As you already know Panasonic has two high quality lenses in their roadmap. The 42,5mm f/1.2 and the 150mm f/2.8 primes. Unconfirmed rumors do say that the latter will cost around £2500 (almost 3000 Euro or Dollars). Obviously we don’t know nothing yet about the delivered image quality but the price still sounds way too high. It’s hard to compare it with other lenses. The Olympus 150mm f/2.0 lens costs around $2500 (here at Amazon) but is also one stop faster. I do hope the rumor is wrong!
What’s I can confirm via trusted sources is that both lenses will hit the stores in early 2014 only (although price and specs announcement will be made earlier).
—
For sources: Sources can send me anonymous info at 43rumors@gmail.com (create a fake gmail account) or via contact form you see on the right sidebar. Thanks!
For readers: Don’t miss any news. Join our group on facebook and follow our tweets.
Rumors classification explained (FT= FourThirds):
FT1=1-20% chance the rumor is correct
FT2=21-40% chance the rumor is correct
FT3=41-60% chance the rumor is correct
FT4=61-80% chance the rumor is correct
FT5=81-99% chance the rumor is correct
118 Responses
That appears to be only a shift adaptor. I don’t see any tilt option.
Oh wait, that rickety homemade thing on top is the tilt adaptor. 😀
I have a tilt adapter (for OM lenses) & it works quite well. At least I can increase the focus along the desired plain (or the opposite for miniature effect)& then without the shift I can at least manipulate the image afterwards. I’m not sure the tilt by itself would be as useful. ?
That was meant to say, “I’m not sure the shift by itself would be as useful. ?”
If you really want to adjust the plane of focus with the proper Scheimpflug method, in additon to tilting the lens, you also need to tilt the sensor plane. It’s really the domain of 4×5″ and larger large format cameras.
Tilting image plane is not needed for Scheimpflug principle. You need just to get subject plane, lens plane and image plane to converge into same spot. Of course a tilting sensor plane would give more options in various situations.
Another matter is how each mFT sensor behaves with oblique rays when a lens is tilted and/or shifted.
-p-
Just what I need. Now combine that with a speed booster and I can dump my Canon 17 TS-E.
Nice one!
🙂
Tilt and shift adapters are next to useless for small format cameras. FF is the way to go. The limited resolution, the cheap adapter, and the lack of any quality UWA primes in these formats means you will rarely get much advantage than just doing it in software.
I had a canon FD to mft kippon adaptor and I will never buy kippon again. This is cheap crap
A dífference of a full stop (2.0 versus 2.8)is not “a tiny bit faster”. Rather the difference between 1.2 and 1.4 could be called tiny because that is just a third stop.
right. I corrected my post.
i think something wrong here with the comments belonging to the other post about the kippon
Yes that rumored price for the 150mm must be totally wrong.unless it has some spectacular feature never seen before. The ZD 150 has a justified price, but in this focal lenght i prefer to settle with legacy options like a Nikkor 135 f/2 ais
For me, it wouldn’t be a surprise if the price of this lens would be much to much 😉
Cough, cough.. bone got stuck in my throat.. €3000 ? … For such money, you get 12-35 + 35-100 + 100-300 and “fire sale” body. It must be wrong, unless it’s Leica branded 🙂
The ZD150 has a price of £2000 here in the UK which though it is an excellent bit of glass is very highly priced when compared to similar focal length lenses from other makers the Sony 135mm F1.8 ZA costs £1200 the Canon 135mm F2 just £820 even the specialist Nikon 135mm DC F2 costs £1050 the D7100 has a 1.3 crop mode equaling the 2x crop of mFT with better AF abilities more suited to potential users of long telephoto glass.The 150mm is just that a 150mm not a 300mm and should be priced accordingly.
I have no great interest in long telephoto options{ fortunately } and I certainly wouldn’t dream of spending this kind of money on any mFT lens.Not when there are so many cheaper alternatives from other makers the excellent £1200 Sigma 180F2.8 OS lens which I use on my D800 for mainly macro work gives an effective focal length on DX bodies like the D7100 of 270mm { 360mm in 1.3 crop mode}.mFT pricing seems to be getting increasingly silly with at one end way overpriced gear the E-P5+ EVF at £1100 being a good example while selling off older kit at rock bottom prices. This tactic is clearly not working to the benefit of Panasonic or Olympus.
The 2/150 costs less, is a stellar performer. Maybe Oly adapts it to m43 (or provides an adapter with fast and accurate AF capabilities)…
Honestly, price for the Panny is WAY too high – 1,500 EUR is the max. they can charge for an f/2.8
That’s too much. We need a good teleconverter. That could make a 150mm out of the great 75 mm lens, which would only be a half stop slower… for 1/3 of the price…
That´s my thoughts too, but I guess there is no one at Olympus willing to do that…
A good converter may be 250.- – 350.- €, not much profit..
The proposed 150mm gives us the DOF of an F5.6 lens on FF the 75mm with a 2x TC would be giving us a DOF of an F7.2 lens on FF doesn’t sound so smart does it. If that is the choice I would just use an adapted lens and live with manual focus lets face it we are not exactly state of the art for C-AF or tracking anyway.
At this focal length, you will want greater depth of field. Otherwise, you will be more often out of focus than not, or have photos that look very dopey. Super-long teles is one of the many areas where smaller sensors have a clear advantage.
Yes, we really need a high quality 2x teleconverter. Added to the 150 lens, would make a 300 f5.6 with much higher quality than the 100-300 at the long end.
The 150 f2.8 will be a professional grade lens. This is VERY attractive for wildlife and bird photography. I m currently using the 100-300 and a Canon FD 300 f4 L manual focus lens. Manual focus is really hard with the very shallow depth of field and no focus peaking. Do you hear that, Olympus and Panasonic? WE NEED FOCUS PEAKING!!!
Also, the person complaining about lack of shallow depth of field with a 150 f2.8 being like a 300 f5.6 on full frame has not spent much time using long telephoto lenses. The problem is not needing shallower depth of field, but we need deeper depth of field to be able to get more in focus. I would love to have an equivalent 300 lens with the light gathering power of f2.8, but the depth of field of f5.6!
Finally, about the price, I am sure this is a list price. If you notice on the Amazon link to the Olympus 300 f2.0, it is also $3000, but marked down to $2500. I agree that a 300 f2.8 should be cheaper than that, but wait a year for the early adopters to buy it at too high a price and then the price will fall to an appropriate level. I made the mistake of buying the 7-14 and the PL 45 Macro at full price when they first came out. I needed the lenses at the time, but ended up paying way more than they are going for now.
Meanwhile, we need a matching teleconverter!!!
working with a lens wideopen, i dont find focus peaking as reliable as focusing by eye in magnified mode(I used the Ricoh GXR plus M mount module, comparing both mode 1 & 2 peaking methods). But if working with telelenses handheld, this only works good with a system like the OMD has, the stabilized EVF mode. I have no experience doing this with a supertele, but it worked reasonably comfortable with a legacy 85mm lens like the Helios 40-2 which weighs around 1 kg. I hope to be able to shoot with a longer lens in the future for some model concepts.
“I m currently using the 100-300 and a Canon FD 300 f4 L manual focus lens. Manual focus is really hard with the very shallow depth of field and no focus peaking. Do you hear that, Olympus and Panasonic? WE NEED FOCUS PEAKING!!!”
We here you. You want focus peaking to avoid buying our lenses. Noted.
Stupid money…
It makes the Olympus f2.0 much better deal in comparison.
Modern tech and production should make things cheaper… And don’t go telling me how super expensive the glass is or how complicated the lens construction is.
The speculating pricing for 150mm F2.8 sounds ridiculous . Don’t think it will sale well if the price is correct . Such high price tag should for a lens in F2.0 .
