Will we ever see this lens?

Started Feb 7, 2011 | Discussions thread
OP stewartpratt Contributing Member • Posts: 676
Re: You have to be joking!

Hen3ry wrote:

I longed for a Pentax pancake back in the day, finally got hold of one and found it didn't make the Pentax pocketable

But the register of the K mount is a whisker over an inch longer than that of MFT. Lose a bit of that depth advantage to some electronics and an MFT will come up roughly 20mm shorter for a given barrel length. Mount a Pentax-sized pancake to an MFT body and that's equivalent to taking the pancake off the Pentax body and then shaving a couple of mm off the mount itself.

Manual focus? Forget it. Cheaper to produce? Perhaps -- but the production run will be about three and a half units versus millions of the AF/AE model, so that will jack up the cost. And it will be a specialist lens, so that will jack it up further!

Well, if it's a specialist lens that's what causes the lower production run so it doesn't jack it up twice but yes, production scale is a good point.

Manual focus will be faster than the AF on my 14-45mm on the G1? Joke! More accurate? LOL for a lot of us!

Did I say more accurate?

MF is faster where you're using a panfocal approach or prefocusing using a scale on the lens, because there's no focusing at all to do when you shoot. MFT AF lenses are not good for a panfocal approach. Whether there's significant demand for compact lenses which are good at it is another matter.

Any gripes with panfocus use would be solved simply for any lens with a firrmware change, TBH. I'm just kind of curious as to whether there would be any technical limitation to prevent the use of MF as an advantage to produce a very compact. As for whether there's any demand, it seems the market is almost grumpy about the very thought of it

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow