Robert Pothorcki spotted that new Panasonic-Leica 100-400mm MFT prototype lens image (at IFA Berlin). The lens will be announced in Spring and price info is yet unknown. Olympus sold the [shoplink 55638 ebay]ZUIKO 70-300mm (here on eBay)[/shoplink] for around $400. But I am sure the Panasonic will be triple (if not more!) the price of the Zuiko!
This is all the info shared by Panasonic about that lens so far:
Panasonic is developing the first LEICA DG 100-400mm / F4.0-6.3 telephoto zoom lens (35mm camera equivalent: 200-800mm) for the Micro Four Thirds system standard to expand the lineup of DSLM (Digital Single Lens Mirrorless) digital interchangeable lenses.
The LEICA DG lenses are designed and developed under the stringent quality standard certified by Leica that boast excellent optical performance. Four single focal length LEICA DG lenses have already introduced to the market and have been highly acclaimed by users worldwide.
The new telephoto zoom achieves exceptional imaging performance over the entire zoom range. It also features high speed digital signal exchange at 240 fps to comply with the high-speed, high-precision AF (Auto Focus) with DFD (Depth From Defocus) technology on LUMIX G cameras. Together with the POWER O.I.S.(Optical Image Stabilizer), it lets users to focus on the target quickly to capture crisp, clear images. In addition, the new lens is both light and small and is splash/dust-proof to withstand heavy field use. As the new telephoto zoom lens excels in size and weight, it enables handheld 800mm (35mm camera equivalent) telephoto shooting without using a tripod.
112 Responses
Great, I can’t wait it to be finally announced!
Heck yeah!
Length appears to be almost exactly 3 times the diameter of the 25mm f/1.7, that is 60.8mm X 3 = 182.4 mm. Not too bad.
That’s about the size of the Canon 100-400mm L…which is 92mm by 189mm and 1.380g…hoped for a smaller lens…
And the Canon doesn’t have a useless 6.3 aperture
The real world difference between a 5.6 and 6.3 aperture is trivial. If you can’t figure out how to get a picture with 400mm 6.3 that you could get with 400mm 5.6 you have bigger problems than the lens.
The Canon lens is a popular, effective lens and the Panasonic with a modern design will be better.
I know that, but if I feel a 5.6 is already too slow, 6.3 will be only worse.There’s no getting around the fact that faster is better and maybe something like a 150-400 5.6 could have been a better compromise.
Makes sense. I’m sure 5.6 or 6.3 is too slow for some applications. I just don’t see a lot of cases were the difference would matter. They’re basically the same category of lens.
Though Panasonic has a number of advantages like starting with a brand new design and designing for a smaller image circle.
And the Canon is such an old design…it only came out few months ago.
Damn, i always have the impression people don’t use their brain on these forums…
Canon did a recent “update” to an outdated 1998 design. If you think that means it was designed a few months ago you’re free to think whatever you want. I guess facts are whatever somebody online feels like typing.
If you read reviews and tear-downs, it’s not just an “update” but a complete redesign. And of course, development of a lens starts months before it’s released, maybe even years.
So the Panasonic lens probably is almost finished.
My point was that 4-5 months difference between 2 lenses does not make one old and the other new design.
Granted my hands on experience is with the original Canon design. Which is what most people using this lens have. The Panasonic will definitely be considered modern compared to that design. I don’t follow Canon closely now because I sold my Canon gear. It’s possible this is an exception but most lens revisions are closer to updates than new designs.
So another case when someone talks without knowing the facts.
The maybe you can explain the facts instead yapping like an idiot. Tell us the details about what makes this a brand new design.
So typical. I am the idiot and not you who talking bullshit here.
Go to the Canon website and check the optical construction and compare it with the old one. Then read a few of the 10000 reviews who also compare it to the old design.
Then check Roger Cicala’s article who takes the lens to pieces.
You are the classical example of fanboy and Canon basher who has no idea what he is talking about.
This new M43 lens is based on a current 50-200 mm Canon release? Link?
