Personal-View (Click here) posted the image of the new Panasonic X lens prototypes and found you can clearly see how the lenses have a constant aperture of f/2.8 and a 58mm filter size.
As I told you weeks ago the lenses will be announced in early February. But I guess those are the final specs. What’s missing is the price info. Previous rumors said the lenses should cost somewhere in between $1200-$1500.
I really wish Olympus will one day make a m43 version of their [shoplink 25320 ebay]14-35mm f/2.0[/shoplink] and the [shoplink 25119 ebay]35-100mm f/2.0[/shoplink] Zuiko lenses.
212 Responses
It says a maximum aperture of 2.8 – it doesn’t say a constant aperture of 2.8 anywhere.
EDIT: actually, looking at the top of the lenses, it does indeed looks as though they are constant F2.8. Excellent!
look at the lenses themselves
Why the concept labels at the back ?
Side photos here :
http://www.photographyblog.com/news/panasonic_12-35mm_and_35-100mm_lenses/
Based on the photos, the 12-35mm is about 70mm long (if it is 58mm wide).
Actually smaller than the Olympus 12-50mm (d=57mm l=83mm)
That’s quite decent, I was afraid it would be more.
The 35-100 looks to be about 90mm long?
Panasonic’s newly announced consumer camcorders X900, X800 etc now come with focus assist (focus peaking) http://panasonic.net/avc/camcorder/hd/x900_series/feature3.html scroll down for picture other functions include brightness level, zebra pattern and time lapse 😀 maybe all coming to the GH3????
The extendable electronic viewfinder might be an idea for those people who’s noses get in the way lol
*LCD resolution increased to 1.2 megapixels*
I hope your right! cant wait to see the GH3 speks!
The new zoom lenses have the O.I.S toggle switch and do not have a power zoom. After all of the IS problems with the other x lenses I want to be able to turn it on and off from the lens.
I think this picture shows that the switch is for O.I.S on and off and not for zooming.
http://www.photographyblog.com/images/uploads_news/panasonic_ces_2012_photos_01.jpg
Yes, I agree. It looks like they have zoom rings, and OIS power switch.
However, the zoom _could_ be motorized, with zoom by wire, like the Lumix G X 45-175mm lens.
“However, the zoom _could_ be motorized, with zoom by wire,”
there is focal length scale printed so it is unlikely no ?
If those are 2.8 lens then it will mark the beginning of the end of the CSC market. I can almost hear Nikon and Canon laughing on their beds of made of money. canikon must be thinking, first, you guys make COMPACT cameras, then you build and stick big fat 2.8 lenses on them, then you will have to make bigger cameras with big grips to support big lenses…then you get what people had all along..dslr’s.
When ppl talk about how only amateurs use CSC’s..i really believe them now. There’s no way a pro would carry around big fat 2.8 zooms on those small bodies. The whole point of a CSC is that it’s COMPACT. It’s not compact anymore when you stick 2.8 zooms on it , is it? why would anyone want to pay 1400 for body with EVF and then another 2 grand 2.8 lens when you can do the same with a dlsr for the same price..and you get an OVF too! So the body is a little more compact..big deal. It wont be compact anymore once you stick big sausage zooms on it.
12-35/2.8 sounds very good (assuming the above-the-average quality)
sign me up for the 35-100 f2.8, it’s the only lens I miss in my camera bag.
Is anyone able to read (or guess) the minimum focus distance of the 35-100mm? My guess is 2 ft, but it’s hard to tell from the images.
I think it says 2.8ft for the 35-100 and 0.82ft for the 12-35.
Thanks, Steve.
That would be 0.85 m and 0.25 m, sounds quite OK.
Let’s see about the final specs, but those lenses look really nice.
My goodness, those are about 1/8 of the size of the big, fat Canon & Nikon f/2.8 zooms! And it looks like they’ve been optimized for video use too!
My goodness, things are moving along quite nicely on the micro 4/3 front! Great job Panasonic!
My excitement for the new Fuji camera has cooled considerably, since Fuji doesn’t really care about video implementation on their “Pro” camera, and NEX doesn’t have anything that can touch these two bad boys.
Now I need to find a way to buy that new Olympus weather-sealed camera, and these two lenses. Might have to get another job. 🙂
– Olympius
I agree, these are the lenses that lift m43 to a new level.
But I’m also eagerly waiting for the “line of new products“ that Oly is supposed to announce together with their new “PRO level camera”.
Personally, I would prefer to have 14-50mm and 50-150mm high grade zooms, even if they are 2.8-3.5 only. Maybe Oly will offer something along these lines.
In any case, it’s only 4 weeks until we know how a high grade m43 camera system will look like. Exciting times!
sign me up for the 50-150! although I really liked the 50-200, good reach, good speed, good price
Size looks like the FT 14-42 (same filter thread, similar proportions). This would be a dream – but with 2.8 it should be below 1000$…
Very true on the size comparison; however, thanks to the larger APS-C sensors, from a DOF control point of view to equal the look we will get from these lenses all Canon/Nikon/Sony/Fuji/Pentax have to do is make an f/4 zoom (APS-C sensors also can account for the extra stop of ISO you gain by using f/2.8 instead of f/4). Fast zooms like this are one of the hidden costs of the 4/3’s and m4/3’s system IMO. In order to get the look we’re used to getting from from larger sensors we have to buy really expensive f/2 and f/2.8 glass.
Your’re right in principle, but allow me some nitpicking, please: For an APS-C sensor you need f3.5, not f4, to match the performance that f2.8 delivers on m4/3. The APS-C sensor is only about 65% larger than 4/3, not twice as large.
Would you people make the same silly comments if APS-C would have an aspect ratio of 16:9? Because I like to shoot 4:3. On 3:2 I tend to crop a lot. So much for that bigger sensor – just a big waste of pixels on both sides. That’s why you should only care about *photosite density* anyway. Here’s something else of interest from the world of practical reality:
My 16mp G3 Does Not Need A Lens That Is One Stop Faster Than A Modern APS-C Sensor To Achieve Similar Image Quality.
No point in arguing, it is the plain truth. Leading review sites have come to the same conclusion: the gap between m43 and APS-C is closed (or almost closed). Simplistic sensor size comparisons do not apply.
Perhaps the aperture comparison is in reference to DOF rather than “image quality” whatever that vagueness means.
I’m a bit disappointed. A cheap 3.5-5.6 kit zoom on a FF sensor has better DOF than these lenses have. Of course, they must be sharper and better built, but still…
then use a FF. it will be hard to find a more compact system like this. use what suits best for you.
So what’s (Better DOF)? More or less of it?
The possibility to have less DOF is better, as usually you can always have more my decreasing aperture…
> you can always have more my decreasing aperture…
Which again means loosing lot from sensitivity advantage of bigger sensor leading to hauling big optics for no advantage.
Every single camera system is compromise and shallower DOF is better only if you need it!
Well, I can definately understand how some photographers would want more control over DoF, but then some might find less DoF on a fast lens an advantage. Some reporters I can see would prefer to keep more subjects in focus in the dark for example.
Sure, on FF with lower noise you can always turn up the ISO whilst keeping the aparture small, no argument there. But still, leses control over is not fatal for all photographers, just some.
Most people cannot afford full frame. Then again, most people cannot afford these lenses either.
Bingo. If i could justify $1500 for an f/2.8 lens, I could justify getting a full frame camera. Native MFT lenses are for people with more money than brains.
Take a 5DmkII with 24-70 f/2.8 and take the upcoming GH3 (I think we can guess what it will be like) with the 12-35 f/2.8. Can we compare the two? I don’t know…
You mean less DOF, not better. As far as I’m concerned, more DOF is better.
edit.
What kit lens are you talking about on FF ? I think the lens expensive lens that cover a FF sensor is 24-105 f4 ? It’s huge compare to these zooms and ok it’s like f2 on m43.
You know there is a french proverb: you can’t have butter and butter money…
Complaining about abundance of DOF on an m43 sensor as opposed to an FF sensor is pathetic. If you want that little DOF, I suggest you get a bigger sensor.
What aperture rating do you want? F2? That would have made these lenses so much bigger, and you would complain about size and inability to match F2.8 zooms on FF. Either accept the necessary compromises of the m43 sensor and be happy that Panasonic are bringing some interesting lenses to the table or trade up to a system that suits your needs better.
Negative!
If you want that little DOF even on m43, use prime lenses.
You simply won’t need shallower DOF than the extremely cheap and outstanding quality 1.8/45 Oly would offer, believe me!
Or, if not, you still can buy the legacy Auto Revuenon 1.2/55 for that price. But pay attention, getting the right focus is extremely difficult using such big aperture!
Disagree. That 1.8 would have been much more suitable as 1.4 or 1.2.
And for most consumers the 45mm is not cheap, especially when compared to a 50mm 1.8 by Canon or Nikon. I’m sure the reason Olympus made it 45 instead of 50 is because they wanted to try and head off what is an obvious comparison.
Really?
They made it 45mm because it would be too much of obvious comparison to 50mm? Seriously?
Have you not ever had 85mm f/1.8 before? Do you know how much it is?
