFT, to cover the classical 50mm, 35mm and 24mm.

normhead · 06-14-2015, 03:48 AM

Originally posted by Kozlok

We Pentaxians definitely have more of a lens-cult with our FAs and DAs. Prime lenses are the center of our world!

Even zoom crazies like me always carry at least 2 or 3 primes. Why would you leave the house without a 21 and 40 XS... what possible excuse could there be? and zoom macro just sucks.

Driline · 06-14-2015, 06:50 AM

Originally posted by normhead

Why would you leave the house without a 21 and 40 XS

Cause I don't have one

................ So I take the FA 31 & FA 43 along with my F*300

normhead · 06-14-2015, 07:06 AM

Originally posted by Driline

Cause I don't have one

................ So I take the FA 31 & FA 43 along with my F*300

Well, if you don't have them, that's why you need them.

**gofour3** · 06-14-2015, 09:19 AM

In the short Telephoto world it's hard to beat these three coveted A series lenses:

A*85/1.4
A*135/1.8
A*200/4ED Macro

Phil.

lytrytyr · 06-14-2015, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by 6BQ5

It makes me wonder if the idea of a trinity of lenses is unique to Pentax

The framelines in the old Leica rangefinder bodies
used to force a trinity on you,
either 35/50/90 on the M2 or 50/90/135 on the M3.

Now here is Pentax's secret formula:

Divide 35/50/90 by the magic number 1.16,
and you get 31/43/77 to within less than a millimeter!

**monochrome** · 06-14-2015, 10:36 AM

I'm lost. What is the significance of 1.16?*

* Is it some stonemason algebra or something?

Last edited by monochrome; 06-14-2015 at 10:47 AM.

lytrytyr · 06-14-2015, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by monochrome

I'm lost. What is the significance of 1.16?

The Japanese world view is that much wider than the German.

6BQ5 · 06-14-2015, 11:59 AM

So did Pentax experiment through trial and error to get to a reduction factor of 1.16 for their focal lengths?

I'm really curious about this. Do you have an article? An interview? I don't doubt you - just looking for more insight!

lytrytyr · 06-14-2015, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by 6BQ5

So did Pentax experiment through trial and error to get to a reduction factor of 1.16 for their focal lengths?

I think it's more like Leica (Barnack and Leitz) got it wrong originally,
settling for 50mm rather than the true 43mm diagonal for a "normal" lens.
Pentax (Hirakawa) set it right: 50/43 = 1.16 (approximately).

yorik · 06-14-2015, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by officiousbystander

Don't know if there's a prime Holy Trinity but there definitely is a dynamic duo:
Lumix 20mm 1.7
Olympus 45mm 1.8...

Those are the only m4/3 lenses I use, they do cover a lot of ground.

I think that Panasonic is aiming for a holy trinity for m4/3 with their `panaleica' lenses - the 15mm, 25mm and the 42.5mm. Recently, I've
been hoping that they will go for four and introduce a panaleica 67.5mm f/1.8.

januko · 06-15-2015, 03:34 AM

I think the m43 system has no three princesses because they have a lot of primes with similar aesthetics and good quality
(I don't know about lens character though because I never tried one.

).

Olympus has 12 f/2, 17/1.8, 25/1.8, 45/1.8, 75/1.8.

Panasonic has 15/1.7, 20/1.7, and they also have the Leica-badged 25/1.4 and 42.5/1.2 Nocticron.

Voigtlander has 17.5/0.95, 25/0.95, 42.5/0.95, and the upcoming 10.5/0.95 (Yes they are all at f/0.95 and they are all manual).

I think Voigtlander lenses come close to Pentax Three Princesses but Voigtlander has an upcoming fourth lens.

Hope this helps to TS.

bassek · 06-15-2015, 04:46 AM

Originally posted by januko

I think the m43 system has no three princesses because they have a lot of primes with similar aesthetics and good quality

Do non-FF lenses even qualify for this comparison? Crop lenses are so much cheaper to make.

Seb

6BQ5 · 06-15-2015, 06:26 AM

Originally posted by bassek

Do non-FF lenses even qualify for this comparison? Crop lenses are so much cheaper to make.

Seb

Of course. I'm asking to see if there are three princesses for other camera systems regardless of the sensor format. Price is not a consideration right now since I'm investigating lens character for now. However, on the side, the lenses aren't that much cheaper in most cases.

IchabodCrane · 06-15-2015, 06:33 AM

Originally posted by lytrytyr

I think it's more like Leica (Barnack and Leitz) got it wrong originally,
settling for 50mm rather than the true 43mm diagonal for a "normal" lens.
Pentax (Hirakawa) set it right: 50/43 = 1.16 (approximately).

I've seen that written elsewhere, too. If that was the standard Pentax thinking, I wonder why they didn't develop a DA 28 Ltd as that would have been the FOV equivalent to the 43 for an APS-C camera.

06-14-2015, 09:19 AM	#20
gofour3 Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 8,090	In the short Telephoto world it's hard to beat these three coveted A series lenses: A85/1.4 A135/1.8 A200/4ED Macro Phil. Last edited by gofour3; 06-14-2015 at 02:36 PM. Reason: Typo*

06-14-2015, 10:24 AM	#21
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	Pentax's secret formula Originally posted by 6BQ5 It makes me wonder if the idea of a trinity of lenses is unique to Pentax The framelines in the old Leica rangefinder bodies used to force a trinity on you, either 35/50/90 on the M2 or 50/90/135 on the M3. Now here is Pentax's secret formula: Divide 35/50/90 by the magic number 1.16, and you get 31/43/77 to within less than a millimeter!

