[Tokina]

Thank you very much! I wish new cameras came with some educational material

[Blue]

. .

BTW...we walked 20 miles to school in the snow back then...chased by wolves the entire way...

I'm guessing it was up hill to and from school.

[Sean Nelson]

I'm guessing it was up hill to and from school.

Off topic, but I pity the poor stewardess I saw working on Hawaiian Airlines. On the 30 minute flight from Maui to the big island, she had to push her cart full of drinks uphill from the rear galley as we climbed, then she had to push it back uphill again towards the rear galley as we descended. She must have spent all day long pushing that thing uphill, it really was unfair!

[MPrince]

BTW...we walked 20 miles to school in the snow back then...chased by wolves the entire way...

Barefoot (us, not the wolves. Well, they were barefoot too.)

[Dan]

...
Anyway, with all the recent discussion on the definition of 'normal', I thought I'd
share what "The Manual" said back in 1975.

The notion that 43mm is "normal" has a long history. There have been a number of 40mm lenses through the years, which some folks prefer to 50 (or 55 or 58). Mike Johnston has an interesting article about the benefits of the 40 on The Luminous Landscape:

Why 40mm

While the diagonal of a 35mm film image works out to 43mm, in my view this is a bit misleading. Such images were almost always cropped a bit, either by a slide mount or in the printing process by the film holder. Most slide mounts have a diagonal of 41mm. This is what I am used to. The corresponding crop factor for Pentax digital cameras would then be 1.45, not the "official" 1.53. Given this, a 40mm lens on a crop camera has a field of view equivalent to a 58mm lens on film. Cosina's current line-up 40mm and 58mm Voigtlanders thus provide exactly the same field of view, but on different formats. The 58 is a "long normal" on 35mm, whereas the 40 is a "long normal" on a Pentax digital. I always liked 58mm on film. I guess that is why I like the DA 40.

Dan

[dugrant153]

Good stuff to read cuz I'm really looking into this stuff!! Great info!!

So if I'm reading this correctly (hopefully I don't start a war here!), but to get an equivalent of a 50mm in film, I'd need a... 33mm lens or so (35mm lens)? And to get the 'normal' 43mm in film, I'd need a 29mm lens?

In other words, my older 28mm M lens is the 'normal' view of the old days? Correct me if I'm wrong. I just want to get my ducks in a row

[monochrome]

That actually doesn't surprise me. I remember the 70's as being a decade of near-legendary inflation.

And coming soon for a return engagement in a decade near you

[Blue]

Good stuff to read cuz I'm really looking into this stuff!! Great info!!

So if I'm reading this correctly (hopefully I don't start a war here!), but to get an equivalent of a 50mm in film, I'd need a... 33mm lens or so (35mm lens)? And to get the 'normal' 43mm in film, I'd need a 29mm lens?

In other words, my older 28mm M lens is the 'normal' view of the old days? Correct me if I'm wrong. I just want to get my ducks in a row

That is correct. But it has nothing to do with the focal length of the lens. The angle of view has changed because the aps-c sensor is smaller than the 36x24 of the film.

[Blue]

And coming soon for a return engagement in a decade near you

Now all we need is someone to star in the roll of Jimmie Carter.

[m8o]

"a lens who's focal length is roughly equivalent to the diagonal dimension of the film used..."

So for film they seem to be implying the, at the time non existent, 43mm limited is the ideal "normal" lens, and not the 50mm (for film).

But then why did the paragraph go on to read a bit longer, the 55 not 50, was "normal'er" with the 50's "image seems just a bit smaller"? (viewfinders being 1x I believe in those days)

[jamesk8752]

.

As part of a local craigslist purchase last summer I acquired a very interesting 200+ page hardcover
binder: "Honeywell Pentax Manual"

It's a treasure trove of info about Takumars, Spotmatic, all sorts of Pentax film cameras, as well as
photographic technique and examples. It's a very fun read, I enjoy flipping through it quite a bit.

It looks so interesting I just found and bought a copy on eBay! I already have Herbert Keppler's The Pentax Way book but this one seems to have additional info.

Thanks for bringing it to my attention!