By the way , I’m more Keen on the 42.5 lens rather than this 150mm .
It will go on sale next April, work it out for yourselves!!!!!!!!!!!
It looks like one of those products that make their manufacturers proud. I’m guessing it will possess flawless optical performance and be endowed with a chassis made of the best materials, inside and out. To Panasonic it’s a lens to put in display cabinets, not necessarily to sell and its price will surely reflect that (although 2500 quid? I doubt that).
I want it gold plated then. With swarovsky on it.
Swarowski actually makes very high quality optics.
I want only crystals around the manual focus ring, to hold it better 😉
So you hope Olympus come by an lens on 150mm F2.8 for around 2000$ 😉
IMHO, “flawless optical performance” and “distortion/vignetting correction by software” are a contradiction. For all MFT lenses.
Some of the longer lenses for m4/3 do not rely on software corrections.
One word: LOL
3000€?!? for a 150mm lens at F/2.8?!? WTF!!!
Much more than 1000€ for such a lens is already too much. For 3000€ it should be at least a stop faster and even then it would be too much.
I really do hope this is a wrong rumour.
howaboutno.jpg
It’s a 300mm f5.6 equivalent. OK, it takes 2 stops more light than that. But for Euro 3000, no way.
yawn. at that focal length, you have plenty shallow DoF if thats what you want.
I’m not talking about shallow DOF here. I’m talking about the price comparing the equivalent of f5.6.
That makes utterly no sense. You’re talking about nothing.
A FF 300mm f4 costs around $1200, e.g. Nikon and Pentax. If you want to pay 3 times of that to get that extra stop of light, fine. Wait a minute, that 300mm is equivalent to 600mm on a 4/3. Don’t you get it? No… How dumb.
Not this shit again…
Nope- you’re still just babbling.
Yes, focusing at 50m on a 150mm at F2.8 gives you a DOF of 9.48m or 31feet hardly shallow though it will help compensate for the crap C-AF
Don’t know how much depth of field really matters to you ,but at 50 ft it gives you 2.8ft so 16 inches front and back focus so not much really all depends on you subject size ,if only a small bird then not such an issue but large subjects maybe ,if using the online depth of field calculator results are correct.
I use the 135mm zukio f2.8 on m43 as a comparison which not quite as long gives plenty of subject separation although for birding I don’t think it’s any where near long enough you still have to be on top of your subject to fill frame
Ridiculous, those guys have lost the plot. Unless it’s only for pros… But wait, pros on M43?
My bet is 999/1199 Euros for the 42.5mm f1.2 and 1199/1299 Euros for the 150mm f2.8. Panasonic could justify this price with a high quality built and output, and for being the only (native m43 mount) lens with this lenght/aperture.
It should be great for birdwatchers, though you cannot zoom in-out to frame the subject without disturbing it.
I would try it at concerts, when I cannot stay at the edge of the stage, but for now MZuiko 75mm is great.
I paid my EF 135 f2 L about $900.
As captive as the m4/3 market may be, Panasonic must consider the pricing of the market as a whole.
For me, a 150mm f2.8 is not all that appealing–an f2 would be.
and what’s your point exactly when compairing a 135/2 for 35 mm with this 300mm equivalent lens?
Don’t be stupid if you mounted the 135mm on mFT which you can you get an effective focal length of 270mm on FF the point which you miss is that the lens is a 150mm not a 300mm lens. Lenses do not change their actual focal length when mounted on different systems. Should the Nikon 180mm f2.8 be sold as a 270mm when on a DX body or even better does the 180mm magically become a 486mm lens on the CX system
300-2*135=30mm – marginal difference.
I would think such a comparison would be obvious. I have the Olympus OM 135/2.8 btw… nice lens, quite affordable.
well, yes but w/o AF and by no means that high resolution power we know from the native “hi end” MFT glas like, say the 75 M. Zuiko
I own my self several OM lenses, and while I love them for their beautiful mechanical approach and so on, they are no matsch for the modern glas, even stopped down 1-2 stops.
This is however the beautz of this system: you just can use anything, from a hi end modern glas for several thousands of EUR to a cheapish but still good manual lens
I would not be too surprised by a very high price. MFT, which has started as an innovative and promising system, has become insanely expensive lately, especially considering the small sensor of the system and the importancy of software corrections for ironing out distortions and vignetting. What was the last newly announced MFT camera or lens which offered good value for the money? The Oly 45/1.8 back in summer 2011?
That’s nonsense. After the 1.8/45mm we had a lot of reasonably priced m4/3 lenses:
2.8/12-35mm
2.8/35-100mm
2.8/60mm Macro
75-300mm II
These lenses are cheaper or close to their DSLR counterparts. There isn’t much wrong with m4/3 pricing. Too expensive is a myth.
Those lenses have no counterparts in the proper camera lineups. Ever heard of a 70-200 F5.6? And at 1000 EUR, to top it? Or 24-70 F5.6? Now stop talking rubbish, go out and take photos. Yes, M43 do try to rip people off.
2.8 is 2.8. Instead accusing others of talking rubbish, you should get the facts right and stop this futile equivalence arguments.
Yes, a 2.8 m43 lens has the same DOF as a 5.6 FF lens. But that does not mean that this is a disadvantage. It is just different. Most photographs profit from greater DOF.
Nonsense. 12-35/2.8 and 35-100/2.8 cost approx. 1000 EUR each. For the APS-C or DX equivalent, e.g. Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS, you have to pay half of that (Tamron is even cheaper, but not the quality level of the Sigma). And f2.8 for APS-C is better than 2.8 for MFT regarding depth of field. By the way: both “fast” Pana zooms are optically far from perfect. For instance, they need huge amounts of auto-correction for distortions.
I love how people compare 3rd party to 1st party in terms of price.. 3rd party is gonna be always cheaper
You could make comparisons all day long, so here’s another…
Canon EF 200mm f2.8L USM costs £600 and mounted on a APS-C camera gives a similar FOV.
I bet it’ll hold it’s value better than some of these MFT lenses in a few years time as well.
Must be 3000 for the pair ,42.5 f1.2 and 150 f2.8 and a body .twin kit deal
thanks god for FT2 🙂
Fair price. Because MFT makes the best lenses ever. Nothing else compares. I will preorder 20 units after announcement. One for every GF and G camera. Would also work well on E-PM1.
Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L IS II – $2300
Lumix 12-35mm f/2.8X OIS – $1300
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II – $2500
Lumix 35-100mm f/2.8X OIS – $1500
Canon 300mm f/2.8L IS II – $11,600 (currently, $6900)
Lumix 150mm f/2.8 ISX OIS – ?????
Why not $3000? 😉
But the Canon lenses collect 4x the light, you need to compare to the f4/f5.6 versions. Also if using a Canon lens via an adapter leave off the 2x factor (or just as a build price comparison).
yeah, they collect way more light and weigh much, much more not to speak aboutthe dimensions – all because they have to serve a 4 times larger sensor..
However, a 150 mm f2.8 is anything but appealing at the mentioned price – even if I’d need it desperately I’d buy myself the ZD 150, even if it is way heavier and bulkier.
“Collects 4x the light”. C’mon now, don’t be silly. By that token you could also say “A FF sensor requires 4x the light to make the same image”.
A 150/2.8 on m43 and a 300/2.8 on FF–given the same ISO–take a photo with the same brightness at the same shutter speed. The only difference in the resulting image will be that the DOF from the M43 lens will be “two stops” deeper than the FF lens. (In other words, the 150/2.8 DOF will look like the 300/2.8 DOF if it were set at f/5.6.)
