Opticallimits

http://news.panasonic.co.uk/pressrelease...ns-1054439

Way too short IMO.

The MFT system really needs a long macro lens, something in the 80-100mm range.

Personally I like the shorter macro lenses for the FOV they give. But I also understand the wish for a long macro.

Quote:Way too short IMO.

The MFT system really needs a long macro lens, something in the 80-100mm range.

 

120mm equivalent:

http://www.opticallimits.com/m43/781-oly6028

Quote:120mm equivalent:
http://www.opticallimits.com/m43/781-oly6028

 

I meant 80-100mm range in MFT, not 35mm equivalent (160-200mm).

I wonder why the longest thus far is the Olympus 60mm...

To keep things small, to match the small mirrorless MFT, I guess.

Quote:I wonder why the longest thus far is the Olympus 60mm...

I suppose because economic 90~105mm macro lenses are plentiful (K, F, screw, etc) and easy to adapt to u4/3. (And for macro work, manual focus/diaphragm are acceptable.  The same cannot be said of 30 or 60mm.

Quote:I suppose because economic 90~105mm macro lenses are plentiful (K, F, screw, etc) and easy to adapt to u4/3. (And for macro work, manual focus/diaphragm are acceptable.  The same cannot be said of 30 or 60mm.

Hmmm, actually 50mm and 55mm macro lenses are plentiful too (F-mount, K-mount, M42, FD-mount, EOS mount, different Minolta mounts)

I doubt that Olympus/Panasonic actually don't want to sell you a new lens because the customer can go elsewhere for old lenses?

Quote:Hmmm, actually 50mm and 55mm macro lenses are plentiful too (F-mount, K-mount, M42, FD-mount, EOS mount, different Minolta mounts)

I doubt that Olympus/Panasonic actually don't want to sell you a new lens because the customer can go elsewhere for old lenses?

 

Agreed, that seems doubtful.

I suppose the 90-120 (FF equiv) range is mainstream so that's what they were aiming for with the 60.

I'm still puzzled as to why they didn't release a 100mm though. I suppose it would be too much of a niche product?