Re: [Leica] Retrofocus. was sharpness discussion

["Raimo Korhonen" <raimo.korhonen@pp2.inet.fi>]

Yes - sorry, I could not resist. Raimo
- ----------
> From: Bryan Willman <bryanwi@seanet.com>
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Retrofocus. was sharpness discussion
> Date: 26. toukokuuta 1998 4:34
>=20
> The real point here is that Retrofocus lens is physically longer than=
 its
focal length.  So, a 21mm for an M camera must be retrofocus, since you
can't fit the nodal point within 21mm of the film plane.
>=20
> A true telephoto (as opposed to mearly a long lens) means one in whic=
h
the lens is physically shorter than it's focal length.  (Which also mea=
ns
it can focus to infinity without having to draw the extension > of its
focal length, which turns out to be a big deal > for view cameras, of a=
ll
things.)
>=20
> bmw
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Raimo Korhonen <raimo.korhonen@pp2.inet.fi>
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca=
.us>
> Date: Monday, May 25, 1998 11:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Retrofocus. was sharpness discussion
>=20
> Elementary - it=B4s an inverted telephoto design. Raimo ;-)
>=20
> ----------
> > From: Mark <mark@steinberg.net>
> > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> > Subject: [Leica] Retrofocus. was sharpness discussion
> > Date: 25. toukokuuta 1998 18:02
> >
> > i have to ask, what is "Retrofocus" ?
> >
> > m
>=20