Egami spotted a new Panasonic patent describing a new Panasonic 12-100 or 12-120mm f/4-5.6 zoom. Very handy to have a low cost zoom with 12mm at the wide and 100-120mm at the tele end. Hope this design gets approved for mass production!
Egami spotted a new Panasonic patent describing a new Panasonic 12-100 or 12-120mm f/4-5.6 zoom. Very handy to have a low cost zoom with 12mm at the wide and 100-120mm at the tele end. Hope this design gets approved for mass production!
*Please also check your spam folder if you don't get the confirmation mail. And mark the mail as "non-spam" to see the future newsletter.
66 Responses
if there’s a lens maker who dare to make 12-70 f1.8 or an F.2 constant aperture, .[equivalent 24-140] with excellent IQ ;is gonna be one multi purpose lens,.specially for wedding , even though is big,.,.i would no hesitate to buy even for $3000
You can get a Nikon D610 with 24-120/4. 12-70 on m4/3 likely won’t be any lighter or smaller.
Exactly,
An f4 zoom with a good range is apparently easier to do than a f2 4/3 lens of the same range. Just look at both 4/3 f2 zooms and it shows. Even a little bigger than FF, though smaller zoom range. Same for Sigma f1.8 zoom. Big aperture, equivalent to about 2.8 on FF, but not much range and not really small either.
The point is: if you want m43 f2 equivalent shallow DOF on you zoom lenses, go FF and you’ll be better served. As for low light, with FF at f4, use ISO 2 stops higher than on your m43 at f2, and at least on Nikon SLR, you’ll get about the same noise (given same IS performance, which is mostly accurate since most modern SLR zooms are stabilised).
As for constant superzoom lenses, you usually only get that on smaller sensors. Sony RX10 is a milestone there, with its one inch type sensor f2.8 24mm-200mm equivalent. Not even close to what you are asking for anyway.
Tell me, where do you find F2 zooms for 35mmFF. The only zooms with lower than F2.8 is the Sigma F1.8! The rest is 43!!!!!
Also what F2.8 35mmFF zoom has better reach than the 43 F2 zooms?
I guess some are still sleeping.
just to add the sigma f1.8 zoom is for APS-C, so there’s still no zooms for the FFF
just to add the sigma f1.8 zoom is for APS-C, so there’s still no zooms brighter then f2.8 for our FFF
f/4 ? it’s not light… (DOF is better on FF, blabla). I do not use m43 for only DOF.
Ok, if there was a zoom on m43 like as you said (nikon 24-120/4). On MFT, it will be 12-60/2.
The fact, f/2 is lighter, you do not need to increase ISO sensibility.
Exemple:
ISO 800 f/2 in low light with an MFT body. You will need to increase ISO 3200 on a FF body that will decrease image quality.
Stupig and Kiki,
You both have it wrong, the “AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR”, which, I believe, you both refer to will still be a 24-120mm lens on a 4/3 u4/3body, it will just become the equivalent of a 48-240mm zoom on 35mm body.
It’s FF right? 24-120mm on FF divise by 2 = 12-60mm
And the toting trolley option is only $999.90 and the $2499 motorised version is a steal at that price. It includes a tow bar ball attachment free of charge.
get out of that lazy zoom chair,and pick a 12,45 and 75 mm set instead I would say,
And he would save some money too!
Sorry, but there are people who can not change lenses all of the time, hence the wish for a fast zoom. But I agree it needs to be a good one …
I would ask “Why are you unable to change lens when required?”, it’s not a particularly difficult task unless you don’t carry them with you or are in a difficult situation, only times I find it difficult is if I’m holding the camera and not having it slung around my neck or on a wrist strap. Other than that, take a look at the 12-40mm Oly PRO zoom, if that will cover the range you require then bingo, just have the 75mm for those other times.
Holiday beach full of sand comes to mind. And if you want to take a photo of that huge passing boat you can’t really zoom in by getting closer. By the time you change lenses the picture is gone. Stupid example I know but it illustrates the point. You don’t always expect to take a photo and you don’t always have freedom in choosing your location. What’s the point in having a super-sharp and whatnot photo once the moment is gone?
