On 28/09/2009, at 7:12 PM, Dawid Loubser wrote:
> I'm not sure that I buy it. We've been through this before, just
> scaling
> down a 35mm design, with tight manufacturing tolerances, should
> already do a
> heck of a lot better than the M.Zuiko 17/2.8.
>
>
> - Voigtlander 15mm and 12mm
> - Nikkor 14-24/2.8
> - Canon TS-E 17mm f/4
> - Leica Tri-Elmar 16-18-21
> - etc.
Again - the little CVoigt rangefinder lenses are fair comment but the
others are massive by comparison (even the Tri-Elmar). Only the 15mm
is a fair comparison, I'd say, on size and performance. Certainly on
the 1.3x crop of an M8 it was great.
>
> I would put money on the fact that the Color-Minotar on my minox will
> also,
> in absolute terms, beat it on all fronts. Hmm... If I only had the
> equipment,
> imagine how cool a M.Zuiko lens one could build by mounting the (tiny,
> tiny)
> 35/2.8 from the minox on a M.Zuiko mount ring. Would make a great
> small portrait
> lens :-) I wish I had the equipment to play around with building
> lenses like
> these...
>
Now that's actually not a bad idea because there's a lot of old 35mm
Minoces around with terminal faults, especially bung shutters.
Lens to 'plane' distance can't be hat different. Miniscule 70mm f2.8.
Hmmm.
Micro 4/3rds body cap, Dremel, knife, screwdriver, hammer, Araldite,
duct tape....
We used to do that sort of stuff all the time!
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.pbase.com/afildes
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|