[Viking42]

I really have to buy that 43 LTD, don't I?

Yup, this might be all the justification you need to tip the scales.

Seriously, if you look at the German cameras of the '50s and '60s, you will find that a "normal" lens of 40mm or so was very common. E.g. Rolleiflex and many other 6x6 camera makers used used 75mm (=42mm equiv.) as their normal lens.

[reh321]

Yup, this might be all the justification you need to tip the scales.

Seriously, if you look at the German cameras of the '50s and '60s, you will find that a "normal" lens of 40mm or so was very common. E.g. Rolleiflex and many other 6x6 camera makers used used 75mm (=42mm equiv.) as their normal lens.

My two rangefinder cameras in the 1970s had 45 mm lenses - since slightly WA has become the norm now, I would expect the next GR or WG to have a lens around 28mm {42mm “35mm equiv”} as its actual focal length.

[ne!]

I would love a 40mm GR, it could even have crop modes like the standard 28mm GR, except with 50mm and 70mm instead. Something I've wondered, though-- does anyone have any idea why the DA 40mm 2.8 couldn't be used on a compact GR-style camera, as opposed to a newly patented design?

[Serkevan]

Yup, this might be all the justification you need to tip the scales.

Seriously, if you look at the German cameras of the '50s and '60s, you will find that a "normal" lens of 40mm or so was very common. E.g. Rolleiflex and many other 6x6 camera makers used used 75mm (=42mm equiv.) as their normal lens.

I've seen several of the old folding cameras in antique stores here sporting 45mm lenses as well, but I'm not sure those are 35mm film (I think the old Zeiss Ikonta were, though?). I somehow tend to not use the FL too much on my 28-105, but I suffer from the good old "any zoom has three positions" syndrome, so I tend to use it only at 28, 70 and 105 so that explains

[Mistral75]

I know but there is also a 23.42. What does the omega stand for btw? (small w)

Half angle of view.

[Mistral75]

I would love a 40mm GR, it could even have crop modes like the standard 28mm GR, except with 50mm and 70mm instead. Something I've wondered, though-- does anyone have any idea why the DA 40mm 2.8 couldn't be used on a compact GR-style camera, as opposed to a newly patented design?

This lens is designed to be placed 45.46mm ahead of the sensor (flange focal distance) and any camera using it wouldn't be that compact.

[reh321]

I've seen several of the old folding cameras in antique stores here sporting 45mm lenses as well, but I'm not sure those are 35mm film (I think the old Zeiss Ikonta were, though?). I somehow tend to not use the FL too much on my 28-105, but I suffer from the good old "any zoom has three positions" syndrome, so I tend to use it only at 28, 70 and 105 so that explains

I hardly ever look at what focal length I’m using on zoom lenses - I zoom to the framing I want at the position I am at. Unless I am photographing wild animals, I suspect that I use most the lengths that correspond to “35mm focal lengths” wider than 50mm .... but I would have to look.

[Viking42]

My two rangefinder cameras in the 1970s had 45 mm lenses - since slightly WA has become the norm now, I would expect the next GR or WG to have a lens around 28mm {42mm “35mm equiv”} as its actual focal length.

It's funny how the convention of what is a normal lens has changed. It seems in the 50s through the 70s, normal meant something from 40 to 45mm. Then at some point it became 50mm (even 55mm was tried for a while). So now a 40 or 45 is considered slightly wide. Personally, if I had to live with only one focal length then it would be 40mm. As I mentioned, it just feels right. Those old Germans were onto something.

[ne!]

This lens is designed to be placed 45.46mm ahead of the sensor (flange focal distance) and any camera using it wouldn't be that compact.

Ahh yes, of course... thanks!

[Viking42]

I've seen several of the old folding cameras in antique stores here sporting 45mm lenses as well, but I'm not sure those are 35mm film (I think the old Zeiss Ikonta were, though?). I somehow tend to not use the FL too much on my 28-105, but I suffer from the good old "any zoom has three positions" syndrome, so I tend to use it only at 28, 70 and 105 so that explains

If an old folder has a 45mm lens then it would be a 135 film camera. As far as I know there was never a wide angle 120 folder. Most or all of the latter had either 75 or 80mm lenses if 6x6, or 105mm if 6x9 (=45mm in 135). I'm pretty sure Zeiss made both 135 and 120 format Ikontas, although I think the 135 ones are pretty rare and the most common Ikontas are medium format. Great cameras, BTW, and capable of excellent images if you get a good one with a Tessar lens.

[Serkevan]

I hardly ever look at what focal length I’m using on zoom lenses - I zoom to the framing I want at the position I am at. Unless I am photographing wild animals, I suspect that I use most the lengths that correspond to “35mm focal lengths” wider than 50mm .... but I would have to look.

Oh, I don't look while shooting either, but some time ago I made a spreadsheet with the metadata (since the EXIF encodes the approximate focal length at which a zoom was shot). I'll pull it up later.

[illdefined]

That's typically an angular measurement - it would make sense because it's inversely proportional to FL (23mm -> 30.9 w, while 28mm -> 26.6 w). However, the numbers don't fit the FOV of the lenses on an APS-C camera at all (they are about half of what I expect), so I'm not sure.

so it's not confirmed to be for APS-C?

[Flubber]

I don't think there's anything confirmed here - as far as I've understood it's just a patent application.

[illdefined]

I don't think there's anything confirmed here - as far as I've understood it's just a patent application.

yep I meant confirmed APS-C in the patent

[reh321]

yep I meant confirmed APS-C in the patent

If the patent didn’t say fixed lens, they could be future ‘DA’ lenses??