What? Who said that?
you?
Can you quote me where i said that?
Someone here said that Canon’s current 100-400 is an old design and Panasonic’s 100-400 will be a new design.
I pointed out that the new Canon 100-400 has nothing to do with the old version, other than the name and same focal length.
No one said the Panasonic has anything in common with the Canon.
Please, no Canon rumors here! 😉
It’s not me who started the Canon talk. But hate when people can’t take the facts right.
A non-asshole might say something like “Are you aware that Canon did a recent update of the lens that really is a complete redesign?” Then I might say “No. I was speaking based on my experience with the popular version of the lens that most people are familiar with. Thanks for the heads up. I’ll caveat my comment that it only applies to the older design.”
It was trivial part of my overall comment and I would have gladly incorporated the new information. It’s great that Canon has an improved offering in that category. It’s always good to have choices from the various manufacturers.
A non-asshole does not call someone idiot in the first place…
or did you compare old and new Canon designs? I’m totaly confused about this Canon talk…
Just a few facts if you cannot check it yourself:
old 100-400:
17 elements in 14 groups
Push-pull zoom
8 blades aperture
1:5 (0.2x) max magnification
2 stop IS
new 100-400:
21 elements in 16 groups
Internal Zoom
New coatings
9 rounded blades aperture
1:3.2 (0.31x) magnification
4.5 stop IS
How would that make any difference? If f/5.6 is already too slow for a particular use case, your “compromise” will also be too slow. If f/6.3 is useless in your book, than f/5.6 will be as useless. And if it is too slow for your needs, you should probably turn towards faster lenses (or a different system entirely).
Now, if it were f/4 (or even better, 2.8-4.0), that would be a significant difference. It would also make this lens much bigger and much more expensive. And if you really need that, there’s Canon 200-400 f/4 that should autofocus with the newest generation of smart adapters.
The Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS is only $10,999.00 at B&H.
Not to my mind. First of all the Panny 35-100 mm stops at 100 mm….So 100 mm as a starting point makes more sense although I would not be too bothered if thisone was 125 mm from the start. 100 mm F4 or 100 mm f5.6 is a whole stop we lose and it will count beyond that point. 400 mm f6.3 might be restricting certainly with low light where you are really going to push current sensortech to its limits. But the lens is here for many many years, or so we hope, and so with better sensor IQ, better high ISO performance once we can get ISO25600 comparable to ISO6400 now we’ll be fine there too. I know it is many years away but still..We all know there are compromises and since size is an important factor and, again, lenses will last many bodies this is a reasonable choice I think. Specs are only an indicator on one hand, but it all hinges on the IQ. With Leica on the lensbarrel it is reasonable to expect excellent performance. And it is also reasonable to expect a price that is well beyond the €1500 mark.
if difference from 5.6 to 6.3 is negligible, so then difference from 6.3 to 8.0 must be negligible as well….however 400mm f/8 are almost unusable. very strange theorie…
It is flawed logic to lay down a wrong assumption and then draw a conclusion based on it: “so then difference from 6.3 to 8.0 must be negligible as well”.
The “f” numbers deals with ratio of lens diameters. Light gathering is a function of area (i.e. function of the square of the diameter).
So off to the math:
diameter ratio between 5.6 to 6.3 = 6.3/5.6=1.125
This translates to light gathering ratio (inverse) of 1.125^2= 1.266, which means you get 27% less light if you go from 5.6 to 6.3 (slightly less than a 1/3 F stop)
However, the diameter ratio between 6.3 and 8 is 8/6.3= 1.27
This translates to light gathering ratio (inverse) of 1.27^2= 1.613,
which means you get 61% less light if you go from 6.3 to 8. (slighly less than a 2/3 F stop).
Hardly insignificant.
No, it would be the difference between f6.3 and f7.1. Honestly, people don’t seem to understand what 1/3 stops are in this thread.
And 400mm/f8 is nowhere near unusable.
I shoot many wildlife and airshow photos at 300mm in the f9-11 range to get good depth of field.