06-15-2015, 03:34 AM	#27
januko Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 89	I think the m43 system has no three princesses because they have a lot of primes with similar aesthetics and good quality (I don't know about lens character though because I never tried one.). Olympus has 12 f/2, 17/1.8, 25/1.8, 45/1.8, 75/1.8. Panasonic has 15/1.7, 20/1.7, and they also have the Leica-badged 25/1.4 and 42.5/1.2 Nocticron. Voigtlander has 17.5/0.95, 25/0.95, 42.5/0.95, and the upcoming 10.5/0.95 (Yes they are all at f/0.95 and they are all manual). I think Voigtlander lenses come close to Pentax Three Princesses but Voigtlander has an upcoming fourth lens. Hope this helps to TS.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Holy trinity of lenses	mariakruse	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	146	01-26-2015 12:06 PM
The Holy FA Trinity - how do you use 'em?	zzeitg	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	28	11-16-2014 03:19 PM
The Holy FA Trinity - your best photo?	zzeitg	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	11-15-2014 07:40 AM
People So...they say this dof is unique...	D4rknezz	Post Your Photos!	9	08-06-2014 07:38 AM
is TAv unique to Pentax?	WMBP	Pentax DSLR Discussion	22	02-16-2008 02:23 AM

06-14-2015, 12:16 AM	#16
Fogel70 Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Photos: Albums Posts: 3,062	Originally posted by normhead Those are such odd lengths 45 and 75. I wonder how they came up with those focal lengths. No Pentaxians would be interested in something so out of the ordinary. Not sure if you are joking, but... They are basically equivalent of classical 85mm and 135/150mm on FF. Then there are also Olympus 25/1.8, 17/1.8 and 12/2.0 for MFT, to cover the classical 50mm, 35mm and 24mm.

06-14-2015, 03:48 AM	#17
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Kozlok We Pentaxians definitely have more of a lens-cult with our FAs and DAs. Prime lenses are the center of our world! Even zoom crazies like me always carry at least 2 or 3 primes. Why would you leave the house without a 21 and 40 XS... what possible excuse could there be? and zoom macro just sucks.

06-14-2015, 06:50 AM	#18
Driline Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,697	Originally posted by normhead Why would you leave the house without a 21 and 40 XS Cause I don't have one ................ So I take the FA 31 & FA 43 along with my F*300

06-14-2015, 07:06 AM	#19
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Driline Cause I don't have one ................ So I take the FA 31 & FA 43 along with my F*300 Well, if you don't have them, that's why you need them.

06-14-2015, 10:36 AM	#22
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	I'm lost. What is the significance of 1.16?* * Is it some stonemason algebra or something? Last edited by monochrome; 06-14-2015 at 10:47 AM.

06-14-2015, 10:49 AM	#23
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	Originally posted by monochrome I'm lost. What is the significance of 1.16? The Japanese world view is that much wider than the German.

06-14-2015, 11:59 AM	#24
6BQ5 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Nevada, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,348 Original Poster	So did Pentax experiment through trial and error to get to a reduction factor of 1.16 for their focal lengths? I'm really curious about this. Do you have an article? An interview? I don't doubt you - just looking for more insight!

06-14-2015, 12:15 PM	#25
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	Originally posted by 6BQ5 So did Pentax experiment through trial and error to get to a reduction factor of 1.16 for their focal lengths? I think it's more like Leica (Barnack and Leitz) got it wrong originally, settling for 50mm rather than the true 43mm diagonal for a "normal" lens. Pentax (Hirakawa) set it right: 50/43 = 1.16 (approximately).

06-14-2015, 02:34 PM	#26
yorik Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Scotts Valley, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 991	Originally posted by officiousbystander Don't know if there's a prime Holy Trinity but there definitely is a dynamic duo: Lumix 20mm 1.7 Olympus 45mm 1.8... Those are the only m4/3 lenses I use, they do cover a lot of ground. I think that Panasonic is aiming for a holy trinity for m4/3 with their `panaleica' lenses - the 15mm, 25mm and the 42.5mm. Recently, I've been hoping that they will go for four and introduce a panaleica 67.5mm f/1.8.

06-15-2015, 04:46 AM	#28
bassek Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2011 Photos: Gallery Posts: 706	Originally posted by januko I think the m43 system has no three princesses because they have a lot of primes with similar aesthetics and good quality Do non-FF lenses even qualify for this comparison? Crop lenses are so much cheaper to make. Seb

06-15-2015, 06:26 AM	#29
6BQ5 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Nevada, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,348 Original Poster	Originally posted by bassek Do non-FF lenses even qualify for this comparison? Crop lenses are so much cheaper to make. Seb Of course. I'm asking to see if there are three princesses for other camera systems regardless of the sensor format. Price is not a consideration right now since I'm investigating lens character for now. However, on the side, the lenses aren't that much cheaper in most cases.

06-15-2015, 06:33 AM	#30
IchabodCrane Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,728	Originally posted by lytrytyr I think it's more like Leica (Barnack and Leitz) got it wrong originally, settling for 50mm rather than the true 43mm diagonal for a "normal" lens. Pentax (Hirakawa) set it right: 50/43 = 1.16 (approximately). I've seen that written elsewhere, too. If that was the standard Pentax thinking, I wonder why they didn't develop a DA 28 Ltd as that would have been the FOV equivalent to the 43 for an APS-C camera.