Because being always ready is part of the job. I try always to be ready, just in case, and if I miss a shot, well, it was written 😉 (and next time I’ll pay more attention)
Well, yeah, but even being ready doesn’t solve the real problem because you can only be ready with one lens at a time, unless you have multiple bodies 🙂 This is why I don’t fall into the “superzooms are evil” camp – I’d rather take an actual photo rather than just walk with a potential for a great photo. But admittedly, this applies mainly to travel and spontaneous/unexpected action.
And hence I way too often go around carrying 2 cameras, one with a reasonable zoom (either faster but less range (12-35 or 4/3 14-54), or slower but more range (14-150), depending on where I’m going) and one with a set of 3 or 4 prime lenses (14, 25, 45 and optionally 75)
Have to admit I agree with you on the holiday point but then I would not have my system camera with me under such circumstances, just a bridge camera which serves me well enough for such occasions. As regards the question of a boat, if it’s that big it wouldn’t be travelling that fast and you would see it with more than enough time to change lens, only other option I see is a second body but will accept not everyone has that luxury.
I admit my comment is not for those occassions, as a model photographer i can actually do with just one FL chosen and zoom with my feet. I did work with 2 lenses at most, but i can imagine this takes some effort, if you need to change many times.But if i had to choose between zoom or a few primes, I would always go for fastest option available.
“as a model photographer i can actually do with just one FL chosen and zoom with my feet”
I’m not at all going to imagine I can tell you what works and what doesn’t work for you, and since I am familiar with your photography, you have enough to show that your approach does work for you.
But I’m sure you remember the discussion from some time ago about how perspective compression depend on working distance (as opposed to focal length). For quite a few model photographers this means they’ll pick their working distance based on the perspective they desire, and then pick a focal length that gets them the desired framing at that working distance. For them, zooming by feet really wouldn’t work at all. Not saying they need zoom lenses tho, as often they still quite have the time to swap lenses, or cameras (with different primes mounted) when time is at a premium.
ehhm there migth be some truth in what you say, but i can only speak for myself, in that i never choose my working distance based on the desired perspective i want, it is simply dependent on the wish for closeup,half body or fulll figure.Though I got some interesting info about the theory and practical samples of perspecitve in a photo, I prefer not rely on them 100% as weird as that may sound 🙂
Doesn’t sound weird at all, in the end photography is about getting the results you like, the underlying theory is a useful tool for that, but so are a good eye and imagination.
Nikon 24-120 f/4 is a 12-60 f/2 equivalent on micro four thirds. Micro four thirds only really shines with fast primes. I never got the point of putting a zoom lens on micro four thirds.
Fast zoom in a mirror less package: I’m getting the Sony A7 with Zeiss 24-70 f/4. That’s 12-35 f/2 equivalent on micro four thirds and not that expensive.
1200 usd for a f/4 zoom is not expensive?…..i guess the zeiss label makes it cheap 🙂 Only with stellar performance i would consider a big f/2 zoom for m43 (like the zd 35-100 is for 4/3, great zoomlens)
Take a look at the 100-400L with f/4 constant aperture (so not the more affordable 4-5.6 version)..
1200 can be very expensive, or really cheap for a f/4 lens, depending on the exact range and quality.
if the 100-400L f/4 cost 1200 then i would consider it a fair price considering the L designation and the tele focal range/constant aperture. Ihave no idea about the build qualities of the Sony Zeiss series but a F/4-ish 24-70 sounds less impressive then the Canon telezoom(i have worked in the past with 2 L lenses)
Hmm, actually, thats a 200-400L f/4.0, and from shops in the Netherlands it can be had for a mere 11999,- euro. Yes, thats right, eleven thousand nine hundred ninety nine. For that price it also has a (built-in, so no fiddling) 1.4x teleconverter however.
The ‘regular’ one is actually f/4.5-5.6, and will set you back some 1350-1600 euros depending on how well you shop around, but that one is no longer constant aperture.
No doubt the Zeiss name adds to the price, just like Leica does, but still, 1200 for a well built, compact but high quality ‘full frame’ 24-70/4 doesn’t sound totally outrageous to me. For that money it will have to be all 3 however, well built, compact and high (optical) quality.
Well, if you can get me a FF equivalent kit to match in size and weight my 9-18mm and 14-45mm hiking kit I’d be interested.
It would need to cover ultra wide to small telephoto for landscapes.
Oh that’s right, you can’t.
And that’s why zooms are great on m43.
A G6 with 12-35 might just have a bit of a size and weight advantage, and is actually cheaper then the a7 body.