Do you also not see how small 45mm f/1.8 is? Also how it was specially designed to work with video capture as well? And how silently it operates? Does your 50mm 1.8 can do that? At that size?
Yes, it is cheap. It is a cheap, very well made, high quality optics lens.
Tell me how much larger that 50/1.8 from Canikon is than the Oly 45/1.8, too.
And if you’ve ever shaken/rattled a Canon EF50 f1.8 II you’ll discover why it’s so cheap! It feels more suited to fitting on to a fisher price camera than a DSLR (no offence fisher price…). I for one will certainly be buying the 45/1.8 in the next few days.
I switched from 5D2…
I see that f/2.8 is probably the best compromise of size and brightness, but in reality it’s none of them. It’s a compromise. Neither small nor bright. I would prefer a high quality f/4 for it size and an f/2 for its wide aperture.
But it’s only me, you can have different needs.
I want exactly the same. I shoot travelphotos – landscapes, mountains, nature, cities… and I dont need extra low aperture but prefer high quality. I would love to have an equivalent of very successful Canon 17-40 L F4 for price up to 800 USD. As the Canon version sells like hotcakes for the price/quality ratio, Im pretty sure something like this would be successful in m43 version too.
And than add F2 pancakes, zoom and you are set…
Isn’t the new 12-35mm/2.8 the exact equivalent of your Canon 17-40mm/4.0? Same fov & dof. Regarding the price – we will see
Actually no. An equivalent lens for the Canon APS-C
sensor (1.6 crop) would be 15-44mm f/3.3 (or rather between 3.3-3.4)
you are wrong equivalent lens for m43 would be 13-32/3.2 which a very close to 12-35/2.8 – you always can use slower aperture
It’s a misunderstanding. I mean: The Canon APSC equivalent of the m43 12-35 f/2.8 would be 15-44mm f/3.3.
Just because someone would like more control over DOF does not make them pathetic. No need for that kind of rudeness.
Well, you were sounding a bit like you didn’t have a clue, I have to admit.
> A cheap 3.5-5.6 kit zoom on a FF sensor has better DOF than these lenses have. Of course, they must be sharper and better built..
Not only sharper and better built, but also very probably SMALLER. A BIG plus if you ask me…
Conngrats on your prediction! You were right, lenses are F2.8. They’ve sacrificed the aperture for quality, I hope.
I hope so too 😉
exactly, then they won’t weight 2kilograms like the lenses on fullframe and they will fit a small bag – not a boot of your lorry. Plus, F2.8 is almost 2 stop faster than F4.
remember, F2.8 is F2.8 no matter what (even on compact), usable at night with OIS built in! Now – you get better (overrated) DOF on FX but you just missed the two best lenses of the year 2012 for _any_ system.
Panasonic just nailed it, portable, leightweight, fast with optical stabilization with 200mm telephotoend (unlike some short zooms on Fuji/Sony/Samsung systems) which is sufficient for everything except wildlife – This is the king lens. The only one I was missing, now my gigs will get a different meaning to a picture, can finaly stop paying for expensive front row tickets 😉
P.S. the DOF is more shallow with an increased focal length – so there should be quite a nice bokeh on 150-200mm end when focused on close subjects with F2.8 even with m43 sized sensor (2x crop)…
“Plus, F2.8 is almost 2 stop faster than F4.”
Are you serious? 😀
yes I am ;)))
1 == 2 for sufficient large values of 1 😛
F/2.8 is approximately one stop faster than f/4; one stop faster is found by dividing by 1.4.
Now you are being ridiculous. Just accept once and for all that this is the trade off of the system. It’s not only sharper and better built than a cheap 3.5-5.6 kit zoom on FF sensor, IT IS 2 TO 3 STOPS FASTER FOR FUCK SAKE!!!
Edit: this was an answer to Miklos Rabbi, don’t know how it got there… 😛
Sure, but are there cheap 3.5-5.6 kit zooms that work on FF and start at 24mm?
I don’t remember it being the case.
looks just about the size of the 4/3 kit zoom? that’s pretty impressive.
Another disappointment ! Can’t Panasonic realize F2.8 is not for MFT ? It’s hard to have good photos in low light condition due to disadvantage of MFT sensor . It’s more for APS-Cmos type cameras . Unless Panasonic already established a new sensor capable of APS-C to mount such lenses otherwise I don’t see exceptional low light imaging come from current MFT cameras .
Although I desperate for a zoom lens but this will not make me rush for it . F2.8 not good enough !
I think you have to realise that m43 isn’t the king of low light, and it will never be. Small size and little weight are crucial for m43. Faster zoom lenses, say f2, would be too big and heavy to make sense on a compact camera.
