Hi Andrew,
I agree, it is the same distance from the film that it is from the sensor.
However, from what I have read, film is much more forgiving about the
incidence angle than is the usual sensor. It may work, but I would not bet
on a satisfactory outcome.
I will be interested in your outcome, if you succeed in gathering all of the
necessary parts. Just be careful of the tolerances. :-)
Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Fildes" <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] [OT] leica M 50mm lens wanted
> 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/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
