Old 4th January 2012
meachp meachp is offline
Full member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Stockton-on-Tees, UK
Posts: 33
Thanks: 6
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: lenses

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 04:06 AM. Reason: added a bit more
Reply With Quote
Old 4th January 2012
StephenL StephenL is offline
Decrepit Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Watford-ish
Posts: 934
Thanks: 70
Thanked 66 Times in 56 Posts
Likes: 4
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Re: lenses

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 -
Olympus OM-D E-M1, E-M5, Zenza Bronica, and an ever-changing nest of lenses
Reply With Quote


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:06 PM.

The Write Technology Ltd, 2007-2015, All rights reservedAd Management plugin by RedTyger