Yup but we're speculating. The sum of distances should end up the same
as for a 35mm film body - that is, I expect it would be 6mm from the
film surface as well. The problem might be fitting a 29mm circular
object into the throat of an mFT body!
As to 'angles' - given the 2x crop factor, that is vastly reduced and
fishing wou;d be unlikely in any form. The whole rear element is one
huge piece of glass -
http://home.tiscali.nl/qnu/PN/Biogon.jpg
On the Jupiter it's bare and black painted around the edge (the Zeiss
was enclosed in a body tube) so it would be possible to reshape it.
Not worth the trouble or expense tho'. I once considered it to fit it
on a CosVoigt Bessa.
All that aside, the Voigtlander lenses on mFT seem to be giving poor
results. The 21mm and 28mm are dreadful at the edges it seems - so the
Panasonic 20mm is the obvious choice.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 16/01/2010, at 3:11 PM, Jim Nichols wrote:
> I just measured my J12 as best I could without marking the huge rear
> element, and, at infinity focus, the rear element extends 23mm from
> the back
> of the mounting flange. That element is approximately 29mm in
> diameter near
> its rear extremity.
>
> This tells me there would be about 6mm clearance between the face of
> the
> rear element and the sensor. If no other devices take up any of the
> chamber
> space, then, physically, it could probably be mounted. However, the
> exit
> angles from that large rear element would seem to me to be too
> extreme to
> provide a usable image, except perhaps as a fisheye.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
