Hi list,
If I can just add my two cents, the similarity between the Olympus Zuiko
50mm f/2 macro (film-era) and the Zeiss - Nikon 50mm f/2 macro is far more
relevant than the one between the former and the Zuiko Digital 50mm f/2
macro.
Just take a look and their cross sections, here:
[
http://olympus.dementia.org/eSIF/om-sif/lensgroup/images/50mmf2_diagram.jpg]
for the Zuiko 50mm f/2
and here:
[
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/Makro-PlanarT2-50ZF_1/$File/linsenschnitt.jpg]
for the Zeiss - Nikon 50mm f/2
As you can see the last (i.e. nearest to the film plane) 5 elements are
*schematically* the same. Maybe the lens glass differs regarding refraction
index, or maybe that particular lens configuration is renowed - and hence
widely adopted - for many reasons as (I'm just guessing here!) it ensures a
flat plane of focus or it corrects close focusing aberrations... Who knows
(well, not me, definitely).
The Zuiko Digital 50mm f/2 indeed, looks like a totally different beast,
just see here:
[http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/images/ED50_macro_crosssection.jpg ]
where, by chance, you'll notice that it shares the third, fourth and fifth
lens configuration (from the left) with the above mentioned Zeiss - Nikon
(!).
What amazes me more is the strong resemblance between the Zuiko 16mm f/3.5
fisheye and the Digital Zuiko 8mm f/3.5 fisheye, which is far more
pronounced than the one between the *old* Zuiko 38mm f/3.5 macro (for
bellows) and the Digital Zuiko 35mm f/3.5 macro, which are roughly similar.
And some similarity exists between the Zuiko 100mm f/2 and the Nikon-Zeiss
100mm f/2 macro...
Just my two cents!
Fabio
On 10/3/07, David Irisarri <div2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Well,
>
> IMHO you cannot see both lenses, comparing each element.
>
> First, sensor size vs film plane is different and focal lenght is the
> same so lenses aren´t exaclty the same.
>
> One of the biggest disadvantages of macro lenses is that they are
> optimized for close distances. I think Olympus decided to add one ED
> glass element to this lens to broaden the range of uses. Minimum
> focusing distances are the same, both are 1/2x and the only difference
> between them (this is very personal) is that ZD 50/2 is also optimized
> also for infinity giving an outstanding resolution across the whole
> range. Number of blades is higher just only for bokeh!!!
>
> Here is a clear example of another picture I took with it at f2!!!.
> http://www.myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=15525
>
> So we could say this lens is an hybrid between ZUIKO 100/2 and 50/2.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave
>
>
> Wayne Harridge wrote:
> >> Things can only be exactly the same if they are the same - that is,
> >> there is only one of them.
> >> This sounds like a nitpick but in some areas it is a vital
> >> concept. Identical twins are not really identical because
> >> there are two of them. So, of course, you're quite right.
> >> Time for a little pedantry, hey? Andrew Fildes afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Yeah, I guess you could say several instances of the Zuiko 50/2 have the
> > "same design", though they are not "identical" if they were constructed
> > based on a single set of design documents.
> >
> > This is clearly not the case for the Zuiko 50/2 and the ZD 50/2.
> >
> > ...Wayne
> >
> >
> >
> > ==============================================
> > List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> > List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> > ==============================================
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
--
The definitive answer to the meaning of life, universe and everything else
is: 42.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
