Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] New Panny lens

Subject: Re: [OM] New Panny lens
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 19:33:30 -0800
On 2/25/2016 2:50 PM, Frank wrote:
2016-02-25 22:26 GMT+01:00 Moose

...

​I had a look in my LR catalog, interesting. I couldn't find how to select
on used aperture though? ​

There are a lot more selection options than the four shown by default. Right click on the top of one of the boxes, and choose from the list. I think you can save custom combos.

But I do vote for the fixed ultrawide as well. 8-9mm would be OK for me,

Yeah, that would undoubtedly do. I don't need one as often as before panorama stitching, but it's still an important option. I've gone from OM 18 mm to Tamron 17 mm, to Canon 10-22 for APS-C to M.Zuiko 9-18. So they've all clustered in the 16-18 mm eq. area. But I though it would be fun to get wider. :-)

The Oly 8mm (semi) fisheye lens cap is fun, but not so sharp.

My fear is that they would make a 9/2.8, and it would be no smaller or
lighter than the 9-18.
​I wouldn't care as long as it is sharp in the corners. I love the 9-18mm
(5K from 13K shots with the E-M5, I just learned (thanks!)), but it is not
really sharp at 9mm in the corners.

I guess that's not bothered me I've used it mostly in nature, and in situations where even SWA DoF wouldn't be expected to keep everything in focus. The Tamron 17 also required a bit of stopping down for the corners.

​C'mon, small, light 7/4.0!!!
Actually, I'm afraid the sensor pack might be so thick a 7 prime would
have to be retrofocus design, and thus gain size, weight and cost.

Hmm.. I understood focal length is measured from the optical center of the lens?

True for simple lines, singlets and cemented doublets. The complex lenses we use have two optical "centers", one as "seen" from the front and the other from the back. They can be quite a ways apart.

My guess is that actually all m43 lenses are more or less retrofocal?

No, I don't think so. None of them 'til the 7-14s have the characteristic huge, bulging front elements. The Panny 12-35 is tiny and normal looking, and the Panny 14/2.5 pancake is adorably miniscule. Even the 9-18 is so very normal looking.

Without the sensor stack a 7mm would still be necessary kept some distance
from the sensor because of the shutter, and the 'pixel buckets' forcing
retrofocal design to prevent to steep angled light rays to the borders of
the sensor?

 Yes, that may well be why we've seen no rectilinear primes shorter than 12 mm.

Back to the Zooms Moose

--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz