M4/3 just makes the people crazy......a TV lens hit the record

[pentacon6]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=110431600862&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT

This is a completed auction. You may log in and see what it is.

A Tamron 4.5mm fisheye was ended with USD $306. The lens has no aperture control and no focus control. And it just covers 12.5mm diameter which means it is a circular fisheye for four third system.

As I know, some new 4.5mm lens without the brand of Tamron my just cost more or less the same. No samples ever shown! Is it really worthwhile to take a risk for such kind of myth? :talk028:

 

[Vivek]

Not understanding your post at all, Pentacon6.

Who created what myth and what comparisons are you missing?

 

[ChrisJ]

I know what you mean pentacon6, having no aperture control means that with the wide f2 aperture you won't be able to use it in bright conditions as you will often meter a shutter speed beyond the 1/4000th maximum of a G1 or EP-1. I had the same problem with the Pentax 110 lenses I have till I hit on a solution.

It's a lot of money for a lens of very limited use.

Chris

 

[pentacon6]

I know what you mean pentacon6, having no aperture control means that with the wide f2 aperture you won't be able to use it in bright conditions as you will often meter a shutter speed beyond the 1/4000th maximum of a G1 or EP-1. I had the same problem with the Pentax 110 lenses I have till I hit on a solution.

It's a lot of money for a lens of very limited use.

Chris

Thank you for your understanding. May be I mis-used the word "myth" but instead of "mystery".

It is understandable that some 16mm lens with large aperture can satisfy the lens that m4/3 system can't provide. But taking a risk on a lens with unknown quality really shock me a little bit. If I were the bidder, I may prefer to buy a 0.25X fisheye to get the same effect. Although vignetting is expectable.

Hope the guy gets a good stuff.