on 6/20/02 4:44 PM, frieder.faig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx at
frieder.faig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2002 at 10:19:05AM -0600, Daniel J. Mitchell wrote:
>> from the 85/2 review just posted:
>>
>>> Despite the fast f2 maximum aperture, Olympus has kept the front
>>> element size down to the regular 49mm filter size.
>>
>> I've just been comparing the sizes of lenses, and, apart from the basic
>> necessity for a bigger lens to make it faster, I'm still amazed at how small
>> the Zuiko lenses are compared to pretty much every third-party lens I've
>> got.
>>
>> What's the secret there? Is it different glass / better design / something
>> else? I guess what I'm wondering is if Olympus could make their lenses so
>> small, how come everyone else doesn't? Bodies, sure, are going to be a whole
>> lot more complex to reduce the size, but lenses?
>
> I´d also say the main point is design goal. In the 80´s there were lenses
> available from other manufaturers (especially from Pentax) which
> were pretty close in design and dimentions to the Zuiko lenses.
>
> But lens design goals changed when AF appered.
>
> Frieder Faig
I think the other thing that changed along with or at the same time as
autofocus appeared was the increased use of 'engineering plastics' in lenses
instead of machined aluminum or brass. Even though plastic can be a precise
and strong material, its strength characteristics are -different- than
metal, and require a different design i.e. thicker sections, radiused
corners, ribbed sections instead of solid areas. This may have made the
plastic designs physically larger than the older all-metal designs, even
though the glass pieces are the same dimension inside. Most of the more
compact Zuikos incorporate all-metal construction.
--
Jim Brokaw
OM-1's, -2's, -4's, (no -3's yet) and no OM-oney...
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|