If you need better low light capabilities your only choice are fast primes on m43, or a different (i.e. bigger and heavier) camera system with a larger sensor.
U
S
E
P
R
I
M
E
L
E
N
S
E
S
!
I agree that if you want to get the most out of micro four thirds you need to use primes. The only thing is, there needs to be a few more primes, and fast ones at that. No f2.8 primes- those are ridiculous.
Where are all these F2.8 primes you speak of? By my count, the only F2.8 primes are the Oly 17mm (which is essentially a kit lens) and the Leica 45mm Macro/OIS lens.
Oly 12mm is F2, Panny 14mm is F2.5, Panny 20mm is F1.7, Leica 25mm is F1.4, and Oly 45mm is F1.8.
The guy is just rambling, completely clueless.
Right. Unless you want the versatility of a zoom, . In which case you are stuck with a slower max aperture.
F2 will just make these lenses bigger and more unwieldy and then you’ll complain as well. I’m sure the next gen of sensors will provide enough sensitivity that f2 zooms will be a luxurious afterthought.
I shoot 3600 ISO with GX1 at night and I’m quite alright for my prints (F2.5).
Now, this have OIS built in so I will be able to use lower ISO1600 – which will be fine even to A3 format. whoooa!!!
don’t know what he is talking about… the only lens I could be more excited about would be Pana 20mm MKII – otherwise this is the super-deal.
+1000
f2.8 hits a sweet spot, not perfection, but a good balance between low light, portability and price. And we all know, no matter what, the complainers will cry… 😉
For better low light performance the best option is to shoot with fast prime lenses.
The fact that these lenses will be constant f2.8 is brilliant. If these were f4.0, just imagine the howls! Look at the Olympus 12-50mm at f3.5-6.3, folks were real damn impressed by that, right?
Right for my needs for sure. I always carry fast primes, same as when carrying my HUGE 24-70L for FF Canon system. I’m more than happy to accept the compromises with m4/3.
Diane
I just have to chime in here: these zooms seem to be the perfect trade-off! A lovely pair indeed.
And here’s the best part: Olympus might introduce something similar in the not too distant future. A weather-sealed 14-50 f/2 maybe. Much better to have overlap in the high-end zoom offerings than the kit lens domain, I say.
Yun: shop gear for what they can do, not what they can’t.
Put aside their questionable low light use without debate (I won’t get into that, however I do believe it has more to do with Nikon’s superiority, rather than 43’s so called natural inferiority). Simply think of what you can do with those lenses.
If you honestly cannot find any uses, there is the old adage that being right can be a very solitary position…
That said, and forgive me the excess of double quotes, you may “personally” need low light capability, this is very fine. “your” needs are not “the” needs/purpose of m43. It just doesn’t mean that 2.8/zooms are not for M43.
f2.8 is alright for night.
Hell, it is not F5.6! 14mm F2.5 is the fastest night autofocus lens one can use on m43.
It works @night just fine, increased ISO though. Not a problem with GX1 @ 3600 though.
He wants a pro results? Well, there’s a M9 for him – I am just glad I replaced my G12 which was dissaster (max 400 iso) at night and unusable – now I am – well, like 10 thousand times better 😉
“14mm F2.5 is the fastest night autofocus lens one can use on m43”
Not sure I follow? What about the Leica 25/1.4, Lumix 20/1.7, Olympus 45/1.8, & Olympus 12/2? Aren’t those fast autofocus lenses?
they are definitely fast lenses (no question about that) but the word was _autofocus_
for example, F2.5 focuses 2-5-10 times faster than F1.7 @night if the F1.7 even get the focus right or if at all (check m43 forums
the point is, I am happy with the F2.8, great size, weight, OIS, fast autofocus (I’m sure about this) – one great set of lenses…
f2.8 sure is! At least for urban life and then GH2’s max ISO is usable with a good enough exposition. Maybe not for exhibition quality prints or crossed-arm pixel peepers. But for the worth of such kit, the performance is very respectable. In fact, we are talking about a low light image quality impossible to have not so long ago: forget about film era nor about the early digitals. Canikon’s high ISO revolution is not that old.
When drooling at the best of the best or at the novelties, people will never learn to desire what they already have. How good is good enough for forum crawlers not outperforming their own kit?
One last word about APS-C and FF’s so called natural low light superiority: Basta! A few more words actually. I declare that empirical methodology certification should be mandatory before posting any further on the topic: current sample is limited to Panasonic’s sensors used by Panasonic and Olympus. Admin, please post a survey on that one!
Hahaha. You tell ’em, Jules! Bring on the Empirical Methodology Certification!
