I think they could have designed the lens, but the message was just
marketing. It is just that the world did not need proof. The world
was already doing it. To my knowledge the first redesigned
telecentric lens to minimize aberrations for digital was the Nikon
17-35/2.8 in 1999. It was designed for the D1. The second was the
Nikon 14/2.8 in May 2000. Let's see, the E-1 was announced in May
2001 and finally production models appeared in August 2003. Now
someone of a suspicious mind would wonder where they learned about
telecentricity, but I don't think it was an alien concept for any
company that designed and built lenses.
Incidentally Nikon did not find that a new mount was required to
design a lens with near parallel rays, just the same small size mount
as the original manual focus lenses for 35mm. And Canon found their
old autofocus mount more than adequate. Both makes support their
older manual focus lenses. But that is another argument about
supporting your existing customers.
The ultra wide angles are, I think, a matter of economics. Can you
build them and sell them with a reasonable profit. You are more
likely to be able to do that if you have a larger base of users that
include pros who know the difference and are willing to spend money
for more special purpose lenses.
Winsor
Long Beach, CA
USA
On Oct 1, 2006, at 7:25 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
> I also listened intently to the 4/3's mantra but wasn't convinced.
> The
> proof of the pudding about telecentricity would have been clearly
> evident in a super wide lens. But the fact that Oly failed to
> release a
> super-wide prime on opening day made me a strong skeptic if not a
> disbeliever. How could they have missed the oppoertunity to prove the
> point to the world? Easiest explanation? They couldn't prove it
> at all.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|