Why no lens uniformity?

Started 9 months ago | Discussions thread
zuikowesty
Senior MemberPosts: 1,150Gear list
Like?
Re: Why no lens uniformity?
In reply to thomasw333, 9 months ago

thomasw333 wrote:

Why did Olympus not make all of their Prime lenses standard. Why not make them all 46MM filters, and have snap back focus rings.

12MM and 17MM have snap focus, but the old 45MM does not which makes sense, but you would have thought that the new 25MM would have the snap focus ring.

I do not understand why lens manufacturers cannot make lens with more similar traits. But it is really confusing for Olympus, they just started making mft lenses in the last 5-6 years. You would think that they would have sat down and made some rules about their lens designs.

I personally want all of the Prime lenses to be metal bodies with the same filter size, and the manual focus snap ring.

Anyone else wish for more lens uniformity?

ANd at this point what is the lens hierarchy for Olympus MFT.

They used to have HG and SHG glass. But I do not see any naming scheme for the MFT lenses, except the new Pro lens.

Pro lens is high quality and Weather Sealed I guess. I wish it was clearer.

What line it the old 17MM f2.8 in, what line is the 45MM f1.8 that is obviously much better, but still plastic and no fancy manual focus, and what line is the 17MM with al the bells and whistles, but no weather proofing.

Because at this point it seems like they just make up lenses as they want. Or the have about 4 levels of lenses.

1. Cheap 17mm f2.8

2. Plastic and good 45mm f1.8

3. Premium 17mm f1.8, with manual focus ring

4 Pro the 2.8 zoom, weather sealed

I guess it does not matter but does anyone have any insights into lens design?

-- hide signature --

Lets promote calm rational arguments.

I agree, and posted about this recently.

Makes me wonder if anyone from Olympus' OM days is still there. The OM system was beautifully and logically designed, as a whole. Systems like this build life long customers (myself included). As a new MFT user, and previous FT and OM user, I see little reason to feel excited about the MFT system as a whole, nor have much confidence that it will converge into something more cohesive any time soon, especially if their haphazard approach to lens design is indicative of the future MFT products.

Olympus seems to have lost their vision in the late 80s, found it again with FT and a well developed line of lenses, then lost it again a few years later. MFT lead the mirrorless movement, but leading without vision won't last long.

I found it interesting to read this article about the history of mirrorless, where Olympus is not even mentioned, but the Panasonic MFT system is. Market perception is a powerful thing these days.

http://hdslrshooter.com/a-history-of-mirrorless-vs-mirrored-cameras/

ps: those who know me will know I am not trying to bash Oly, I just wish they'd get their head out of whatever dark place it's been in...

-- hide signature --
 zuikowesty's gear list:zuikowesty's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus Stylus Tough-3000 Olympus Stylus 5010 Olympus E-410 Olympus PEN E-PM2 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow