The DZ 50/2 macro is a bit lighter than its Zuiko 50/2 macro cousin (300
vs 320g) despite having a couple extra elements. But I'm sure what Oly
would prefer that we compare would be the Zuiko 90/2 at 550g as the
nearest comparable focal length given the 2X crop factor.
But with that sort of thinking consider the lenses that are missing:
4mm f/2.8 fisheye
8mm f/3.5 fisheye
9mm f/3.5
10.5mm f/2
10.5mm f/3.5
12mm f/2
12mm f/2.8
12mm f/3.5 shift
14mm f/2
14mm f/2.8
14mm f/3.5
17mm f/2
17mm f/2.8
17mm f/2.8 shift
20mm f/2
25mm f/1.2
25mm f/1.4
25mm f/1.8
25mm f/2 macro
25mm f/3.5 macro
27.5mm f/1.2
42.5mm f/2
50mm f/2.8
That's enough. There are a lot more.
Chuck Norcutt
Wiliam Wagenaar wrote:
> Khen Lim wrote:
>
> ----
>> As for the 4:3 advantages of being lighter and compact,
>> there are points I like to make here. On paper these advantages
>> are obvious but in reality, it does look like they might not have
>> delivered as much of these.
> -----
>
> Although I understand most physical limitations, I still have a hard
> time understanding why the DZuikos are so much larger than the
> OM-zuikos, the 35 and 50mm macro's being the exeptions here. In my
> physics book a 50mm/2 for 4/3 format could be made smaller than a 50mm/2
> for 35mm film format. Could you or anyone else please elaborate on that?
> I can understand that the zooms are larger than fixed foacl length
> lenses, but they seem quite bulky to me, while the OM lenses really were
> small.
>
> Regards,
>
> Wiliam Wagenaar
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|