Image courtesy: ePhotozine
Along the new 150mm f/2.8 Panasonic will also market the new compact 35-100mm zoom by end 2014. The lens has been designed especially fo the compact GM camera line. It should provide a high quality, compact (although not fast) 35-100mm X lens alternative. Price and exact aperture are yet not known.
—
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
56 Responses
I bet it will be a f4-5.6
Interesting. Replace for 45-150.
It is not. Product management in Panasonic lens department are a bunch of morons who all should be fired – for making similar lenses, not making new ones and setting insane prices so almost none would be sold.
Anxiously awaiting this lens. For me, size and weight do matter, which is why I migrated from Nikon to MFT in the first place. Love the Panasonic 12-32 mm zoom. A similarly designed 35-100 mm will be the perfect companion for walkabouts with two PM1 or PM2-sized camera bodies in a bag so light you hardly know it is there. Throw in a prime for low light or narrow depth-of-field and you have everything you need.
Similarily, I am debating about a kit consisting of LX9 anf FZ1000. IQ would be sufficient for me.
I see a potential travel bag of lenses: P35-100, O9-15, and either the P20 or O25.
“Along the new 150mm f/2.8 Panasonic will also market the new compact 35-100mm zoom by end 2014.”
Wasn’t it just announced a couple of weeks ago that the 150mm will NOT BE released…?
That was a misinterpretation.
It was about long high grade zoom if i remember right, not 150mm.
Sexy
Looks nice. Now everything depends on iq.
I personally think all MFT system lenses are super compact already. I rather prefer Panasonic to make a different focal length. Such as, the large aperture zoom just like the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8!! Because most of my friends are using full frame camera. And they really like the compact size from MFT cameras. So many times they wanna switch it to MFT because of the weight, really great for run and gun travel. But end up they still staying with Full Frame. Because they just like the f/2.8 “Bokeh” look from the Full frame. Of course using f/1.4 MFT lenses can get the similar “Bokeh”. But again you can’t shoot as run and gun. Because there is no such a 12-35mm f/1.4 or 35-100mm f/1.4 zooms in the market. Once panasonic or olympus can do large aperture zooms. I’m sure all my friends will go with MFT system. But don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying anything bad about MFT system. I like MFT and I do own the GH4, and EP5 myself. But sometimes I do agree what my friends have pointed out 🙂
Trouble is, with equivalent aperture (I.e. an f/1.4 zoom) comes equivalent size. There’s no free lunch with optics.
Sadly there is no way how to achieve that goal: light and small + very fast.
Actualy It’s killing me too since I’m debating to myself for making a switch to Fujifilm.
Almost all fast wide and normal lenses are overpriced on m43.
Main reason for switching (at least for me) is that you can use old legacy FF glass on it using a SpeedBooster adapter. Then you get very very fast and quite cheap lenses with an excellent bokeh and you get a bigger sensor with a higher DR + less noise for free …
That’s just it.
1) The “very fast” Fuji lenses suffer from the same DOF argument that “other users” like to throw at m43: APS-C is still a 1.5x crop from “full frame”, hence f1.4 on a Fuji ain’t f1.4, if you follow their argument. Oddly, those people only apply this argument to m43 but are silent when it comes to APS-C.
2) Those “very fast” lenses on Fuji ain’t small, either — they are APS-C sized optics. 58mm filters? Which to me defeats the reson d’etre of mirrorless. Might as well buy a Pentax K5. I’d rather have f1.8 and 46mm filter diameters on my mirrorless (although the f1.4 25mm DG Summilux is a great feat, I say — I wish Panasonic came out with a whole set of f1.4 lenses standardised to that size, but alas the 15mm is already f1.7 and the 42.5mm is f1.2 but huge).
I think this 35-100 is the REAL mm not the equivalent mm like in the compact-camcorder world. If the mm is real and the aperture is real then there is no problem.
Well not that simple:
1) Yes you are right but APSC is closer to FF. The difference is very visible just look at it:
http://www.daisukiphoto.com/2012/09/50mm-bokeh-dof-test-panasonic-leica.html
Full body portrait that’s a territory for 50mm lens (on FF). And as you can see 25mm 1.4 does not have enough background blur here (at least not for me). These are just native lenses if you do not mind manual legacy glass get speedbooster and you are in a completely different level (I mean with Fuji or Sony).
For tele lenses or portrait glass it does not matter. But for anything below say 60mm FF equivalent m43 does not have fast enough native glass !
2) And that’s exactly what I’m talking about. There is no free lunch. Either you have small lenses or big lenses with a paper thin DOF. I like wider lenses so it seems that m43 is sadly not the best choice here. They could make some super fast normal and wides like (35mm 1.4, 25mm 1.2, 17mm 1.2) but they would be large, very, very expensive and it would kill every advantage that m43 can offer …
Anyway whatever lens m43 will release it will always have worse price/thinDOF ratio then Fuji or Sony (especialy on a wide end).
Just get it or ignore it …
Well maybe there is just one exception to that rule manual native glass like Nokton 25, 17 these are very good lenses with a nice character but first they are very expensive (compare it to speedbooster + Canon 50 1.4 or 35 1.8) and second you can not use them on any other platform.