> It’s hard to have good photos in low light condition due to disadvantage of Panasonic sensor.
FTFY.
“lenses should cost somewhere in between $1200-$1500”
APS-C Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 with OIS is around 350 euros in Germany, so 1200-1500 USD is a ripoff. At 500 euros, I may start to think about 12-50 F2.8.
“I really wish Olympus will one day make a m43 version of their 14-35mm f/2.0”
+1
you contradict yourself here – just recall the price of the Oly’s 14-35/2. It is nowhere near 500 euros
Everything has its price. F2.8 zoom is one thing, F2 another. I’d like to have 12-35 F2 lens, but since it’s not even rumored, I’d give 12-35 F2.8 a try, but not for 1500 USD.
“APS-C Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 with OIS is around 350 euros in Germany, so 1200-1500 USD is a ripoff. At 500 euros, I may start to think about 12-50 F2.8.”
Do you honestly not understand the difference between a cheap Tamron and a high quality lens?
We’ve yet to see the quality of these. If they’re indeed four times more expensive, they have to be flawless.
From the little I know, I understand the cost of lenses increases exponential for every improvement. These lenses are small, constant aperture of f/2.8 and are supposed to be high quality. I expect them to be very good, but not anywhere near flawless. I would guess these lenses to be more nearing the range of the Canon and Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 lenses (I own the Canon).
I want the 12-35mm, and I’ll take the smaller aperture in exchange for the extra 2 mm that the 14mm gives up!
I’d probably sell my 20mm to help pay for this assuming the optics are good.
The Olympus 12 f/2.0 is the perfect example of a lens that seems like it is worth the money, but in reality is way overpriced relative to optical quality. Hopefully, this lens, like the 20mm and 25mm Pana lenses, is worth what you pay for it….
Isn’t the 12-35 smaller than (or at least similar in size to) Oly’s 12-50? Sure, it’s longer, but it’s a lot slower! I’d much prefer these lenses, but are they going to be weather sealed?
Since it has 58mm filter and similar front element to Oly’s 14-150, you could say it has the same diameter and is shorter than it.
…mmh, so nice, but other 4 lenses near to this two zoom?
Any possible portrait prime?
Probably those tele-converters
This kind of lenses together with the new Olympus “OM” : My dream!
2.8/35-100 is interesting if
– no 2.0(or 2.8)/90(or 100) will be introduced
– lightweight enough (<400g)
– price (RRP) is <1000 EUR
optical quality should be very good
As expected! Excellent news for m4/3 owners!
Now let’s see how they perform.
Sweet, I just hope the price will not be too high ! 1000 euro is my psycological limit for a lens…Maybe the end of 14-140 mm f4-5.8 !
I can imagine the prices for these lenses will start where the 7-14mm started, that is rather a bit more than € 1000 🙁
Yes, it’s my fear too…and the 7-14 mm still cost more than 1000 euro two years after the launch…
So, erm, Panasonic made the better bodies, has the better sensors, made the better lenses (and has now covered 7-100mm properly, including a good 25mm normal). What’s left for Olympus, if not nano four thirds? 😀 You read it here first! The XZ-2 will have interchangeable lenses and Oly is abandoning mFT for nFT! 😀 😉
What’s the point of your incendiary post? From the user point of view, it’s great to have BOTH, Panasonic and Olympus as partners and competitors. This makes the micro 4/3 system stronger.
Olympus provided us last year with two good primes, 12mm and 45mm, while Panasonic complemented it nicely with Panasonic-Leica 25mm. Some prefer a certain model of PEN, others (like me) Lumix users, and fortunately we can easily switch between them.
Regarding the presented concept lens, I’m waiting for them (particularly 35-100mm). It’s good that these micro 4/3 are roughly half-size and hopefully half-price of the old Zuiko lenses.
+100000000
It’s called humor.
Panasonic *does* run circles around Olympus, whether you want to admit it or not.
As for size and price, you get what you pay for – these lenses will be nowhere near good enough as the Zuiko 14-35 and 35-100.
Don’t. Feed. The. Troll.
Sorry, I won’t reply to him again.
That Oly 12mm isn’t optically that good especially for the price.
> these micro 4/3 are roughly half-size and hopefully half-price of the old Zuiko lenses.
You know, those f/2 Zuikos have twice the light gathering power of these basically making them fast enough to be considered as multiple primes in one package.
No questions, f/2 Zuikos are excellent lenses, and it’s great that they are still available to buy.
Hopefully, Olympus (or Panasonic) would provide new “Pro-” camera body to match them.