PLEASE don’t try to confuse people with misleading statements like this “4x the light” garbage. People have a hard enough time understanding the physics behind this sensor size stuff without people ACTIVELY trying to confuse them.
Well, sorry if this sounds confusing but don’t forget a FF sensor usually wins in the noise department: 4x more photons -> 4x more signal.
However: with the increasing high ISO performance in general, the advantage is diminishing in practice. This is why I love those chest pounding posts by the FF fanboys; they panic more each year.
At least for telelenses, FF will be roughly obsolete within 5 years. So long, FF fanboys. 🙂
I think the point is that this all has nothing to do with ‘light gathering’ of the lens or actually with the lens in any way, and everything with the active surface area of the sensor. Hence it is misleading to say that a 300/2.8 gathers 4x the amount of light of a 150/2.8.
“A 150/2.8 on m43 and a 300/2.8 on FF–given the same ISO–take a photo with the same brightness at the same shutter speed. The only difference in the resulting image will be that the DOF from the M43 lens will be “two stops” deeper than the FF lens. (In other words, the 150/2.8 DOF will look like the 300/2.8 DOF if it were set at f/5.6.)”
Absolutely correct and it’s the increased DOF (smaller harder bokeh) that is the main detractor for many that otherwise like the smaller/Lighter M43 format.
As a filmaker, the abominably deep DOF of M43 is a deal breaker.
I will not and cannot use a system that uses a sensor smaller than DX/APS-C/Super35 due to the problems separating foreground and background fields in movie making.
Interesting. What aperture have the lenses that do work for you?
Hi Paul, I’m a filmaker too and I do not agree with your statement. I shot 5 feature films using Super 16mm film cameras and Zeiss lenses and getting a shallow DOF was never a problem (remember actors do move in the frame, it takes a very handy focus puller to handle shallow DOF). M43 sensor is much bigger and very close to Super 35 (18,9 x 10,63 vs 24 x 13,5, almost negligible). Getting a shallow DOF with m43 is not a problem.
Ok, then forget about the term “collect’s 4x more light”. What is important about the sensor size difference in terms of price is that an image circle needs to be 4x larger to fit the full-frame sensor than one needed to project an image on the m4/3 sensor. So a 150mm lens for m4/3 should only need 25% of the amount of glass (an expensive part of the lens) that a 150mm lens for full-frame needs.
Here are the prices of some 150mm and 180mm full-frame lenses:
Nikon 180mm f/2.8 is $900
Sigma 150mm f/2.8 1:1 macro is $1,100
Tamron 180mm f/2.8 1:1 macro is around $750.
A 150mm lens is a 150mm lens regardless of what system it’s designed for, it’s just that they need larger diameter elements in order to project a larger image circle for a larger sensor size. Therefore it is completely unreasonable to compare the pricing of a 150mm lens with a 300mm lens. They should be compared for image quality and performance tests because they cover the same field of view with their respective systems but it wouldn’t be fair to take that into account for pricing.
No, a 1/4th size image circle does not mean only needing 1/4th of the amount of glass, but it does allow for a slightly simpler design because you need less correction. That said, you also need more resolution because of smaller pixels.
“Collects 4x the light”. C’mon now, don’t be silly.”
How is the 4x amount of light not relevant? Think about what 4x the light actually means. It literally means 4x the information. 4x more photons.
There is a common misconception where people think for some unfathomable reason that the F-value (or the T-value) is the sole determinant of the amount of light gathered. It’s the same thing like with the Speedbooster people who think their images are less noisier than FF images.
Whatever you do behind a lens, it will NEVER change anything about the information that comes out of the lens itself. This seems to be almost a tautology, but very few seem to understand.
“By that token you could also say “A FF sensor requires 4x the light to make the same image”.
No. If you have two ideal lossless sensors, both the FT sensor and the FF sensor will give you exactly the same images with the same amount of light (but remember that same amount of light is not equal to same f-value or same t-value).
I googled this up for you:
http://www.cctv-information.co.uk/i/Light_Transmission_Through_Lenses
Look under the section “The effect of sensor size”. Esp. table 3. They talk in video terms but you should get the idea.
> How is the 4x amount of light not relevant? Think
> about what 4x the light actually means. It
> literally means 4x the information. 4x more photons.
Because it’s an attempt to mislead by only looking at one side of the issue.
Make two Hubbles. Put a 5D behind one and an EM5 behind the other. Take a picture with both. You’ll get exactly the same image with both cameras (image characteristics like noise and color balance aside), except the EM5 will show a 2x crop of the middle of the image that the 5D captured.
Neither image is brighter. Neither ended up with a different shutter speed or ISO.
Now, you COULD say that the 5D captured more photons. Of course it did, it has more sensor area. But it’s not like these photons were used to make the image BETTER, it was just used to make MORE image. So where the EM5 saw Jupiter, the 5D saw Jupiter and Uranus.
(In fact, if you were only interested in Jupiter, the EM5 image would be superior thanks to its higher pixel density. More pixels per Big Red Dot, if you will.)
Similarly, lets take this hypothetical 150/2.8 and mount it to a 5D and EM5, and then take a Sigma 150/2.8 and mount it to both as well.
On the 5D you’d see a full frame image from the Sigma and a not-quite-FF image with black borders from the Panasonic 150/2.8.
On the EM5 you’d see the same image from both lenses: a 2x crop of the center of the 5D.
Again, all four images are the same brightness.
But wait! The FF lens collects more photons! Of course it does. And it sprayed them all over the baffles surrounding the EM5’s sensor.
This supposed “light collecting” property of larger lenses is a farce. If you made a 50/1.4 that had a six-foot-wide front element and mounted it to your 5D, you’d get the same image as from your Sigma 50/1.4.
Bottom line, 150mm is 150mm. f/2.8 is f/2.8. And larger sensors and lenses don’t make brighter images. I like my FF cameras as much as the next guy, but they obey the same laws of physics that my M43 cameras do.
“Neither image is brighter. Neither ended up with a different shutter speed or ISO.”
If the EM5 used all the light that the lens actually collected, it would be brighter. (or have lower ISO or what have you). That’s why astronomers mount focal reducers on their telescopes.
In a photographic sense, comparing a 300mm 2.8 mounted on a FF to a 300mm 2.8 (or Hubble if you want) on a mft is totally uninteresting because shooting under the same circumstances (position, light, focus, etc.) you get completely different images. That’s why the equivalent-talk is sometimes relevant in the first place.
Consider this 150 2.8 and a 300 2.8 on FF. We’ve already established that a 2.8 FF lens does collect 4x the amount of light. Think about what that light actually does.
Hint 1: In this case it doesnt ‘create more image’.
Hint 2: It also doesn’t make the image brighter.
Hint 3: It doesnt do nothing.
Consider this 150 2.8 and a 300 5.6 on FF. We’ve already established that a 5.6 FF lens does collect the same amount of light as the 150 2.8 mft. Think about how image quality differs.
Hint 1: At the same settings, the FF image is darker.
Hint 2: Consider film grain. The visibility of film grain in the final image depends on the size of the grain relative (!) to the image size. Penalty for increasing grain size thus depends on film size.
Hint 3: A FF sensor is bigger than a FT sensor.
“Bottom line, 150mm is 150mm. f/2.8 is f/2.8. And larger sensors and lenses don’t make brighter images. I like my FF cameras as much as the next guy, but they obey the same laws of physics that my M43 cameras do.”
Umm… yeah. Did I say anything different?
“If the EM5 used all the light that the lens actually collected, it would be brighter. (or have lower ISO or what have you). That’s why astronomers mount focal reducers on their telescopes.”
A focal reducer REDUCES the focal length, while keeping the same entrance pupil size. As a consequence, the focal ratio aka f-stop changes and consequently the brightness also changes.
That is not ‘using all the light the lens actually collects’, that is changing the optics to become a shorter faster lens.
Well, first off, I was joking. Thus, the smiley face.
As Chris noted, brightness for f/2.8 is the same regardless of format, only depth of field is affected by cropping. I suppose, one could argue that for equal generation sensors, you will likely get two stops better noise control with FF, so you can shoot at two stops slower shutter speed with two stops higher ISO.
Anyway, to your point, Panasonic’s list prices have been more consistent with the f/4L IS versions. Using that, then the 150mm f/2.8 should be around the $1450 that the Canon 300mm f/4L IS costs.
That sounds quite a bit more reasonable then this ft2 rumor
So… when mounted on the same camera and pointed at a large surface, a 50/2.8 and a 200/2.8 both set to f/2.8 result in what? Same exposure? Or 2 stops difference in exposure?
What you claim is that there will be a 2 stop difference because a 200/2.8 gathers 4x the amount of light, please check if your camera agrees.
Or.. just realize that its actually not the light gathering of the lens at all but rather the active surface area of the sensor that makes that m4/3 uses 1/4 of the amount of light.
heh, 200/2.8 should have been 100/2.8
Sadly, I think that managers at Panasonic would agree with that pricing.
They play the “equivalent” game only to their advantage.
“This 150mm lens is 300mm equivalent, so should be priced as a 300mm FF lens”
They could also say (but they won’t): “Image noise on this f2.8 lens in low light will be equivalent to a FF f5.6, so should be priced accordingly”.
I think that for long lenses, a sane way to price it would be: same lenght, same f value, same price, regardless of the size of the lens elements. So please panasonic, price it like a ~ 150mm f2.8 Canon or Nikon and you will sell plenty. Price it like it was a 300mm f2.8 and only a few very rich (± stupid) people will get it. (I don’t hope for pros in the long tele range for m43 yet)
First a 150mm lens designed for 135 format and one for a format 1/4 the size need different optimizing, the first one for a bigger image circle, the later for a higher resolution, hence they aren’t the same thing.
Second, price only depends on actual cost for the lowest price that still allows for a proffit, but all consumer prices in the end depend on what people are willing to pay. 2 items that cost the exact same to make can have wildly different consumer prices. Oh, and that is an observation and totally unrelated to how you or I think things should be. Additionally it is true for consumer products in general, not just cameras.
Excellent price !!!!
=)
I sure hope the price will drop before it is on the market, but that is what’s usually happening !
I want one for sure but 3000 euro (I’m in france) is NO WAY !
I’m glad I have the 100-300 which is a great lens (as long as it is on a panasonic body!)
I sure hope the price will drop before it is on the market, but that is what’s usually happening !
I want one for sure but 3000 euro (I’m in france) is NO WAY !
I’m glad I have the 100-300 which is a great lens (as long as it is on a panasonic body!)
If 150/2.8 costs $3000, nobody will buy it.
It’s not worth all the handwringing going on here over an FT2 rumor.
Besides, the thing doesn’t even have an official release or shipping date!!!
Wait and do all your agonizing after its announced. 😉
Mr. Reee, I agree.
Nobody will buy it because its too expensive!. 1,300-1,500 usd is a fair price range.
+1
Maybe this is Panasonic’s way of setting an expected price. First shock people with a very high price and then come out at just under $2k (still expensive) but where people rationalize the price based on previous expectation.
thats good thoughts…could be Pana now testing the market …but cannot be they would ask way higher price than their 35-100 zoom lens…1400usd/eur maximum
It is always about what the combination of lens/sensor/processor/code delivers in terms of image quality. Balance of performance is desirable. (why have a poor lens on a high performing image quality engine and vice versa).
Take the Oly 75/1.8: i am sure it outperforms th current Oly image quality engine. Something like 24mpix or 36mpix would balance the excellent Oly 75mm.