You won’t park a Buick like you park a Smart…
If you need bokeh at 50mm full body portrait, m43 isn’t for you (or maybe PP soft bokeh but it’s not the same…).
M43 is not a smart, it is an old lada with the price of a small porsche.
If you have only one system then APS-C is a compromise: possibly true for some, although with the RX1 and now A7 out it’s not quite so simple anymore. I am fortunate enough to own all three systems: m43 for compact travelling, full frame for work, APS-C for video (though I’m thinking of ditching my EOS for either a GH4 or A7s). Even though my main systems are actually analogue film gear.
I’d say if you could only have one system then you might as well make it a Sony A7, with adapters for manual lenses. APS-C to me is neither here nor there now. I use my systems the other way around: I use the Canon 5D for 50mm and wider (up to 20mm), and Olympus for 75mm and longer.
Simple reason: on m43, teles are much-much-MUCH more compact than 5D teles. I stick my Summicron 75mm or 90mm on the Olympus and I get 150mm or 180mm with enough shallow DOF for portraits (I don’t like portraits where only a couple of eyelashes are in focus — on 5D with a Planar 85mm f1.4 I normally shoot at f4.0 anyway). With the 40mm M-Rokkor, I have an 80mm f2.0 machine that fits in a cargo pant pocket. If I need paper thin DOF (which is to say, very very rarely), I just use 645 or 6×6 teles on film.
Hi Origami,
Good to hear it from a guy who owns all 3 main systems. I have tested all these 3 too. As I have said for tele or portrait lenses m43 is a very good system. 75mm Zuiko is a perfect portrait lens. Anyway whenever you need to go wider and need a person or an object to seperate from a background m43 is not good enough …
I do not need a paper thin DOF!! I need to blur a background for a frame as large as 7x5m. And yes I could use a long tele lens for that case for sure BUT the result will be very different, very compressed. This is not what I’m looking for. Just look at some pictures shoot with Leica you will see that very different look (not counting a Leica glass character here).
Cheers
Of course you are right Daniel, but these people don’t want a proper argument, they want to convince you to buy their stuff. It’s actually funny how they struggle with basic physics.
Hi Daniel,
I agree that digital cameras are unique in that the “film” comes installed in the camera and what “look” you want will depend on which manufacturer you pick. There’s a reason why people talk about “Olympus colours”, “Pentax colours”, etc, after all. There are no right or wrong, of course, and everyone is free to spend their coin however they wish. I hope you will find a system that brings satisfaction to you, regardless of what other people might say. Cheers!
By the way. If you are looking for that 3D-ness then I must again suggest you look at the Sony A7 with its Zeiss lenses. Nobody does that cut-out 3D look quite like Zeiss. I own a full set of Leica lenses (28mm to 90mm) but whenever I want that kind of pop I use either my 35mm C-Biogon or 50mm C-Sonnar. Superb colours, too, which are useful for some types of shots. And Zeiss wides are just amazing.
Agree with your analysis except for the degree of difference and your conclusion. Not everybody needs or even wants razor thin DOF, and besides the difference with APS-C while noticeable isn’t significant. m4/3 has a lot of options that allow for plenty of DOF separation, and without side-by-side comparisons of the same exact scene you’ll be hard pressed to tell which is m4/3 and which is APS-C if shown a batch of random photos.
IMO APS-C is the odd man out. It loses a lot of DOF control compared to FF (much more noticeable than the difference between m4/3 and APS-C) and doesn’t gain much size/weight savings at all. Again IMO, the vast majority of “enthusiastic amateurs” would be much better served by a compact system like m4/3 that they’re more likely to carry with them than APS-C or FF. It hits a very nice sweet spot balancing size/weight with DOF control and image quality. Any bigger and weight starts to become an issue; any smaller and image quality becomes an issue.
That’s not to say that APS-C is the wrong choice. There’s no such thing when needs and wants vary so much from person to person. But looking at the overall market APS-C makes less sense than m4/3 if only people would bother to learn more about it.
Negative.
1. You likely confuse bokeh with thin DOF like many others.
You can get thin DOF using ultra bright lenses, in this case, even the nose or the ears might not be in focus. But yu can get washed background better using tele lenses!
E.g. I’ve made a portrait using the not really bright 45–200/4–5.6, but on the tele end. ‘Thanks’ to the small F-value (5.6) hence big DOF everything on the face was quite sharp. But the backround has been washed even better than if I would use my 45/1.8 from a closer distance!
2. The sensor size itself has to do nothing with the „system”-s DOF. Equally big lenses (I mean the PHYSICAL size of the aperture) get approximately the SAME DOF/BOKEH an all systems regardless the sensor size. So we should convince Panasonic to make both ultra-big lenses for thin DOF and compact ones for portability as well.
Agree, M43 is actually a useless system and it has the worst quality/price ratio. It also has the dumbest zealots, and they are going to write lots of fancy stories to prove “scientifically” that it is the best.