Seeing the point of such things usually means letting go of your preconceptions.
They don’t have to go for such high zoom factor. All they need is a 24-50MM f2.8 with good optics, good color saturation, and a serious lack of bulk or weight. That’s what people want. If they could do a 24-50mm f2, it’s even better. What people want quality optics + light weight. The rest of this megazoom models should be reserved for Sony HX series or Pana FZ series. Everybody knows the lack of quality at the telephoto end….sucks!
oh, so you know what people want?
great for you.
so if I don’t want what you described, where does that leave me?
You want megazoom, but a megazoom. Interchangeable lens is obviously for people who want more – quality – form their gear. Most megazooms are useless beyond 50mm anyway. I have a Sony megazoom myself. Its AF is poor beyond 600mm. Its color reproduction deteriorates fast beyond 200mm. But it is fun to have for family shoot and general walk around gear. For serious stuff, the megazoom is only good up to 80mm or so. Have a coffee, it will perk you up. Life is not so bad you know
Hasn’t panasonic churned out enough kit lenses
What makes you think such a lens could be “low-cost”? These two designs both are at least as complex as that of the existing 14-140/14-150 lenses.
We don’t need another F4-5.6 kit zoom, especially from Panasonic. where’s the constant F4 enthusiast zoom to step down nicely from the F2.8 pro zooms?
+1000
…zooms are currently available either fast/expensive f/2.8 or rather kit zooms f//4-5.6 …even some kit zooms are pretty expensive eg 14-140
I would say for enthusiastics (not pro) would be nice to have 12-35/ 35-100 both with variable apperture 2.8-4 and a better finish then kit…so you gain some extra ligth agains kit zoom on wide&tele end…
either this or make a nice bundle kits of 2.8 zooms with oly/pany top models
till then primes are what makes m43 nice format
Indeed, i really don’t get Panasonic’s politics with lenses. They are just proposing more and more alternative cheap zooms (that won’t be that cheap) and let enthusiasts and pros behind with just 3 pro lenses (whose 2 zooms & the coming 42.5).
14-42II, 14-140II and 12-32 are enough, and fast prime lenses are still missing!
I consider the 7-14/4 a pro lens.
It misses only a better lens coating: that purple lens flare can be annoying when you can’t control lights! Yesterday I had a photo shooting in an old Venetian palace: there were a lot of ancient lamps and lights all around the halls and the flares were a pain to remove in PP.
MZuiko12mm had no problem at all, but most of the shots were taken at 7mm to include the gospel choir.
with price tag 1000$ is pro!
I’d rather have something with more reach, like 15-200mm. I always feel a bit constrained with my Oly 14-150mm.
If these zooms could provide a good image quality in a reasonable compact housing, they are the missing piece in the m43 line up. I love the 24mm wide angle, but the 12mm m43 zooms are only 12-32, 12-35 or 12-50 (the latter beeing rather big already). I have a 16-80 Zeiss on my Sony, which gives me a nice range with good image quality. If the 12-100 can hold on to that, it would be a clear win.
Where do you get the idea that the 12-50mm is a big lens from? it’s a small lens by any ones standards and you forgot the 12-40mm PRO zoom, which is every bit as good as everything else, excepting the very best couple of primes, size slightly bigger than the Oly 75mm and well worth wearing on your u4/3 body.
I think there are plenty of zooms covering the 12mm
7-14 pana
8-17 oly
12-32 pana
12-35 pana
12-40 oly
12-50 oly
And one 12mm oly prime…
I’m not into super zooms – but I see that this I is the only zoom format missing a 12 mm start. This is no coincidence, it’s much more complex to design a compromise in picture a quality when starting wide.
that’s one of the reasons why the FT 12-60 mm was such a success.
I would prefer faster zooms, with a limited range, but reasonable priced. a 17-35/f2-2.8 anyone? or a portrait zoom 60-120/f2.8-4 ?
Both should be possible small sized, good quality & reasonable priced… BUT they’re not spectacular enough for marketing & Walmart camera shoppers 😉
So here we go- stuck between consumer superzooms, expensive pro zooms and a wide range of primes.
I’m happy with my primes 😀
The 8-17mm is only a patent and it is from Konica not Olympus, the Oly’wide zoom is a 9-18mm which is/was produced in both u4/3 and 4/3 mount.
I would like to see this become a higher end, weather sealed 1:10 zoom lens.
