graywolf wrote: > > 50mm is the normal lens for 135 cameras simply because that is what > Barnack used on the first Leica.
Quite possibly true. Old Oskar did a lot of good things for miniaturizing photography. > The real reason something approximating the diaagonal of the the > negative was originally chosen as the normal lens was simply because > that was the cheapest lens that would give satisfactory results. Where does this little tidbit of info come from? I'd like to read the history on that contention myself. > All the rest is gobbly-dee-gook made up by photography > writer's over the years. ; ^) You left out a few words like 'probably' and 'possibly' or 'presumably,' and especially 'IMMHO,' Seņor Graywolf. keith whaley > Anders Hultman wrote: > > > > Ok, but why then 50mm and not 43mm? My parents sometimes say when we > > talk about cameras that "in their times" 45mm was considered normal. > > -- > > --graywolf > http://graywolfphoto.com
