Two sources confirmed the Panasonic 150mm f/2.8 lens will be releases at Photokina in September. And a new source actually told me a small bit on the lens: There was a slight problem with the production of the lens that Panasonic had to solve. That’s why it’s coming a bit later than expected.
Here is the picture of the prototype lens:
—
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
103 Responses
Those lenses are welcomed! I hope they are a decently priced…
The 42.5mm costs $1600 at B&H. Does that answer your hopes?
Yes!
The 42.5 is Leica branded, this one is not. I bet it will be cheaper than the nocticron, maybe around 1000 €
The 35-100mm f/2.8 wasn’t Leica branded and it was US$1499.99, which made it the most expensive micro Four-Thirds lens until the Nocticron.
Simply because the lens at the moment has no competition – unlike the 42.5mm. Thus Pana charges whatever it wants. As soon as competition arrives, the price would have to drop.
The 42.5 f1.2 is exceptionally fast. A mid-tele at f2.8 is not (think 135mm f2.8 on FF), so I expect it to be priced well below the 42.5, perhaps more in line with Oly’s 75 f1.8. That would make it very attractive to me, as I rely largely on my 12-35 & 35-100 for event work but hanker after a lens like this for podium shots. My 45-200 is just too slow in low light. Been considering legacy Contax 180 f2.8 & 300 f4 primes, but would take the Panny 150 just for AF. I’m also hoping that Oly’s 40-150 f2.8 will leave room for Panny to make a reasonably priced 45-150 or 45-200 f4.
Can’t imagine how this lens will fare in the face of the Olympus 40-150mm f2.8. Why settle for this Panasonic when Olympus gives you the same tele focal length, with the same aperture, all while giving a multitude of additional focal lengths included as well. The only reason to get the Panasonic is if you need OIS, which will be absent on the Olympus. That said, you might be better off just purchasing an additional Olympus body instead.
Because a zoom lens even with a constant aperture can’t beat a prime lens with fixed aperture in image quality . That is simple as that .
Nonsense. The Olympus 2.8/12-40mm is better than or equal to all m4/3 primes in its range. That is no arbitrary talk, but based on my own experience.
Thus, there is a good chance that the Olympus 2.8/40-150mm might beat the Panasonic prime.
The Olympus 12-40 f/2.8 is good, but it can’t beat either of the 25mm primes (Oly and Pana).
It does. Clearly with regard to the Panasonic 1.4/25mm, noticeably to the Olympus 1.8/25mm.
Having used all three lenses I would have to disagree. Maybe there’s something you prefer about the way the zoom renders, but the primes are slightly sharper and have the benefit of 1-2 extra stops, which makes it easier to shoot in low light or separate the subject from the background.
You are correct, while the 12-40mm is probably the best zoom available for m43 and is as good as the Canon and Nikon 2.8 zooms IMO, it is not better than the primes – they still maintain a slight edge in performance. That being said, I have been leaving the primes at home more often now that I have the 12-40mm… it’s just an incredibly good zoom lens. The primes remain preferable for use on smaller bodies when a more portable kit is necessary.
@ Tron: I agree.
There are, of course, reasons why I love the m43 primes :
– I hardly have to stop down to get a good picture (edge-to-edge) – this is particularly great under low-light conditions.
– they are very small
– they are very light
– I can exchange them within 10 – 15 seconds (try to do that with FF equipment………)
– no need for a lot of post-processing (in most cases)
– they don’t cost much.In fact, my Pany 20mm + Oly 45mm together cost a little bit less than the 12-40mm where I live.
From a convenience point of view the 12-40mm is certainly terrific. It must be said, however, that even F1.8 on m43 may be a bit insufficent in some cases. F2.8 on m43 (contrarily to APS-C and FF) does not impress me too much.
The cheap kit zoom (it matches a 24-80 F5.6 on 135 format, so it ought to be cheap) beats primes? Wow.
An m4/3 2.8/12-40mm matches a FF 2.8/24-80mm. Shouldn’t be that difficult.
It’s ok that you are ignorant, it’s not ok that you are so stubborn and arrogant. Promise you won’t waste any more money until you have educated yourself.
Speak for yourself…..
I am not ignorant. But it is typical that equivalence is only regarded in view of shallow depth of field, while deep depth of field is mostly even more important. As such DOF needs to be ignored in the equivalence discussion, because it is neither advantage nor disadvantage. It Is preference, nothing more.
Due to the latest outburst of ignorance on these forums, I decided to draw the diagram: Which configurations do you think produce equivalent images, and which configuration sucks in the most light you think?
I don’t know what you think you are proving with your diagram.
All it shows is that the 4/3 sensor is closer to the lens, so you can achieve f/1.8 with a smaller iris. The top and bottom drawings show the sensor receiving the same amount of light per square unit. The middle drawing shows a sensor receiving significantly less light per square unit.
Equivalence isn’t necessarily about getting the same image but the same aperture, speed and ISO under the same lighting conditions. That is where sensor formats are irrelevant and which is important mostly. DOF is secondary and mostly a matter of preference. In most cases I won’t have enough DOF, so a larger sensor is a disadvantage. Realistically, the DOF of m4/3 is shallow enough to meet the requirements, but the format as significant advantages to achieve large enough DOF. There are fast enough m4/3 lenses available anyway. However, the topic here is not about equivalence anyway, it is about the Panasonic lens.
The problem with the DOF discussion is that it is done one sided to the advantage of shallow DOF only. A typical behavior of full frame / 35mm fanboys, which like to carry heavy equipment officially, but lust for lighter stuff internally.
Don’t be offended. “Ignorant” does not need to be offensive, i am very ignorant about chicken, for example.
If you prefer more DOF and have a larger sensor, stop down that lens more; the result will be at least as good as with a small sensor, at the same DOF. On top of that, a larger sensor allows more freedom: shallower DOF or higher ISO whenever you need it. If we add the magnification factor, the scale tips further in favor of the larger sensor.
Equivalent lenses are also comparable in size (with some caveats).
Having said that, smaller sensor systems can be perfectly good in many cases; however, being a compromise, they must be priced lower and keep the size down; otherwise, where is the deal?
Just to say, what can you do with a used 5D2 and a cheap zoom? Lots!
Dude, really, go somewhere else with your false equivalencies. Nobody is buying it.
Sure, the Olympus only has a meager f/5.6 equivalent aperture, but it is incredibly sharp across the range wide open, which can’t be said about any of the f/5.6 full frame kit zooms.
When I compared the 12-40 Olympus to my Zeiss 24-70 f/4… my experience was that Zeiss is almost twice as sharp in the center but about the same near the edges, and the difference in DOF/brightness is not that big. I’d say the Olympus is a very decent zoom for those who need it.
In terms of rendering and sharpness, I think the 12/2, 20/1.7, 25/1.4 and 45/1.8 primes are better than the zoom. I’m not a huge fan of zooms. They are just a necessity sometimes.
Because your experience is considered the truth.
For me, it is the truth, and I bet others have and will have the same experience. It is your business, if you believe it or not.
Right. So you are projecting your subjective view as objective facts. Not surprising with Olympus fans.
Not sure, what your point is. Blaming people who own Olympus? I always said that what I wrote is my experience. But this experience coincides with the reports from other sources.
Well no that isn’t true. But at the wider focal lengths (12-20) it is true.
I only refer to my samples, and there it is true. However, others have similar experiences. In any case, the 2.8/12-40mm isn’t significantly wires than the 25mm primes. In my case it is better. As such the 2.8/40-150mm could be as well better than the 2.8/150mm. Nowadays, a zoom isn’t necessarily better than a prime. That myth is over.
The 12-40mm is very good, and I rarely remove mine from my GH3.
However, beating another lens may not be feasible, as I’m not sure how durable the lens might be, but my Panasonic 35-100mm does seem that it would crack first, and I’m betting that the 150mm f/2.8 is equally light. 😉
+1. Also for people who already has the 45 and the 75 1.8, it makes sense to take the 150, imho of course
Well, I doubt that Panasonic will expect this to be a huge seller, so probably the GH users will be a big enough target market for them. I agree that it probably won’t be a good option for Olympus users, unless it is considerably better (IQ wise) or cheaper than the upcoming Olympus 40-150/2.8.
But there are plenty of GH owners out there, so I’m sure this lens will do fine. Personally, I’m saving up for the Olympus 40-150/2.8 for my E-M1…
Well, we all thought it was crazy to release an optically inferior and slower 25 for just a bit less than the PL25, so who knows what these guys think
But that Oly 25mm is not inferior…. It has more vignetting, but if corner to corner sharpness is more important than center sharpness (especially at F1.8) than it beats the Pana. You also have to consider that it is much smaller and thus a much nicer fit e.g. for the GM1.
What I want to say is that I think both 25mm have there space in the system. One is more compact and cheaper the other one is brighter and a bit better.
Panasonic didn’t aim very high on micro Four-Thirds, compared to their Four-Thirds version.
That might be true, but that is not exactly the point of the discussion. 😉
If it were F2.0 it would be interresting. Although it is probably cheaper than the coming 40-150mm F2.8 from Olympus.
So it depends on the quality of the latter and the price if this lens would be interresting at all.