My point, is that some of us, and possibly a large part of the micro 4/3 users, want something in between: better than the basic zoom lenses, but less expensive than the optically perfect, bright SHG or top Leicas lenses.
I do hope that new Panasonic f/2.8 zoom lenses would be good enough to prefer them to the basic lenses.
cool some f5.6 lenses at a premium, goodnight
Buy full frame and be happy…don’t forget a big bag
f2.8, not 5.6. Crop factor doesn’t change that these are 2.8 lenses with the light gathering capabilities of a 2.8 lens.
‘I’m a bit disappointed. A cheap 3.5-5.6 kit zoom on a FF sensor has better DOF than these lenses have. Of course, they must be sharper and better built, but still…’
so true
And what did you expect? f/1.4 zooms??? Please people, start to be realistic. That unceasing whining really is boring.
Some of you think that m43 needs absurd f/2 zooms* to compensate for the small sensor size. That is a total incomprehension of the system purpose… Remember? Good quality in SMALLER PACKAGE!
Instead of whining about the lack of pipe-dream lenses, it is (and always will be) better to go buy a system based on a (significantly) bigger sensor.
* There are basically 2 ways of designing f/2 zooms: Either overengineered overpriced monsters (see Olympus SHG zooms), or under-corrected, optically dreadful (but still big) lenses that nobody would be willing to pay for.
+1 no more whining about f2 and DOF, these are great lenses
Most of the FF DOF winers are just Nikon/Canon fanboys that have a Rebel XT/Nikon D40 with a kit lens and couldn’t take a interesting photo if aliens abducted J-Lo on their front lawn.
I don’t think it has anything to do with fanboyism, but rather plain old ignorance. Gearheads who fail to invest the time and effort to understand the hobby they invest in.
You’re right.
One $200 class may be more valuable than all the $6000 full frame cameras.
Right! I just bought two £12 books that will surely improve my photography more than any new lens or body could.
Bright lenses with sane proportions for size. I feel like Panasonic need to announce a body worthy of matching these lenses too especially if they are rumored to be weather sealed.
seem like nice lenses but $1500 is a ripoff.
Is it parfocal?
Optics will probably be heavily software corrected.
+1
“Optics will probably be heavily software corrected.”
At this price I would not expect them to need it. (But I’m no expert.)
Software correction does not depend on the Price but on the Size.
Of course. Should have kept that in mind. Thanks!
Do these lenses have weather sealing? If yes they could be perfect combination with the Olympus pro cam.
ADMIN, What about the Olympus “new line of products”? Will there be any more superfast primes?
I would love a super fast standard Zuiko.
WOW!~–cant wait until those come out!—f2.8 and 58mm filter size: count me in! They look quite compact -this is what mirrorless is all about!
I want to see them available with gh3 on march! 😀
Are those electronic levers on the side?
As long as the price isn’t too steep for the 12-35, I’m sold.
Nope, they’re the switches to turn O.I.S. on/off.
“Nope, they’re the switches to turn O.I.S. on/off.” …which probably means that the O.I.S. is also usable on the Olympus cameras (unlike the X lenses).
I am sold on both lenses and just hope they won’t be too expensive (in Germany usually $=€ 🙁 )
kesztio you obviously have absolutely no clue
even the (useless) Auto Revuenon 1.2/55 adapted to the toy sensor, is a 110 F 2.4 in FF land, almost kit lens territorry, and terribly soft too
You should compare the Voigtländer Nokton 0.95 to a Nikon 50mm at 1.8 on FF if you want to have a clue yourself. I did, because I can.
A Pentax 645D has a bigger sensor than any so-called full frame DLSR, and that sensor is not even full medium format.
Regardless, the use for such shallow dof is limited for many people. Just buy all the gear you want/need so you can quit your whining.
f/2.8 might be ok on 35-100, but not on 12-35. Wide angle needs wide apertures for better DOF control. On M43 f/2.8 is not enough, IMO – it is more DOF than f/4 on FF and I think f/4 on FF is too much DOF.
Well you can also argue the contrary in terms of speed and focal distance related motion blur : 2.8 is fast enough for a close range zoom but maybe not sufficient for a telelens 😉
But OIS is more effective on longer focal lengths, at least if implemented properly 🙂
I think these are great additions to the range. f2.8 is all one really could expect given the M43 focus. And f2 zooms are not too common even in FF country. The one Canon FD L zoom I had was the 20-35/3.5 which is 0.5 stop slower than these and that was a very nice lens.
I also really like that the included 12mm (24mm on full frame) as that is where wide angle starts. Really really nice.