Oh you’re right it has the unbelievably much faster f5.6 maximum aperture at the long end!!!! Imagine what you can do with that extra 1/3 of a stop! It’s like having night vision compared to the Panaleica lens.
And the best? The canon even has f4.5 instead of f4 at the wide end!
I’m not saying 5.6 is fast, it’s slightly less slow.
It’s the difference between ISO 3200 and 5000, and you know how that story ends…
You mean the difference between ISO 3200 and 4000, right? Which is a trivial difference when your main driver is not low light, but high shutter speeds.
Modern M4/3 cameras do very well at high ISO as long as there is actual light. They suffer when there is very deep shadow (i.e. at night) and shot noise becomes the predominating contributor to noise.
This lens does however have a better (equivalent) reach. For a tele lens not unimportant.
@gube…Well…the Panny is f6.3 at 800mm euquiv. YThee Canon is f5.6 at 600 mm…It could be that the Panny is f5.6 at 300 mm too. I saw a calculation that ideally at that FL it could be f5,2. If this is correct than the Canon will have slightly less DOF (shallower) and needs a tiny bit more light. For some the differences as they are now on paper are insignificant and for others they arent…It is as simple as that.
I saw 300 mm Oly f2.8 shots of a Safari, shot at f6.3 though and to me at least in that situation it gave a very nice DOF, I was a bit surprised that seemingly at quite a distance the DOF was really shallow. Of course bokeh plays a role too and we cannot assess that from the Panny lens. It is safe to think the Oly prime will be (a bit) better when it comes to IQ at 300 mm I think.
canon aps-c is 1.6 crop, not 1.5, so 24 megapixel canon will have same reach as 16 megapixel m43.
That is 20mp vs 24.
I think it will be little less heavy though.
On the other hand, it has substantially larger reach.
400mm vs 400mm is substantially larger reach? 🙂
Compared to the canon lens on a Canon camera…absolutely 🙂
The difference will more likely be diameter….400/5,6 means abarrel of at least 72 mm. 400 mm f6.3 means at least 63 mm. So the Canon is probably somewhat longer and quite a bit wider. But of course it depends on how much Leica is going to build next to the glass…
What’s the unlock and lock ring?
To probably prevent zoom creeping.
Nice feature.
I use big rubber bands for that with my 100-300mm and 14-140mm I.
Agree!
Spring that’s Q2 ? Some people were talking about Q1 (after talking to panasonic guys at IFA Berlin)
Yes I did. Thats what they said at Panasonic.
They may have referred to Japan’s Q1 which is calendar Q2.
Well, one guy also said they would like for it to be out before xmas. In any case its rumours. What we do know (as said before) is that the release is a high priority one. A high profile Panasonic ambassador which runs safaries was the firs to be told back in june after a local visit from Japan.
In the northern hemisphere, spring starts in Q1 and extends into Q2. And in the southern hemisphere, spring starts tomorrow!
Yes 🙂 , but for the northern hemisphere, saying “spring” means “between end Q1 and end Q2”
whereas saying Q1 means “before end Q1”
This is looking great! Just 9 months to go…
UGH! ?
Nice looking lens , worth of Leica branding .
A MUST have lens for a sniper .
Has anyone spotted the Olympus 300mm f/4.0? 🙂
in the olympus skip!
I will be skipping to the store to buy it..(well actually I will probably order one on eBay from Tokyo or Hong Kong). It coming though!!!!!!!
I want it! NOW!!
Why in the world does the m43 manufacturers think we need another slow zoom? Since the biggest issue with the m43 format is high ISO noise and difficulty obtaining thin DOF (compared to APS-C and FF), you would think someone would produce an f/1.8 mid range zoom.
I guess an effective 200-800mm zoom at any speed would be great for sports and wildlife, but there are only 5 zooms in the entire system that are f/2.8, and Olympus makes 3 of them, so they don’t have in lens optical stabilization.
