Probably not. The 'telecentric' requirement has been dropped for mFT. It is not the friend of compact lenses, and in a format focussed on compactness, probably a poor design choice as against offset microlenses, which can offer much the same effect. In practice, it had already been dropped in the compact FT lenses. The Olympus 25/2.8 pancake, for instance, is not remotely 'telecentric'.
Yeah, probably not at 50 - you're right.
Except they aren't using offset microlenses in any m43 cameras. And the AA filter plays a roll beyond just the microlenses as well - but of course they could make trade-offs there to reduce telecentricity requirements as well.
Ah, thanks for the info. I've only looked at the wider angle ends of the Panasonic lenses I have - in those cases they are pushing the exit pupil to the telecentric side of things rather significantly. I wonder about the 14/2.5 which I don't have and is a pancake? If I recall it has kind of softish corners (which of course could come from a lot of things).
Think I might give this a try too with a 1.4. Another problem with lots of legacy lenses at very wide apertures is haliation, which ??? I realize it is a different phenomena, but would it have an effect on, or cause a variation in measurements?
At a fair estimate, every modern sensor has offset microlenses, except perhaps if Sony's use their patent for the even cleverer wedge profiled microlenses.
I don't think the transmission of the AA filter should be affected to much. It's filter function might well.
It's bound to be retrofocus, because of the long FT register, and small, short-FL retrofocus lenses will always be a compromise.
The Olympus lenses are'n really telecentric or even near telecentric, but they do have exit pupils at a consistent and rather distant position from the sensor. This has some nice characteristics. For instance, the old saw that a TC won't work with a WA lens is down to the problem of a Barlow lens (which a TC is) working with a close exit pupil, and doesn't apply to Olympus FT lenses. Not that anyone is likely to want a TC on a WA lens, unless of course they wanted a 1.25 one to use their Zuikos on an APS-C camera.
Hmmm... Interesting. I always assumed since Leica and a few others trumpeted when they used them we'd hear from marketing about it if anyone else did
But of course that was just an assumption on my part. I've never ponied up the thousands of dollars for a ChipWorks report on any of the Panasonic cameras to find out for sure. But you are right, it wouldn't be surprising if they were using them.Sorry, I slipped context there. No, I wouldn't expect the AA filter to have any affect on the transmission. It can adversely impact sharpness by introducing astigmatism into the system at the sensor edges for close exit pupils. That's one of the issues with rangefinder lenses on digital cameras, rather soft corners due to AA induced astigmatism. Actually it is an issue for any glass in front of the sensor, not just the AA filter - the IR blocking filter can do it too.
Yes, sorry about sloppy terminology - almost no photographic lenses are truly telecentric in the sense that one would use in a machine vision system or lithographic stepper. I just meant they seem to be trying to control the angle of incidence at the sensor edges by pushing the exit pupil further away than is strictly necessary given the flange distance. There are places they could have used symmetric designs but seem to have not done so - I am assuming on account of exit pupil concerns but I could be wrong.