Im still waiting for a 25mm pancake without banding issues like the 20mm pancake from panasonic.
It will maybe happen because Panasonic have to think about 50mm FF range for the GM1 because PL25 is huge for (but i have it on my GF1 and that’s a marvellous lens).
When will Olympus or Panasonic or some third party manufacturer realise the big potential for portable teleprimes or zooms with amazing range. Now we only have some crappy and slow lenses reaching 300. What about a sharp 300 mm f4 or a 100-400 mm f4-5.6? Of course they would be big by four third standards but still so much smaller than the equivalent FF or APS-C versions.
Probably because quality means expensive, and most m43 users will complain about the price. Size, image quality, price: pick two of these, the third will be a cons.
Hi Marco, Have you got the 12-40mm PRO yet, I’ve only had limited use with it so far but it looks very good indeed.
Hi Geoff! No, I got my Em1 without lens (it was the 12-40mm bundle) and the seller kept it at the shop.
I have always 12mm -17mm – 25mm – 45mm and 60 or 75mm in my bag, so I cover all my needs, but I’m tempted by that zoom, it looks really nice. I need to carefully plan where I spend money in this period: I don’t need it so I can wait! 🙂
Unrelated to this post specifically but could someone help me.
I am a frequent visitor here and I remember in the last few months there were 2 stories posted here of blogs that tells a story of photographers that switched from full frame to the omd.
I remember one was from a female photographer and the other was from a canon user.
Both were good reads but I can’t seem to find it anymore. Could anyone help? Many thanks.
I just have a few full frame friends about to make a switch I want to point them to those articles.
http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/full-frame-v-micro-four-thirds/
Panasonic did upgrade 14-140 with a second version with f/3.5 at 14mm.
Why Panasonic should plan a new 12-120 less lighter?
I always said before the 14-140 was not too wide and 12mm was great for holidays pictures (great for landscape, urban, etc..).
Maybe Panasonic plan this 12-120/4 for the new GM1 after 15/1.7, 12-32/3.5, 35-100/3.5. Which does mean small versatile télézoom. I hope so.
Agree 100% this lens is designed for the GM1. Note that the longer reach 12-120 appears to have smaller lens elements than the 12-100mm at least in the patent sketches but the latter may be shorter length? This travel zoom down to 12mm should be very popular for any m43 camera model as there already are plenty of 10x zooms starting at 14mm and most people want wider coverage like they had with their P&S with smaller sensor. Pany says they expect most users of GM1 will only use the kit lens or maybe this lens when it becomes available as the only lens they need.
Wow, more bad lenses for the focal lengths that are already covered.
Why not get the FZ200, IQ is not any worse than that of GX7.
Did you just come out from your cave today?
At least these Panasonic zooms start at 12mm, a welcome change.
f4 is indeed a little slow but there are kitlenses that are f3,5 wide open, though go REALY dark(f5.6)after zooming a litte.I hope these zooms are f5.6 at the tele end rather than at 50% of the zoom range.
No one cares.
This is good news. I was planning on buying the new 14-140, but might wait a year to get the 12-100mm.
I have an analog film background, and take IQ of lenses for digital for granted nowadays. You can’t really see with which camera/lens combination a pic was taken if you don’t know beforehand.
The f4 doesn’t bother me at all, we now have way higer ISO as in the analog days and we have IS.
The 100mm tele end is good enough for me, I usually do not go beyond 75mm anyway, and the 12mm end is much more important to me.
I would like them to design this with less barrel distortion however. That distortion seems to be a 4/3 specific quirk.
Possibly these are designed to be GM1-friendly, i.e. to have a barrel diameter that is the same as the 12-32 and the (not yet released) 35-100 for GM1.
I’m tired of slow zooms on M4/3. I want a 14-150 f1.8-2.8. Impossible? Super huge lens? But…wait a moment…
…isn’t it the equivalent of FF 28-300 f3.5-5.6? Yes! Therefore it should be perfectly possible to make a M4/3 14-150 f1.8-2.8. That lens would be the only one many users would ever need. Well, even 12-120 f1.8-2.8 would be fantastic.
so a hypothetic lens should be perfectly possible to construct, since another, totally different lens exists that just happens to have corresponding 35mm equivalent FL and dof? Dream on.
Make it weather sealed and relative high grade and i am going to sell my 12-60 and switch to m43 would be Nice travel zoom.