Fortunately, more and more photographers already know this is not so, and now more and more consumers are also beginning to find out it is not so. You can spread your funded FUD campaign somewhere else, thanks.
I read articles quite frequently wherein a photographer is making the switch from “FF” to m4/3. I never hear of someone so disappointed in m4/3 that they are selling out their m4/3 gear to repurchase FF gear.
I rarely if ever found a photographer “switching” from 135 to this junk format. Different sources, I guess…
You are NOT a pro. You are a troll. If you were even moderately interested in seeking truth then you have seen article after article as well as ancillary evidence on eBay.
http://www.bestmirrorlesscamerareviews.com/2013/05/29/why-i-am-switching-to-mirrorless-for-work-the-mirrorless-on-the-job-series-preview/
http://www.bestmirrorlesscamerareviews.com/2013/08/23/13-amazing-professional-photographers-who-use-mirrorless-cameras-on-the-job/
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/mirrorless-cameras/360646-considering-switch-full-frame-dslr-mirrorless-have-few-questions.html
A very small sampling.
Do you “seek truth” in those forums? I blame cheap schools…
APS-C sized? Why, do they get bigger if the sensor gets larger? Apart from a (small here) length advantage, equivalent lenses tend to have the same size.
Go out and shoot, then you can come back and teach us, in a few years.
Size, “fast” aperture, image quality (not via software correction), price. It’s “my” rule of three out of four: you can choose three of the previous characteristics, but the fourth will be a con, always, no matter the system.
What about the 20mm? Or is it the IQ without software corrections that is con?
Obviously he was referring to zooms.
While this rule always applies to zooms, it can be applied to primes too. 20mm f1.7 is a good all round lens, but its AF performance is its downside. Perhaps its construction does not allow a faster movement of its elements, I’m just guessing though.
I am sorry, I didn’t get that… 😉 But actually, there are only a few primes that may not obey that rule: 20mm, 25mm F1.8 and 45mm… Maybe you can add the Fuji X 35mm. I am not that much into other systems. So your rule seems plausible to me. 😀
Yeah, Pana said that they need to move so much of the lens in order to achieve a 20mm F1.7 lens with that optic and thus it has no Inner Focusing and it is slower to focus.
Talking about primes, I consider “fast” the f1.4. I know f1.8 it’s “fast” for many of us though. Just to say: Nocticron, wide at f1.2 is already sharp as MZuiko45mm at f1.8. Almost the same focal lenght but different rendering, IQ delivered and price. MZuiko25mm costs too much for its built quality (plastic as 45mm), and it’s not “faster than PanaLeica 1.4, which was quite expensive when released. Let’s compare the 17mm from Olympus: the pancake f2.8 might serve its purpose, bit if you look at the RAW File, its distortion is impressive. Things are better with last 17mm f1.8. You can notice it on Voigtländer17.5mm but obly on test charts. Different lenses at different prices. Actually I would say that there are few lenses the quality of Voigty17.5mm. (I know it’s big and so on.. 😉 )
You got more experience with these lenses. But the Noctrion is a “prime” example of your rule, something will always be a con (this time 1600$ con). 😉
20mm requires software correction.
I like the idea of a tiered lens line-up.
Cheap/compact/slow/sharp (this lens)
Expensive/Fast/Weather sealed (x-lens)
The X lens system is unclear, with some low quality PZ lenses and some higher spec lenses. They need to plan their product lines better.
Whoa this looks boss! Reminds me of those old high quality Contax G lenses. Now there’s a niche for Panasonic.
Not sure I see the need for this. I’ve got a lumix 14-42 II, and a 45-150 that are pretty decent for the money. I think Panasonic should rethink their current 100-300 lens to make it match the compact size of the 14-42 II (and 45-150). Perhaps make it a 150-300.
Nice that they think about small, yet good iq. 12-32 is amazing for it’s size. For landscapes there is no need for fast aperture most of the time. Not only landscapes probably, just first thing comes to mind. Can enjoy nature more and still be able to get nice and detailed photo for printing once the opportunity appears.
Is the 12-32 better than the 14-42 lenses? I hope there’re will be a GM2 with in body stabilization and EVF and tilt LCD
I would have preferred a 12-100. Or even a 12-35 F2.8.
A Lumix 12-35mm f2.8 is already available.
I have it but it is large on the Gm1. So was hoping for a smaller form factor to match the GM1 Else it will be interesting to see how good the LX8 will be with the Sony ExmorR 1inch sensor and 24-90mm F2.0-f2.8 lens Nice to see the smaller cameras getting better. I hope there will be a GM2 with tilt LCD and a viewfinder and more small form factor lenses
That wouldn’t be a higher quality lens anymore at a reasonable size.
I hope it’s f4, or at least f3.5-4.5. That would be good enough.
Actually I rather have f3.5-4.5, even lighter and cheaper and just as good.
Only at the short end. It will be f5.6 at the long end.
How much does it cost?
Much than we might think, i guess
FAKE!!! That image is of a PENTAX Q lens!!!!! C’mon!!!!
This looks like a cheap piece of plastic. I am curious how much they are going to ask.