I don’t understand all the whiners… These lenses have the same aperture as e.g Nikon’s 24-70 and 70-200, which cost some $1500 and $2000, respectively — at least. If the quality is good and the lenses are small, these are top lenses!! And there are still the Zuiko 14-35 and 35-100 with f/2, which are among the best zoom lenses ever made — but are expensive and big (Panny is better than Oly in every field? BS!)
Whining is about the implication in the m43 context: f/2.8 is closer to f/5 – f/5.6 when compared to full frame systems. to have f/2.8 equivalent lens in m43, the lens needs to be f/1.4 – f/1.8.
This math applies to both DOF and noise issues.
f/2.8 in M43 is far from f/2.8 in FF.
Yes, equivalence works like that. But the whinning is still useless… Those people are looking at the wrong system if they want a FF system performance.
I’m aware of the DOF problem. But what does noise have to do with this?
One review of the Oly 35-100 f/2 claimed it is pin sharp at f/2, while the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 would have to be stepped down to f/5.6 to have the same sharpness. Such issues should also be taken into account.
On whining: my point is that those who invest in smaller sensors ought to know that there is a DOF problem, and also that it is probably not easier to produce “fast” lenses for m43 than for FF. What I mean by whining is complaints based on unrealistic wishes.
Noise hasn´t got anything to do with lenses but with the system as a whole. I threw it in just because I thought it is relevant for photography in general.
You said it: Oly f/2 claimed to be pin sharp at f/2. So tell me, why is it unrealistic to wish for such a zoom? It is, after all, much closer to what is in my opinion “usable” narrow dof.
DOF issue is a reason I currently use only prime lenses in M43.
unless I’m shooting a portrait, I’ve never needed an uber shallow DOF. On portrait, I’m with primes like 45mm F1.8 for shallow DOF. I’m stepping it down a little sometimes, it’s enough most of the time. On everything else, I welcome fast lens but I am fond of stepping it down (F4 – F5.6) to get ‘most out of it’ not only in terms of sharpness, and for landscapes or street photography m43 is the sweetest format.
ISO1600 is relatively clean & not a problem to remove with stellar noise removal soft (noise ninja is now integrated on RAW level) and 16MPixels offers the same FF resolution anyway.
you are much complaining about DOF, which is so overrated subject and you’re forgeting these lenses are fast even on telephoto end – which F5.6 aren’t and you need to step them down unless they Canon L to get quality!
also – MANY whinners never seen a FF camera yet their lenses in comparison to these. Let me get you a picture. They’re so big as your car. Got it?
P.S. go and shoot some macro with the most shallow dof so only 1% of image is actually visible, do some extreme overexposure and call it modern-art. I don’t care for such a photos, thus FF says nothing for me. Portability & having camera with me all the time says a lot, thus m43 and these lenses are <3!
I have two FF cameras (5D mk I & II) so I know perfectly well the size. Which is why I also got myself GF1 & GH2.
Also: I shoot wide open on FF 90% time. Even with lenses like 35 f/1.4 L or such. But that´s just me. I don´t care about the needs of other people. I need wide aperture lenses for better DOF control. At the moment no M43 zoom can provide that.
FYI: I rarely shoot macro, so that doesn´t apply on my case.
Who gave you permission to compare m43 to FF? Many people who own FF cameras do not consider m43 and vice versa. What kind of person are you?
I don´t permission to do comparisons, this site works on the principle of free discussion, I believe. There are plenty of examples what will happen when honest and reasonable opinions are suppressed.
No one has to agree with me, however. I just stated a reasoning behind my own thinking when buying into different systems. I am fully aware that the systems are different.
I think I still have right to state that I would not buy a zoom lens with DOF equivalent of f/5.6 on FF. There is nothing I hate more than not being able to control DOF properly. In general, that is the achilles´heel of M43 system, IMO. And I am surprised that manufacturers don´t get this. Instead they bring out uninspiring products one after another. It has taken Panasonic too long to come up with even these f/2.8 zooms.
The new Fuji camera and three lenses prove there are others who are willing to think more on the photographers needs (or wants) and less on marketing issues.
Strange – the writing on the lens is “Mega O.I.S”, not “Power O.I.S”. Maybe Panasonic was not able to solve the O.I.S issues of the two PZ lenses?
Interesting observation. Maybe those are some ancient mock-ups.. We shall see soon.
What image are you looking at? I see “Power O.I.S.” written in red letters at the front of the lens.
http://www.photographyblog.com/news/panasonic_12-35mm_and_35-100mm_lenses/
It will be a hybrid! Power O.I.S in axial direction, Mega O.I.S in the radial one! 😀
Aaa! That’s why F2.8 is enough! Clever move from Pana ;).
