Voigtlander superwides on Micro 4/3

[rxmd]

A bit disconcerting as the diagonal of a 4/3 chip is 22.5mm compared to 69.7m for a 35mm 24x36 film frame which these lenses are designed to cover.

How do you arrive at the number of 69.7 [m]m? Pythagoras says it's about 43mm. The diagonal of a Micro 4/3 chip is exactly half that, which is why you get a crop factor of 2.

Higher pixel densities are indeed a problem and the result why Micro 43 lenses are a major design challenge.

 

[laptoprob]

I compared the 12 and the 15 to the 7-14 zoom which I got even before I got the GF1. I didn't get into m4/3 until I could get the zoom for a reasonable price. The 12 is sharper in corners than the 15, the zoom comes close to the 12. Very close or better.
But the 12 and the 15 can hardly be called ultrawides on the m4/3 format. Ofcourse a lot of corrections are made digitally, but why not? On this format I need no other superwide than the brilliant zoom lens.

 

[biomed]

Is the corner softness possibly due to the angle the light rays strike the sensor? I believe that lenses designed for digital project the image with parallel (as much as possible) rays onto the sensor.

Mike

 

[borrel]

How do you arrive at the number of 69.7 [m]m? Pythagoras says it's about 43mm. The diagonal of a Micro 4/3 chip is exactly half that, which is why you get a crop factor of 2.

You're absolutely right. I was fetching the number from a table where the diagonal of 645 (69.7) is on the line under "35mm" (43.3), and I missed. My apologies! Brain should have interrupted with the thought that the diagonal couldn't be that much longer than the longest size of 36mm.

- Børre