I think no one is talking about lens mount here, a near telecentric design
does not require a new mount. It is the rear element size count, for a 100%
true telecentric design you need a rear element as large as the image
sensor. I don't see Olympus is doing this for all DZ lenses.
BTW, Canon does not support their manual focus lenses. Nikon do but still
not fully support on all camera models.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Winsor Crosby"
>
> 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
==============================================
|