tiny 4/3 lenses ? Pentax pancake zoom ?

Discussion in 'Pentax' started by x, Oct 6, 2006.

  1. x

    x Guest

    I'm still looking for my next digicam (meanwhile still shooting my very old
    one... depressing !).

    I went to a store and compared the Oly E-500 with the Pentax K100D. Not really
    any difference in size ; so since I think the K100D is a better camera, it
    would win. Now where it really opened my eyes, is that I think the size of
    the bodies is about right, the problem is the size of the lenses....

    Pentax has a few pancake lenses that are very promissing, unfortunately
    not really any small zoom. Is there any such thin lens in the 4/3 world ?

    Will there be ?

    Is it physically possible to make a, say, 18-55mm zoom (or 14-50mm in the 4/3
    world) zoom that would be no thicker than 2 or 3 cm ?
    x, Oct 6, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. No - not as small as the Pentax lenses.
    No, I don't think so. The smallest 4/3 zoom lens I know is the new
    14-42mm (f/3.5-f/5.6) with 65,5mm diameter and 61mm length.
    I don't know if this is physically possible in general, but regarding
    the construction of the actual 4/3 lenses I think it is impossible to
    make the lenses as small as you wish to have them. The big difference
    between the Pentax 'pancakes' and lenses like the 4/3 ones is that the
    AF motor für the pancakes is inside of the camera body. The 4/3 AF
    motor, as well as the AF motor of Canon, Nikon, Sony, ..., is always
    inside of the lens.

    Clemens Dorda, Oct 9, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. x

    Ron Guest

    I've heard rumors that Olympus will begin releasing smaller and lighter
    lenses within the next year. It has come out with the very small E-400,
    only available in Europe, as harbinger of a new set of cameras and it
    sounds like they will be releasing lenses to match. As an E system
    owner I would welcome ligher and less expensive lenses from Oly,
    particularly any that provide more wide angle options or are single
    focal length. Right now most of the good lenses cost far more than the
    cameras themselves. If they don't offer more lenses I will be tempted
    to switch over to Pentax.
    Ron, Oct 9, 2006
  4. x

    frederick Guest

    Af motor for newer USM/AF-s (canon/nikon) is in the lens, but not older
    lenses, and no reason why they couldn't make a new lens with body motor
    screw-driven focus. But I don't expect that they will - ring motor
    driven AF-s is just so much better than body driven focus - faster
    speed, near silent, and instant manual override of AF without switching
    between AF and MF.
    frederick, Oct 9, 2006
  5. Current Canon lenses (the EF series, for the EOS series of cameras) ALWAYS
    have a focus motor of some sort in the lens itself, excepting a couple of
    rather exotic manual-focus lenses that they make. Canon cameras don't have a
    motor in the camera body at all. Unlike the other manufacturers, Canon
    pretty much just dumped their old manual-focus system (FD series) altogether
    when autofocus arrived, and started from scratch with a clean sheet of paper
    for both bodies and lenses. One of the design choices they made was to put a
    motor in each and every lens. Nikon and the others just modified their
    existing systems, and put a motor in the body with an option to put a motor
    in the lens.
    Ståle Sannerud, Oct 10, 2006
  6. x

    Alan Browne Guest

    The AF motor of Minolta (now Sony) (D)SLR's is in the body, not the lens.
    Alan Browne, Oct 10, 2006
  7. Are you sure? All information I can find tells that the motor is in the
    lens, not in the body.

    Clemens Dorda, Oct 11, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.