Go hunt up an Olympus Auto Eye II, which had a D. Zuiko f/2.5 43mm lens. Olympus had a _slew_ of 40mm, 45 and 48mm lenses during that time, but did have one 43mm...
keith whaley "J. C. O'Connell" wrote: > > Ive never sen a fixed lens 35mm camera with > a 43mm lens. I've seen 40, 42, 45 but never 43mm. > JCO > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > -----Original Message----- > From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 3:55 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Camera size and lens size. > > The funny thing is you guys seem to think photography started with 35mm > SLRs. Nope, it started back in the mid-eighteen-hundreds and most of the > rules of thumb you guys like to quote came about before 1900 or so. > > Those niffy reasons you guys come up with why certain focal lengths (85 > is 2x 43, etc) are just your imaginations working overtime. Most of the > strange focal lengths we use have their genesis in some obsolete film or > plate format in the past. At one time economics were not a unimportant > as they have been in the past 40 years of so. Manufactures simply used > what was out there. Though occasionally they came up with something of > their on for what ever reason (Zeiss used 85mm for their short tele > instead of the 90 everyone else did in the 30's, supposedly because it > was easier to make a fast 85 than a 90. More likely simply to > differentiate them self's from Leica). As for 43-45 focal lenght lenses > on 135 cameras, until the late 60's or so they were mostly used on the > cheaper fixed lens cameras. [...]
