what about the tiny pentax 110  24mm f 2.8 or the really small 50mm f 2.8 , one of the sharpest lenses ive used at  2.8 0n the ep-1?


what do these lenses tell us about the future of m4\3 mount  glass ?
What do  the size of these lenses really show is the size potential for future micro four thirds mount lenses .or at least the  primes ?
The pentax 110 slr 24 2.8 lens is about the height and width of a bottle cap and weighs perhaps 1\2 an ounce!  its image circle covers the sensor of the ep-1 well.
 how about the 24mm 2.8 scaled up to provide a 1.8 or 1.4 maximum f stop? imagine a design like the pentax110 18mm  modified or made alittle wider or faster? as well as the potential for something like 12 or 10 that would give a fov of 24 or 20 for m4\3,  how about a little prime of 8 or 9 mm , to give a fov of 16 or 18 mm??
 nikon and many othe manufacters made such lenses for full frame,also tokina and sigma provide  roughly  18 -24 ff equiv or wider zooms [ 11-16 tokina , 10 -20 sigma],aps-c?]  there seems no reason why scaled down designs with some tweaking could not provide similar fov equivs. for the m4\3  system

it seems to me that panny and oly have given us grossly oversized lenses , if these  pentax mini slr lenses form the 1980`s are a hint as to what  prime lenses CAN be designed to cover the  m 4\3 image circle
im beginnning to believe that the lens barrel sizes on micro 4\3 lenses thus supplied may be guided more by marketing concerns over  consumer expectations over what a lens "should" look like  [ as they imagine it !]  , rather than by the dictates of optics and their necessary housings from a purely "what is possible' paradigm.


What the size of these lenses really show is the size potential for future micro four thirds mount lenses . for those who would claim that you need relatively enormous barrels to contain ois or af motors, i would say that many tiny lenses have been made for the 100`s of point and shoot cameras that have OIS and AF and they  are plenty tiny and  many are plenty good.when thwe glass is small the necessary af mechanics and even the ois assembly can be compact as well.  Although pand s  lenses are designed for much smaller sensors that that on the ep-1, they are an indicator of what possible with smaller diameter glass.

The 24mm f2.8 pentax 110 slr lens is proof that a very tiny medium fast prime lens of high quality is indeed possible for the micro 4\3 image circle.

proof of concept , as they say.

im not saying i want my lenses to be the size of bottle caps , though im having fun with one right now!
im suggesting that many interesting primes can be designed for this system and it is possible for them to  much smaller than we have seen thus far. if anyone  has the chance to use the very sharp pentax 50 2.8 whose light falloff at the edges seems too me nonexistent ,as well  as being incredibly crisp and contrasty at 2.8 [ the only option!] will see the reason i feel these old  pentax lenses speak of such promise for future m4\3 lens design in general.


as was said by Eric Drexler, the nano theoritician many years ago,  imagining just how small things COULD be made,

 "theres room at the bottom"

The diameter of the 17mm feels right to me. A lens which is too slim is difficult to operate, e.g. using the focus ring (well, I'm using auto focus with the 17mm most of the time but manual lenses should not be too small). Lens length is important for me, but not the diameter. Pancake lenses look often like the Olympus 17mm and Panasonic 20mm lens: very little diameter of the glass but of course they have to cover the bayonet.

Anyway: I hope more small and fast (f2 or faster) prime lenses will become available.