The size is probably the same either.
Totally, agree and if sizes and prizes match, than this lens has to be optically significantly better or you will buy for the sake of the OIS.
So the main factors are bulk and price, I guess.
Given that Olympus has a Four-Thirds 150mm f/2.0 lens and the filter size is 82mm vs Olympus’ 35-100mm f/2.0, which has a 77mm filter size, I’d think that the Panasonic 150mm f/2.8 would have a 62mm filter size to go against the 35-100mm f/2.8’s 58mm size.
It seems far too small, but that’s just me.
there must be reason why Pana decided to bring this lens to market even the Oly announced 40-150f/2.8 ….keen to learn them !
Well Oly lens doesn’t have OIS, which is a bummer for Pana user.
At comparable IQ, I would still take the convenience of the zoom over OIS.
My guess is that a 150 2.8 will be substantially less expensive than a 40-150 2.8
dont know what are rumored prices of 40-150 f/2.8 …2000usd/eur ???
if yest than the pana should be 1000eur/usd max …and that I doubt ..and if leica branded …dont want to see the price 😉
I really was hoping they went back and made it a 200/2.8 instead…
Finally .
Although it still F2.8 but with latest sensor tech ( GX7 / GH4 ) , it capable of decent picture quality .
But I still wonder if the lens will be Leica branded optic ?
It appears to be an X branded product, like the 12-35mm and 35-100mm.
Panasonic does not usually prices their lenses right, so it will be $1500+ and everybody (except both diehard Pana fans) will buy Olympus 40-150/2.8 instead.
Or those who invested in GH4 or so and need the 300mm eq. and OIS.
I never found a use for the Olympus 150mm f/2.0. I’ve almost always used zooms, and the 40-150mm f/2.8 zoom looks as though it will work well, even on a GH3.
Dude…there isn’t a single 1500 dollar m43 lens, except the 42.5mm F1.2, and that lens is extremely bright, has OIS, and extremely pleasing characteristics and build quality. That makes it also expensive to make. The cheaper Oly 45mm isn’t nearly as good, and a lot slower. But it’s still a must buy considering the price tag.
Olympus has some extremely expensive 43-rds lenses like the 35-100mm F2.0 or the 150mm F2.0. You can call them overpriced, but still well worth the money if you’ll need it…
“Dude…there isn’t a single 1500 dollar m43 lens”
Not only 42.2, but also 35-100/2.8, and 12-35 is not far away ($1300 MSRP AFAIR). Among other overpriced Panasonics, 45/2.8 macro and 7-14/4 and 8/3.5 are also priced by people completely out of their mind. So 150/2.8 is going to be even more.
1300 is not 1500 and 200usd is not small amount. you can call 7-14 overpriced but I call 9-18 overpriced. Buy your olympus only but please, stop trolling. BTW – 25mm 1.8 – this is overpriced.
Both 7-14 and 9-18 are overpriced. “Among other overpriced Panasonics” does not anything to do with other manufacturers, who, of course, have their own overpriced offerings. But Panasonic even beats Fuji in that regard.
m4/3 needs more weather sealed primes.
Can we get a 2x F4 teleconverter to go with this beast and a tripod foot?
Isn’t 2x F5.6, 1.4x would be F4 wouldn’t it?
You are correct sir, got my multipliers jumbled. Meant 1.4x.
Nice
They have allready a very good 43 Olympus 50-200 2.8-3.5.
Plenty option for advantage over Oly 40-150. In short price, size and weight
Yes!!!
Can’t complain at more choice 🙂
Quite disappointing that m43 still doesn’t have any proper options for bird photography. This lens, even with the imaginary 1.4x teleconverter only equals 420mm. Even the quite affordable Canon 300mm f/4 equals 480mm without tc on crop sensor. Well, still waiting for the Olympus 300mm f/4. That might change the game completely…
Hey TROLL . . . . You gave yourself away when you began niggling and quibbling about M/43 is “proper” for birds. You are completely transparent.
No, not a troll. Actually waiting to be able to finally sell my Canon gear and swith completely to m43, but can’t do that because there are no good choices for birding, yet.
Or am I missing something here?
Em1 and Olympus 4/3 300mm f2.8. They even have tele-converters for it. Or you can wait for the Olympus m4/3 300mm f4
7 grands for a 600/5.6? Muahaha
The speed is more important than the DoF….and f2.8 will allow a whole host of low light options or faster shutter to freeze motion. I know which I’d rather have!
See what I am doing to you geeko?
“bird brain” seems appropriate. “monkey brain” would come down as conceited.
300mm f4 looks very promising but the cost. I can adapt some pretty decent 300mm’s for under 500 bucks easy. I think Oly is going to overcharge like crazy.
