08-26-2011, 11:33 AM
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1314357168' post='11046']
The 35-100mm doesn't "look" like f/2. Tele lenses will not be much smaller than on FT.
I guess f/2.8 would be fine anyway - for me at least. ;-)
[/quote]
Anyone with quick access to the m4/3 mount measure it? From that, you can use the image to estimate the entrance aperture. For example, the X14-42 is supposed to be 61mm maximum diameter, so if the X35-100 is similar width, it could hold the ~50mm required for 100mm f/2.0. *if* they use all of it to give you that is another matter... maybe there is a thick border and a small front element so it could be anything slower too.
Side note: something I haven't noticed before, is the zoom ring direction on Panasonic lenses opposite to Olympus? They couldn't even agree on that???
The 35-100mm doesn't "look" like f/2. Tele lenses will not be much smaller than on FT.
I guess f/2.8 would be fine anyway - for me at least. ;-)
[/quote]
Anyone with quick access to the m4/3 mount measure it? From that, you can use the image to estimate the entrance aperture. For example, the X14-42 is supposed to be 61mm maximum diameter, so if the X35-100 is similar width, it could hold the ~50mm required for 100mm f/2.0. *if* they use all of it to give you that is another matter... maybe there is a thick border and a small front element so it could be anything slower too.
Side note: something I haven't noticed before, is the zoom ring direction on Panasonic lenses opposite to Olympus? They couldn't even agree on that???
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.