Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/04/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Frank Filippone wrote: > > The 63 is a bit short for 6x6 negs. It was conceived as a lens to cover > 35mm with some room to spare, thereby allowing the center of he lens to > cover the neg. That gives more even illumination over the neg, or so the > old logic goes. > > Get a 75, 80, 90, or best yet a 105 lens. > 63.... 35mm or 4x4cm (127 film) > 75... 6x6 > 80... 6x6 > 90... 6x7 + > 105 .. 6x9 > > Frank Filippone Yea but logic takes a holiday on this one Frank! I've got the little book which came with the lens right in front of me. 6 elements in 4 groups optimized for 8X but goes from 2x to 20x (usable) AND MAXIMUM FILM SIZE 32X45mm (55.2mm DIAGONAL) ! Wouldn't that be if you cut a 645 in half? I know 645 came about by cutting 6x9 in half. So if we just keep cutting things in half we'll have it all figured out... sooner or later. Mark Rabiner Portland, Oregon USA http://www.rabinergroup.com - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html