In my experience, its really hard to find legacy super telephotos that aren’t riddled with CA, and very difficult to nail the focus (at least on a moving subject). Then again, I haven’t spent $500 on one.
I guess from my point of view, it’s hard to justify such a specific purchase of a huge, heavy, pricy legacy lens that is only going to be a dedicated tripod queen with one use. At least a modern AF telephoto could theoretically be handheld with some sort of image stabilization.
Yep, I’ve tried to find a legacy 135-150mm lens that was sharp and low CA and it just does not exist. The closest is the 135/2 APO Zeiss or the CV 125/2.5 and they are super expensive and no AF . . .
This will be a very welcomed addition to the lens stable.
Since I couldn’t find any legacy glass in the 135 to 150mm range I got the very very good 45-150 Pany which is pretty darned sharp across the frame at 150mm, but it’s only f/5.6 which is a problem at times.
I certainly hope this will be smaller and lighter than the Oly 40-150/2.8.
It’ s’s longer lens, but check out the Nikon 200mm f4 AI-S macro. It’s not too big or heavy and very sharp. Has an integrated lens hood and tripod collar, too.
The Olympus OM 135mm f2.8 is excellent… and pretty inexpensive.
I agree on the CA, but only at wide open. Focus is of course a challenge but most of the time- at least the FF cameras I’ve owned- AF still is enough of a challenge to warrant using focus peaking. You just have to strategize differently. I do all my shots handheld- no problems at all.
It should be about US$1999.99, which considering the price of the Four-Thirds f/2.8 lens, isn’t bad.
For bird photography there are allready existing perfect lenses. Take a Olympus 90-250 F2.8 or a 300mm F 2.8, pus 1.4 or 2.0 Telekonverter. Preferable with a Olympus E-M1 but also other mFT Cams likie a GH3 will work.
Kontrast Detection AF also works better than DSLR phase detection due to less irritations by branches in trees.
Thanks, I’ll have a look at these options, too!
Bird away: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/301933-REG/Olympus_261004_300mm_f_2_8_ED_Lens.html
I imagine this scope must look just as good for still photos as it does for video…
http://vimeo.com/94473266
OUTSTANDING!! Beautiful color and detail and SMOOOOTHE Slo-Mo.
What an awesome Birding Camera is the Panasonic GH4. Even though our forum Troll advised that the GH4 was a FAIL for birding, actually it is simply exquisite. Just shows how wrong a person can be when blinded by hatred and malice.
Thanks for sharing this, Guy.
You do have serious issues Rick Freak.
It’s a nice lo-res video.
It says nothing about still quality, and a long AF lens is useless for tripod-less usage, ie for a lot of still uses.
It says even less about a camera being an “awesome birding camera” or not; it surely shows that someone cannot capitalize 🙂
I agree with you Becky, this video doesn’t reveal much about the camera or lens for use in still photography. I am not a bird photographer but the video looks nice. 🙂
I dont’ know man, I use a Tokina 300mm F4 304 ATX which is pretty damn good. It’s an alpha mount lens, but the Fotodiox adaptor works like a charm. Can’t imagine blowing crazy cash for a new 300mm F4- it would need to be a real optical wonder.
I assume the Panasonic 100-300mm is too slow for your needs? I’m quite happy with the results I get out of it.
Give me a 300mm 1.4 the size of a matchbox.
Excellent news. My m43 prime kit for my GX7 is almost complete with the 8/3.5, 20/1.7, 42.5, 75/1.8, and now the 150/2.8. All I need now is an excellent 10mm prime . . . .
samyang/rokinon F2.8/10mm just hit the market,.but i don’t know about the IQ
unsuscribe
Weather sealed? Aperture ring? Stabilized?
Nope. Nope. Yes.
Doh! Doh! Woo Hoo!!!
It seems like this would be a good (albeit short) nature lens. Why would they skimp on the weather sealing? And the aperture ring being limited to the Leica co-brands is kind of a drag too. C’mon Panny!
The Olympus 40-150 2.8 will be weather sealed. How do the two compare in size and weight? I’ll bet the zoom is plenty sharp.
If Olympus continues with the Pro line as 12-40 f/2.8 was, then everyone can expect 40-150mm be as sharp and awesome by build and controls and it is a must in the bag.
What I wanted to find was 150-300mm Pro zoom instead fixed 300mm. But you can’t have all, can you
Tickbox buyer?
“There was a slight problem with the production of the lens that Panasonic had to solve. That’s why it’s coming a bit later than expected.”
Wow, you have to love those amazing insights!
As it turns out to be a fairy tail story…. An FT4 one though, for what that is worth !