Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 32 of 32

Thread: lenses

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Stockton-on-Tees, UK
    Posts
    33
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    6
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Likes: 0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: lenses

    Quote Originally Posted by cornishrobb View Post
    THAT was not the question in the first place
    It was "will the m4/3rd lense fit into the 4/3rd E-420 body
    Not true -the question was (and I quote from your original post):

    "has anybody tried it? putting a Micro 4/3rds lens to say an E-420etc.body
    If it works we would have more lenses to choose from
    It works the other way with an adaptor that doesn't put the lens so close to the censer but if that is all, the difference between them is 18.67mm
    so if you put a lens with a 20mm flange onto the body compared to 38.67mm flange?"

    So let's try and put this to bed once and for all.

    Firstly, the figures you quote aren't flange thicknesses, they're flange focal distances or flange to film (or sensor) distances - not the same thing. They represent the distance from the lens rear mount to the sensor - NOT the camera lens mount.

    You say the ONLY reason it won't work is because the flange diameters are different. This is simply not true. Yes, the flange diameters are different but if you can make an adaptor to fit four thirds lenses to micro four thirds cameras (with different flange diameters) it is possible to make one to fit micro four thirds lenses to four thirds cameras. It's probably not difficult - but it would be pointless.

    As you correctly point out there is an 18.67mm difference in the flange focal distances which means the adaptor for four thirds lenses to micro four thirds cameras is 18.67mm thick (and not 38.67mm as you claim above) this plus the 20mm flange focal distance of the micro four thirds system moves the lens to its working distance of 38.67mm from the sensor. But in the reverse situation you don't have 18.67mm spare (so to say) you have MINUS 18.67mm You would have to move the lens 18.67mm INTO the body - and that actually IS simple mathematics and physics Adding an adaptor, however slim, would increase this figure which is of course physically impossible (hence the repeated references to "simple physics").

    Taken from the site you quoted on another forum:

    "In order to produce an adaptor that permits focus to infinity without corrective optics, the flange-to-film distance the lens is designed for must be greater than that of the camera body it is to be adapted to, giving room for the adaptor." (My bold and italics).

    It's there in black and white on the site where you got your figures from - perhaps you should read more thoroughly?

    So to actually answer your question - no, nobody has tried it. Why? Because as people here and on at least one other forum have tried to tell you, it won't work. It's simple physics. The only bubble you've burst is your own I'm afraid.
    Last edited by meachp; 4th January 2012 at 05:06 AM. Reason: added a bit more
    Paul

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Watford-ish
    Posts
    934
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    70
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    66
    Thanked in
    56 Posts
    Likes: 4
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Re: lenses

    Quote Originally Posted by fluffy View Post
    You betcha! There is always the old standby - the engineer's hammer - 8lb sledge head on a 16 inch handle. Basic tool in the engine room on tugs and suchlike. It will fix ANYTHING including people.
    We used to call this the Leyland Screwdriver.
    Stephen - www.flickr.com/photos/argyllphotos
    Olympus OM-D E-M1, E-M5, Zenza Bronica, and an ever-changing nest of lenses

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •