Upload & Sell: On
| p.2 #18 · Touit touit touit.... touit :) |
Still, it's possible to make smaller mirrorless lenses, if you put a priority on it. See the Zeiss 24/1.8 vs the Olympus 17mm f/1.8. Or the Olympus 12/2. Fuji's native lenses are a little chunky, but overall not too large...this is bigger even than those. I sort of get the 12/2.8 size, but there isn't really a good reason why the 32/1.8 is as big as it is. I mean, it's larger than the Fuji 35/1.4, which is a full 2/3 stop faster, and yet smaller in all dimensions (and also has AF and autoaperture mechanisms).
I'm okay with lenses being a bit larger if there is an attempt to optically address issues like distortion, CA, as well as edge/corner performance with short-flange mounts. I had thought that mFT lens designs were made with the assumption that CA and distortion correction would be done on the capture side of things. In conjunction with a smaller projected image circle, their lenses should be a lot smaller. Not sure about the Fuji lenses, are they reliant on software fixes as well?
It remains to be seen how well these lenses will perform, but since they went and made them chunky, I'm hoping that the optical characteristics are excellent straight from wide-open, as we've seen from the other recently released SLR lenses, with design matched to the worst case scenario interaction with a digital sensor. I use some CV M-mount and ZM lenses on a GXR and NEX-6, and I have to say I'm a bit disappointed with the CV15 and ZM performance on the NEX-6 related to edge/corner color shift and slight resolution degradation. The GXR has it's own issues without an AA filter, but at least corner performance is superb.