The 50mm focal length for an SLR is generally implemented as a symmetrical lens design because there's enough room for the moving mirror behind it, so the size is dependent upon the f/stop and light path desired, coupled with the bulkiness of the mount that supports the features you want. Compare a Leica Summilux-M 50/1.4 lens with a Pentax FA50/1.4 ... the Pentax is darn near the same size, despite the mount having a lot more bits in it than the Leica.
Fast 35mm SLR lenses are generally mild inverted telephotos so the front elements grow in size compared to RF camera lenses of yore. Modern RF 35mm are also often mild inverted tele designs ... my last Summicron-M 35/2 ASPH was not much smaller than the Pentax FA35/2 AL, if at all. I don't know that a high quality, very compact 50mm f/2.8 Limited would be a bad idea. Although I appreciate the speed of my FA50/1.4, it is most often at lens openings of f/4-f/8. Of course, I doubt that I need another 50mm lens and would likely not buy it... That DA28/2 Limited, on the other hand, would be my most used lens. Godfrey On Sep 16, 2006, at 8:30 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > Why couldn't they make a smaller 50/1.4? > > Yes, a nice, fast 28 would be wonderful, and a 35/1.4 would be a > kick as > well. > > Jumping to a 50/2.8 would seem like a real step backwards for any > number of > reasons. > >> I don't see that they'd be able to make a 50mm f/1.4-1.2 lens much >> smaller than the current FA50/1.4 and it is a great performer. It >> would be much more to my liking if they released the same optics in a >> D-FA lens mount. A compact, pancake DA50/2.8 Limited might be neat, >> but I'd rather they did a compact DA28/2 Limited! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
