Topic: Pancake Lenses: Whassup With That?

[Ed Wenn]

I know this is a techie question and that I should probably ask it somewhere else, but I also know that behind the veneer of creativity that we all paint on when we participate in topics on this forum, there lurks in many of us a total camera geek who will be desperate to help me out on this one....so feel free to unleash your inner anorak:

The Question: Pancake lenses. Why?
The Context: I have a few Pentax K mount 35mm SLRs and I'm always looking for lens bargains.

Let The Discussion Begin:

What's the difference between a 28mm pancake and a normal 28mm? Is there one? If not then why make a smaller lens?

Is it just a different optics system?

Will I see a difference in my photos?

Is there an optimum type of lens (i.e. 40mm or 28mm) for a pancake?

etc. etc.

[LT]

The Question: Pancake lenses. Why?
 

Why? Are they not used to take pictures of batter-based Fried food?  Although I did always wonder why a special lens had to be made to shoot that type of desert, and not another - there is no profiterole lens or tiramisu glass as far as I know.

Is there an optimum type of lens (i.e. 40mm or 28mm) for a pancake?

That all depends on how big the pancake is and how close you want to get - surely?

 

[LT]

The Question: Pancake lenses. Why?
 

Why? Are they not used to take pictures of batter-based Fried food?  Although I did always wonder why a special lens had to be made to shoot that type of desert, and not another - there is no profiterole lens or tiramisu glass as far as I know.

Is there an optimum type of lens (i.e. 40mm or 28mm) for a pancake?

That all depends on how big the pancake is and how close you want to get - surely?

 

Sometimes, I really crack myself up.

[Francois]

I actually have seen a proper use of pancakes. They are especially suited for taking pictures of the moon.
You take a large pancake and put it on the bed of your scanner. You press the button and you have an instant photo of the dark side of the moon 

I also heard that they work better with Canadian maple syrup 

Cheap food puns aside... (or should I have said buns aside...)

As for the optical formula you're talking about, I've never heard of it. Maybe it refers to solid optics (where all the elements are stuck together without any air gaps) If that's the case, there were a few companies that used the system (the Vivitar Solid Cat 500mm comes to mind). But apart from being incredibly heavy, I don't see a point in opting for them.
Or maybe Pancake refers to a cheap made in China lens (they made a typo while writing Pentax...)
I know Nikon had a very small mechanical lenses in the E series and the GN-Nikkor... they were about half the size of other lenses and just as good.

[Ed Wenn]

Sometimes, I really crack myself up.

As always Leon, thanks a million for your incisive technical input. You have a great knack of going straight to the important stuff and not getting sidetracked with  STUPID, POINTLESS COMMENTS......

      

[As the crowd looks on, Leon grabs his coat and walks slowly from the room]

Right, now does anyone else out there have a sensible answer? Probably not.

[Ed Wenn]

OK, I've started digging and have found the answers to some of my questions. This article has some good detail on a variety of tests conducted on various Pentax lenses with the upshot being that the 40mm is almost certainly going to be good enough for my very modest requirements.

Not sure about the technology involved, but it would seem that the primary reason for the existence of pancake lenses is because they're small/short and light - i.e. it turns your bulky, old school SLR into a slim point and shoot......er, almost.

Anyway, my appetite has been whetted and I'll be scouring oBay for decent deals.

[fgianni]

Well it looks that you managed to answer your own question:

The only reason for pancake lenses is: they are small, and make your bulky slr less intrusive and more portable.

Of course you can buy a leica M + 35mm summicron (not the new one but an old non ASPH version) and get better quality with even lower bulk, at the end of the day that's why people shoots with RF cameras.

And you don't need to spend an arm and a leg on Leica stuff, check this beauty:

http://www.voigtlaender.de/cms/voigtlaender/voigtlaender_cms.nsf/id/pa_asan6m4dvp.html

Put it on an M mount body of your choice and you won't use an SLR ever again!

[Ed Wenn]

I'm a big fan of RFs and have several in my collection, but thought I should stick up for the SLR on this occasion (mainly because I used to slag 'em off worse than most). The thing I use an SLR for is when I'm using modified lenses. It can be done, but you don't get the same control with modified lenses on RFs or any other non-toy cameras...hence the SLR. Horses for courses and all that.

[db]

I feel like a putz for offering a dull reply to such an entertaining thread, but I remember when I was a pimply kid outa high school I jagged a job in a camera shop and one day a trailer load of Pentax cameras arrived in the goods-in bay. Obviously the owner jagged them at a 'cheeper by the thousand' price from the importer.

They were MG bodies with this 'pancake' 40mm sold as a standard. I think it performed OK and the rationale was pretty much space/weight saving, so we sold them as... 'ideal for that furtive snap in crowded bizzarre in Marakesh, oh discerning customer sir'... Jeez, I had no shame, even then.

I think (yeah, go ahead- google them and prove me wrong) they had simpler optics, fewer elements and probably didn't 'stack up' (ugh) to the 50mm in high end barrel distortion and CA tests, but hey, they were cheap and popular.

I don't think the name lived on to father generations of great lenses...