[jamesk8752]

But then why did the paragraph go on to read a bit longer, the 55 not 50, was "normal'er" with the 50's "image seems just a bit smaller"? (viewfinders being 1x I believe in those days)

I've read that some of the early Japanese SLRs (remember the Miranda?) used 58mm lenses because they needed additional distance behind the lens to allow adequate clearance for the reflex mirror. They tried to make a virtue out of a necessity by touting the slightly more intimate angle of view...

[jsherman999]

How do you come up with good stuff like this?

Thx...

BTW: According to Fuhring, Pentax, Single Lens Reflex Photography, 6th ed (1969) the list price for a Super-Tak 35mm F/3.5 was $94.50, 50mm F/1.4 was $121.00, a 58mm F/1.8 was $81.00, an 85mm F/1.8 was 169.50, a 135mm F/3.5 was $149.50, a 300mm F/4.0 was $339.50, and a 400mm F/5.6 was $319.00. If you wish to convert these prices to 2007's U$ purchasing power, multiply each number by 6. You do the math...

And to think, I'm sitting here whining about the price tag on today's unbelievably superb lens choices.

Cheers...

No kidding. When you consider than many of the Taks you can buy today are
almost pristine, you're getting a $600 (today's $) lens for say $45 that has
not degraded in any way.

Photographic bargains of the century, these Taks.

...

JSherman, I started out in photography in 1977 with a 110 camera. I moved up about 7 years later to the K1000.

I knew you were a true Pentaxian!

BTW Jay the 43 was intentionally chosen as the Pentax "normal". I know I read on some European Pentax site (UK??) that they chose this focal length to match the film size.

Peter, is your copy of this manual dog-eared? This one is in good shape except
for a couple water damage (coffee?) marks. Nice to own.

I guess that explains why I never owned anything other than a normal lens back then! In 1975, I was making about $2.25 an hour working the parts counter at Checker Auto. After taxes, rent, and food there was not a whole lot left over to buy photo stuff with. For me, the high point of the '70s was when I got a real electronic flash for Christmas. Before then, it was flash bulbs!

Steve

BTW...we walked 20 miles to school in the snow back then...chased by wolves the entire way...

My recollection of SLR owners was... Rich. I always thought that anyone that
owned a camera that cost several hundred dollars had money to burn. (Of
course, in 1975 I was living on a $10/week allowance and feeling pretty flush.)

It looks so interesting I just found and bought a copy on eBay! I already have Herbert Keppler's The Pentax Way book but this one seems to have additional info.

Thanks for bringing it to my attention!

Well, I'm very glad I could instigate another addition to your Pentax collection, Jim!


For anyone who doesn't have this manual, below shows what to search for if
you want to find a copy.




I'll also post some shots of some interesting things regarding SMC coating,
perspective, etc, for anyone not lucky enough to have a copy and wants to
do a little light reference-reading (geeks like me )

SMC Coating:






Perspective:






Optical quality of Taks/CA/Distortion:





The early bodies:

[Dan]

I've read that some of the early Japanese SLRs (remember the Miranda?) used 58mm lenses because they needed additional distance behind the lens to allow adequate clearance for the reflex mirror. They tried to make a virtue out of a necessity by touting the slightly more intimate angle of view...

I have read that Minolta went with a 58mm lens for just this reason. When they introduced a fast "normal" the use of the retrofocus design was not yet commonplace, and so they needed a longer focal length to clear the mirror.

For whatever reason, Pentax also used 58mm as the focal length for some of their earliest SLR lenses. The Asahiflex of the early 1950s came with a 58mm f/2.4 Takumar with a Heliar-type design (5 elements in 3 groups). The basic Heliar type is attributed Voigtlander (pre-Cosina!), and was designed before WWII. When you use your 40mm lens on a Pentax DSLR you have the same angle of view as the earliest SLR users with their 58mm Heliars. I have seen the 40mm focal referred to as an "awkward" focal length on a crop sensor. It seems that people who hold this view are out of touch with the history of the SLR. It is better characterized as a "legacy" focal length.

Dan

[stevebrot]

Now all we need is someone to star in the roll of Jimmie Carter.

I think the role has already been filled...

Steve