One of the things I complained about several years ago before I
bought a digital camera was that reduced format WA digital lenses
would be very expensive. Remember when 18mm and 14mm were exotic in
35 mm? Virtually all reduced format WA lenses are exotic. Certainly
you want the same resolution out of that small format lens that you
got out of your FF, just in a smaller area. It is pushing the
envelope stuff going on now, I think, evidenced by molded aspheric
glass. And Olympus is having to push it a little harder than the
others to get the same angle of view on their smaller format. Just
remember, not buying film and processing will pay for a lot.
It is not really equivalent to the Canon. The Canon mulitplier is 1.6
which makes its 35 mm view equivalent to 16mm at the wide end. They
did not push the envelope as hard.
I don't think there is any question that something had to be done to
get those parallel light rays or else Nikon would not have redesigned
almost all of their wide angle lenses. Funny, they did not need a new
mount to do it though. There is more than one way to do things if you
want to.
I think that lens was probably designed with the rumored E-3 in mind
as well. They would not want a cheaper version of the lens to look
bad as sensor resolution ramps up. Just look at the Canon and Nikon
forums at dpreview to see how people talk about some of their
formerly good lenses look pretty bad with a high megapixel sensor.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Sep 4, 2006, at 4:04 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>
> I'm starting to think I made a really, really big mistake. Oh, well...
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|