Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/06/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Maybe I missed something, but I have not read an argument as to the need to make digital lenses bigger for the smaller sensor than 24x36 film. There may be an issue that I am not aware of, but marketing issues must be put aside to make sense technically. The availability of some Olympus lens of size X is a marketing issue. Technical details would be helpful. Comparing the size of true WA to Retrofocus designs is apples to oranges. But if this is the comparison issue, then yes, the retrofocus design will be bigger and yes it will have higher angle ( less oblique) of attack to the sensor, and therefore "better" for digital sensors. But I already stated this point. My comment about using R lens designs on a M mount lens. Makes sense to me. What I said is that for a smaller target sensor ( digital or film) the lens can be designed smaller because the image circle is smaller. This is of course for the same F stop and Fl lens. It is the same argument for Retrofocus lenses as it is for true WA lenses. Smaller target = smaller optics. Always true given the same lens design. Why is the Olympus lens larger? Beats me. I have no idea why the designers made it that way. Is there a way we can ask them? I am open to continued discussion on this subject. Frank Filippone red735i@earthlink.net