You cannot really make much brighter aperture for 400mm focal length without making the lens HUGE. But i agree…at least 5.6 would have been much better.
you can buy canon’s 200-400/4L and slap speedbooster to it
Because M4/3 is far more likely to appeal to wildlife photographers than sports photographers, and range and portability are trump cards in that field.
I cannot imagine a single soul that would enjoy hiking with a 200-400mm/f4 zoom. Or a 300mm/f2.8.
ISO is not the bugbear it used to be. You don’t need to shoot at base ISO to get lots of detail.
Common setting for my wildlife photos would be 300mm, 1/800s, f/8, and ISO between 800-2500, with gives minimal noise if I’m not shooting literally at dawn or dusk. (And yes, shooting at f/8 or smaller despite having f5.6 available on my lens).
Many of us are not in the slightest bit concerned about f6.3. At this junction in time, there is probably no market for a fast M4/3 telezoom that weighs 3kg and costs $5000+.
You’re making very good points. Everyone wants a fast aperture long telephoto zoom with great optical quality at all apertures and focal lengths. Oh, and they also want it to be small, light, and inexpensive. At this point in history, physics dictates that we can’t have all of these qualities in a single lens, and that compromises will have to be accepted somewhere.
I don’t need to see the moon, just fast enough for indoor portraits.
Most of us don’t live in houses that require 200+mm lenses, 85mm equivalent is just fine indoors or 135 in a large studio. 250+ is more for sports which requires massive tripod lenses to take a shot that’s clear sharp and well lit assuming the field is well lit.
Eh, at f/8 during the magic hour, you’re going to have trouble stopping motion without some pretty high ISOs
Remember also that there are 90-250mm/f2.8 and 300mm/f2.8 lenses that are available on 4/3 and will autofocus using PDAF on the E-M1. Stick a 1.4x TC on there and you have a 126-350mm/f4.
But then you’re back to 3.5kgs and $5000.
It seems to be that people say they’re interested in such lenses, but when push comes to shove they are not. Not at all.
Agreed. But why aren’t they porting these lenses to m43?
Because of Turbofrog’s last sentence?
Because no one bought them for 4/3s, and no one will buy them for M4/3, because they are ultra-professional lenses that cost $5000+ and each weigh 3.25 kg? They might sell a handful of them every year.
They would never offset their R&D and manufacturing costs. Olympus gambled that professionals would buy into the 4/3 system because the optics were so incredible. They didn’t. That gamble failed, and now we have the M4/3 system that is winning people over on size, price, ergonomics…and yes, optics, but compact optics.
400 f/6.3 will deliver pretty darn thin DoF.
This isn’t a slow zoom when looking at the focal range. This is 1/3 stop faster at 100mm and 1/3 stop slower at 400mm compared to the $2200 Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 II L IS USM lens, which is a very popular zoom for sport and wildlife shooters.
Well, calculate the front diameter of your dream lens yourself: Simply divide your real focal length by the f-number. So i.e a 200mm/1.8 has to have 111mm front lens diameter. That’s a lot of glas to pay and carry.
I’d be happy with a 24-105 at f/1.8 and use a tele-converter to get more reach so that gets me closer to a 72mm front element, and I’m fine with that.
I would imagine that to be an amazingly complicated optical formula. A wide through mid tele 4x constant f/1.8 zoom? The front element diameter would be the least of the worry. If that were possible, I’m sure it would be both very, very expensive and potentially poor optically at various points throughout the range. There are reasons that constant aperture zooms are traditionally no more that 3x, and up until the couple more recent f/2 and the sigma 18-35 f/1.8, they’ve all been no faster than f/2.8, so while I’m sure you’d be fine with that in theory, I think your casual wish is more a pipe dream, man.
Pana’s comeback for Olympus PRO lens? Great addition to define M4/3 as the camera system for travel. M4/3 is quite good in image quality already except high ISO. If one really thinks the image quality isn’t good enough, he can always go for Sony FE and its Zeiss lens as long as the weight is affordable.
Now that leaves Fuji in dark… never as light as M4/3, but as heavy as Sony FE, lol. Only fools will choose the awkward system.
Can’t wait to mount it on my GM1! 🙂
It’s better to mount on an Olympus AIR on it, this way everybody will think you are taking pictures with just the lens. The GM1 is just to obvious. 🙂
Genius!
🙂
Then you’ll need a handle on the top of lens – then you pretend it’s a mini-gun as you ‘machine-gun’ your shots.
Perhaps with a bandolier of memory cards and batteries?
Interested, but I’m scared – how much? Will the Oly 1.4x converter work on it? If not, will Panasonic make one? Also, just looks big for m4/3, heavy? Tamron needs to step up and make an affordable super zoom.
TC wouldn’t work on this, nor would anyone use it on a slow zoom like this.
The goal with a lens like this is to deliver excellent sharpness, flexibility, and features, without too much weight or fuss.
I bet Canon sells 50 of their 100-400mm/4.5-5.6L lenses for every 200-400/f4L (with 1.4x TC) they sell.
If you want a lightweight affordable lens, buy the 75-300mm or the 100-300mm that have been on sale for years.
EDIT: Haha, I guessed well. On B&H, the Canon 200-400/f4 has 20 reviews. The 100-400/f4.5-5.6 has 1095. So a 55:1 ratio.
I have the 75-300 and its only OK – want something better and longer. The manual focus ring on the 75-300 is pitiful. I disagree though, there are times (not often) when a 1.4 TC would be handy – I think many would concur.
Wish someone produces one similar to Tokina 300mm f/6.3 in size, but much better IQ:
http://www.kenkotokinausa.com/pictures/L0000067-0003.jpg
Highly unlikely, at least with that kind of lens design. Mirror lenses have horrible bokeh.
Bokeh isn’t a big issue at 300+. Taking a picture that isn’t dark isn’t soft or that is too slow to capture anything to begin with is the problem. If I want bokeh I’ll use a portrait lens.
Right on dv. I would love to have a little mirror lens of quality too. 300mm would do nicely, 400mm would be good too, 500mm would be too long I should think. BUT I must have AF.
Here is something even more beautious….
http://i1-news.softpedia-static.com/images/news2/Olympus-7-14mm-F2-8-PRO-300mm-F4-PRO-Lenses-Coming-in-2015-426231-4.jpg (oh…may have Lens Image Stabilization, too…)
I bet against IS in lens. At 300mm this lens is more open and will (or: has to) provide better IQ.
I read a report that says the Oly 300mm is delayed because the company decided to put IS in the lens. It makes sense for two reasons. IBIS is less effective on a lens that long…(especially with the 1.4x attached), and if the Lens has IS it will be more competitive against the new Panni/Leica 100-400mm Zoom in the marketplace and be more appealing in general to LUMIX camera owners…. Right?
I bet on the second reason 😉
I don’t think it is more “beautious”…I think this lens is in toruble with a 100-400 mm Leica to compete with. It is pretty Obvious the Leica is far more versatile while I think the Oly will have the edge in IQ. At least to me, a 300 mm prime of that size is far to restrictive in use.
For those saying that a 400mm f/6.3 lens is slow, just look at comparable zooms (very few) and even 400mm prime lenses (non mirror)… Considering that it is also a zoom, and presumably a high end optical performer, a 100-400mm, weather sealed, super tele zoom is what the system is missing (if we could say that it is actually missing anything as the lens lineup is pretty solid). The Lumix 100-300 is a great lens for the money, but is slightly soft wide open at 300mm. If this lens out resolves it at, and beyond 300mm, it’s already got a justified place for those needing a super tele of this system.
I, for one, am very excited about this lens, and if going purely by comparison to the only other 100-400mm weather sealed, “pro” optic I can think of being the $2200 Canon f/4.5-5.6 lens, I’d guess we’ll see this lens settle in somewhere between $1800-2000 when launched. I’d love to see it at $1600, but wouldn’t be surprised to see it over $2k either. The Panaleica is 1/3 stop faster than the Canon at 100mm, and 1/3 stop slower at 400mm, so I’d say pretty comparable on paper, and while there will be no shortage of FF fanatics pointing out that at an 800mm equivalent, it provides the DOF of an 800mm f/13 lens on full frame, we can still point to the fact that it provides the same damn DOF as the $2200 canon lens does, regardless of format at like focal length (not equivalent field of view). I’ve shot with the older Canon 100-400, and I normally needed to stop down to f/8 when shooting at 400mm to keep my subjects from skirting out of my plane of focus, so I’ll ignore the DOF equivalent soap boxers seeing as I’d guess most of them haven’t shot extensively with either lens in question.
This is not a lens for shooting nocturnal animals, it’s a super tele zoom geared for action and wildlife in good light as are all comparable super tele zooms.
Much as the Oly 40-150mm f/2.8 seemed to kill Panasonic’s 150mm f/2.8 prime, I’m guessing that this could put a sizable dent in Olympus’ 300mm f/4 prime. I was ready to buy that Oly, but now, as long as this 100-400 performs optically, and isn’t astronomically priced by comparison, I’m going with it, hands down.
agreed – I’m all in IF, as you say, the price isn’t astronomical. I hope they can mange to keep it under 2K. Keeping my fingers crossed.
Well said, agreed all around.
All fair points. The crucial part will be optical quality at the long end. Obviously he Olympus must beat this with the 300mm (+1.4 converter, which will give a 420/f5.6), and both lenses will be safely in the 4-digit range.
Agreed. Assuming the optical performance (for both) is near expectation, if nothing else, it may help force the price of the Oly 300mm down as I’d imagine at similar pricing, most would take a slightly slower zoom with OIS, greater native reach, etc. What that price gap needs to be to really snag buyers from either direction is the challenge for both Pana and Oly sales and marketing teams.
Very nice!!! Hope I don’t have to sell a kidney to afford this lens.
I have an oly 75-300 which is ok iq-wise. The extra 100mm, the so stated ‘exceptional optical performance’, splash n dustproof make this lens an absolute must have imo.
Honestly too slow to be really useful for my practice. I wish so much that it would have F/5.6 at the long end. I would have pay extra $$ and didn’t mind the increase in size as like most of wildlife and sport photographer I have been shooting with a D300 and a 80-400mm ( and also with the BIGma) for so long…
1/3 stop makes that big a difference? Going from ISO 800 to 1000 is enough to be a dealbreaker to you?
A 100-300mm F/4.0 that can take a 1.4x teleconverter would be sooo nice!
I don’t think that Olympus will come out with that kind of lens just after releasing the 300mm and the 40-150mm as their lens development seems to have slow down a bit.
You’d wish for 5.6? Actually you’ll not be able to notice the difference.
What I would really like to see is Sigma or Tamron really getting serious about their mirrorless offer, I guess it will happen the day Canon or Nikon come with something really serious in the mirrorless world…
Cheap but still very good third party AF lenses is really something that m43 need. If we could have native m43 lens like APS-C shooter have ( by exemple the 11-16mm from Tokina and the Sigma 18-35mm) this would mean so much for the system.
Would be nice to see a larger version of the image here so at least the writing on the lens would be legible. Any other links?
Where oh where is the tripod foot?
Under it. Works better than on the top.
😉
Lets give Leica some money to put there name on the lens and hope a lot of people whil buy this over expensive lens for a camera system which is almost at its end because of the high price and low tech/super small sensor
I’d prefer a 200mm f2.8… between 75 1.8 e the upcoming 300f4. Oly or pana makes no difference! is it possible please? and a 7/8/9 f4 prime on the other side! 🙂
i am highly interested im this lens for o e lens fit all high zoom needs.
I cant wait to see how fast that 6.3 aperture starts. At what FL.
The price is what I dread.
Panasonic should have just called the lens f4.0 – 5.6 so that less people would see it as slow.
Nobody would known the difference. LOL!