Agree, the list is empty. Nada, zilch.
qcjulle wrote:
Paul De Bra wrote:
The biggest differences you will see is between camera-lens combinations that support this "software parfocal" system and those that don't.
That's what I was afraid of. Even the list of software assisted combos might still be useful if anyone has experience besides the two I listed. I wonder what cost-cutting decision led to the Oly 14-150 II not being on the list. It would have been a great all-rounder for me otherwise.
I'm pretty sure that ALL m4/3 zooms are "software assisted" and not optically parfocal, as Paul says. And why wouldn't they be?
At best, your list will only identify those lenses that have adequate software performance, which might depend on the body as well as the lens performance itself.
You can clearly identify those lenses that aren't parfocal in any sense, but impossible to 100% confirm those that are, for all combinations of lens and body.
It is cost-cutting, but for very good reason - a long zoom range modern parfocal, non focus breathing lens is going to be phenomenally expensive, as such cine lenses always are; for the m4/3 market such a feature is really unnecessary.
100-300 on G6, G7, is software parfocal if you zoom slowly, you see lag when you zoom fast. So is that going to be on your list, or not?
I don't see the lens re-acquiring focus; I think the camera and lens combination has information that allows the focus to be changed with focal length and at different focal distances to achieve software parfocal performance. Seems pretty complicated but software is usually cheaper than hardware every time.
Makes you realise just how involved developing a system mount is - communication protocols need to take things like this into account, even before any lenses or bodies are available. Kudos to those who do this stuff. They get few thanks for it.