It is one thing to desingn lenses for larger sensors. Here the potential of the sensor rquireres more from the lens to balance.
To balance quality of a lens to an image quality engine using a smaller sensor, it is easier to have balancing quality = lens could be less expensive……
But – m43 users are willing to pay for HQ lenses and subsequently manufacturers charge more! We pay for smallishness!
I think people are forgetting about inflation… By the time this thing gets released, it’ll be equivalent to $1500 in 2013 dollars. Perfect match for your GH23.
43 lolz
Panasonic testing the waters via rumor sites? I think they’ll get the message. 🙂
“Obviously we don’t know nothing…” Does that mean we know something? :\
Sorry but this double negative game’s driving me crazy.
admin’s English ain’t nuthin’ to be fucked with!
Take some picture, the is good therapy, to we dont more. 😛
They will not sell 1 lens at this price…
Well I guess that my Leica 135mm Elamrit R 2.8 (330€ on Ebay + 20€ for the adapter ring) is still a valid option 🙂 It is bitingly sharp and balances very well on the OM-D. Focus is manual but for a long tele it is not really a problem. But if Sigma could release a cheap 2.8 150mm as good as there excellent 19mm & 30mm I would buy it immediately.
Even better om zukio 135mm f2.8 80 quid with adaptor on eBay
I bought for around 60eur OM 135 3.5 …as I wanted legacy lens in mint condition…and it can do nice pictures …I wouldnt say they are sharp at all …but with such focal lenght you easily separate the background …but problem is if there is any …even slight counter light … than the pics are foggy :-)…sometimes it makes portrait nice…dreamy …but mostly it is issue…
So long as they revert to the old style and not the new Art styling, it looks naff.
It’s all part of the plan to re-introduce the Panasonic Four-Thirds line by making their micro Four-Thirds bits too expensive.
All those rumors about a new DMC-L1 will be found to be true.
That is really overcharged if the rumored price is true. In the case like this, why don’t just turn to FF DSLR but using a M4/3 mirrorless with a lens like this
You can’t really compare mft and ff lenses like this. Yes, that panny is “in terms of ff” 300mm f/5.6 but it is not that simple. It still has maximum aperture of 2.8.
At least don’t compare that lens with 135mm ff lenses, because they don’t autofocus with mft body.
That lens is 150mm f/2.8 lens which produces similar fov than 300mm lens on a ff body. Everything else is different, and that is the system.
But yes.. if Oly’s Zuiko 150mm f/2 is suberb and cheaper, ~£2500 is way too much.
ps. Btw admin, in euros it is written “3000€”, not €xxxx like in $ and £ 🙂
I would not compare a 150mm f2.8 m43 lens to a refrigerator. However, the 900$ Nikon 180mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF is a pretty good comparison as it can do the exact same thing as the planned panasonic lens if paired to a Nikon APS-C DSLR, for instance (I might even crop a bit to get the same image circle as the panasonic).
Of course I can’t mount the Nikon lens on my GH2 with AF, but I can get a D5200 for 700$ + the 900$ 180mm Nikon and still have some money left. I will also get better AF results with PDAF.
The point is: Panasonic and Olympus can price themselve out of business if they don’t look at what other systems are doing. We users are looking at alternatives. I would accept to pay a small premium for a m43 lens since I’m already invested in the system, but I won’t pay twice the price of the competition.
oh please!!!! M43 is still lacking:
*** super wide angle prime ***
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
looks like a stellar lens and if it performs great the rumoured price would be right in my mind. with any luck ill be buying it
Canon 200mm f2.8 L (~$800) + Metabones Speed Booster* (~$500) = 140mm f2.0 (~$1,300)
*EF to m4/3 should be out by the time this lens is.
I would rather wait for the new 4/3rds from olympus and buy the original 150mm F2.0, honestly.
Joke? It must be…
DISGRACEFUL PRICE!
I’m lolling at this from the future in 2015