What are you talking about? The 2x factor is just saying lenses for
the 4/3 system have the same coverage angle as lenses twice the
focal length on a 35mm system.
Where did you read the lenses could cover 24x36mm frame?
It's obvious. There's nothing exotic about the lenses described
(except the 14-54, and we'll get back to it in a minute). A 50-200,
300 2.8 and 50mm macro are all already limited by their required
front element sizes and length required to realize their optical
functions (4:1 zoom, telephoto, and 1:1 macro, respectively). They
will all be the same size and weight if built for 35mm film, the
1.5x Nikon "DX" standard, or the 2x "4/3" standard. They're "old"
designs.
The 14-54 is neat, but not that exotic. It's bigger and bulkier
than if a 28-105 "full frame" lens were scaled down to "4/3" size.
If I had to guess at the optical design, I'd say it was an existing
18-35 or 24-50mm lens with just minor "tweaks" for the 4/3 system,
such as increasing the range of motion of the zooming elements so
it can go a bit wider and longer with image corner quality you
wouldn't find acceptable for 35mm film, but nothing any more
special than that.
In short, it's all "warmed over 35mm". Where's something as cool as
the Nikon 12-24mm DX lens, a true "small sensor" design. For 4/3,
it would have to be a 9-18mm zoom.
Other "true" 4/3 lenses would include things like a 10mm ultrawide
(20mm equivelant for full frame) a 25mm f1.4 (equivelant to the
popular 50mm f1.4 normal lenses) and maybe a 7mm ultrawide (14mm
equivelant on 35mm). Back when I've used borrowed Oly gear, the
wides were the nicest part of the system.
Ciao!
Joe
