CVickery wrote:
OK, I admit I'm way over my head here and it probably shows. It would seem to me that the distance from the sensor to the exit pupil, rather than the rear element, would be what detemines the angle at which light would hit the sensor (no doubt there can be other factors, perhaps the diameter of the exit pupil??).
It should indeed be what determines it, but in practice things seem to not be tied to that. It could be there's simply some aspect of these optical designs that we're missing though.
Compared to the OM 50mm f1.8 is it worth a buy? I have this manual lens mounted on my PEN and am thinking about the Panny, too. Of course, it gives me AF but in some situations I really enjoy the OM which I got for a bargain. The fact I'm worrying about is the frame size you have with the OM. You have to step really far away from the object to capture it. Is this different with the Panny ?
Jman13 wrote:
Focus is actually a bit slower than the 17/2.8
Very interesting. It seems that although both share the exact same mount Panasonic lenses focus faster on Panasonic bodies and Olympus lenses focus faster on Olympus bodies.
d_marcello wrote:
Compared to the OM 50mm f1.8 is it worth a buy? I have this manual lens mounted on my PEN and am thinking about the Panny, too. Of course, it gives me AF but in some situations I really enjoy the OM which I got for a bargain. The fact I'm worrying about is the frame size you have with the OM. You have to step really far away from the object to capture it. Is this different with the Panny ?
Unless I misunderstood your question, yes they are completely different since they act as different focal lengths. The Panny gives you a standard equivalent (40mm) and the 50/1.8 gives you telephoto (100mm) equivalent.