Or maybe the Power OIS is X lens exclusive
But those WILL be X lenses. Actually the most “X”est you can imagine! 🙂
The funny thing is that we always get a crappy photos of interesting stuff – like nobody had there even a decent compact camera.
I like it! Particularly the 12-35. Nice job Panasonic!
Great work Panasonic.
+1, worthy addition to the MFT lens line-up
no floating elements, no global shutter?? no leaf shuttner in lens, whatz rong panasonic?
With all the great, SMALL primes that we have …I cannot see buying one of these lenses. They are very impressive and I have the feeling the IQ will be more than “good”…blah..blah…blah…but for this photographer having small, low-f-stop primes that are in keeping with the small form factor of MFT (which is a major sell point for me) are more attractive. We have that now. Also…the primes will be/are sharper (most likely) than any zoom lens. Everything is a compromise and I know that some shooters love/have to have the immediacy of a zoom for composition, etc. at the expense of IQ, bulkiness and f/stop. So MFT really offers up “different strokes for different folks”. Which is good for all of us.
I think it is great that we will have that much more of a quiver to pull from AND the bigger the system is… the more useless lenses Sigma will probably make for it !? 🙂
Also..these babies are probably smaller than the primes on the Sony.
The important part is that it’s sharp throughout its range. MFT so far has good but not excellent zooms, something that hinders the system as a serious tool.
They might not excel in any particular area, but if they have a good combination of reasonable compactness, decent speed and excellent sharpness, there will be people who will use them and make good photos with them.
The words “zoom lens” and “excellent” generally belong in different sentences. 😉
The 7-14mm f4 is generally regarded as excellent.
So, let’s hope these new lenses compliment the 7-14mm instead of all the middling M4/3 zooms, or the power-zoom X lenses.
In the case of the Zuiko 14-35 and 35-100, the words “zoom lens” and “probably the best lenses of any kind, ever made” belong together 😉
too bad the 7-14 mm is so expensive in europe…the other point is that it takes no filters (ND, GND) otherwise I would have bought it…
Fly to the States, buy a pile of gear and pay for the trip! Really.
@Boooo!
Maybe, but have You seen the size of that Zuiko 35-100mm? It looks like a shoulder fired rocket launcher!!!
No thanks. 😉 I’ll stick with my fast primes.
Hah, just wait until I win the lottery and buy the 90-250… I’ve always been dreaming of that lens…
count on me for the 35-100mm
you can compare it with a 70-200 f4 attached on a ff camera… but even in this case the pany is smaller… and use non expensive 58mm filters
f5,6 on Fullframe, f4 on APS-C. But still great!
they are dof equivalent of 24-70 F 5.6 and 70-200 F5.6 in FF unspectacular to say the least. the sad thing is that those lenses are not small they will set you back much more than a used 5D and a superior 17-40 f4 for example and 70-200 f4, better dof control, better iso
1500
1500
gh2 around 900
you’re looking at a 4000 $ system whicht can buy a used D3 and two of the top nikkor primes, if you wait for GH-3 even much more…
if you’re after size, there are better choices too, i can’t see a serious pro shooting those seriously professional on any lumix g or olympus, pro’s don’t mind the bulk
> the sad thing is that those lenses are not small
… unmeaning statement. “Small” is always relative and you even don’t know, how small the lenses will be..
> you’re looking at a 4000 $ system whicht can buy a used D3 and two of the top nikkor primes, if you wait for GH-3 even much more…
… and you are comparing apples to oranges.
> if you’re after size, there are better choices too,
Of course, cell phone cameras for instance. And?
> i can’t see a serious pro shooting those seriously professional on any lumix g or olympus, pro’s don’t mind the bulk
Oh yes. I can’t see a serious monkey shooting seriously on any camera. The conclusion: Cameras are not suitable for serious monkeys.
If you want to play the “equivalent” game then you have to compare ISO 1600 on FT with ISO 6400 on FF.
So far a FF EVIL does not exist so I do not understand the point of the comparison. There are also no F3,5 zooms for APS-C cameras, nor is there a F2,0 zoom for the Nikon 1.
And finally why care about “other systems”? The lenses are what they are. Fast zoom lenses for the FT system. Nothing more, nothing less.
For me they are to expensive, if the price is between 1000-1500US$. I’m not sure if Panasonic will really price them so high.
Hello me. Why are you talking to myself?
I mean, isn’t it Martini who you intended to respond to?
There is a pro (I forgot the name) who uses GH2 + 7-14 for wideangle shots because of the superior corner sharpness compared to Fullframe.
Corner Sharpness is really one of the FT benefits, too bad most of the mFT lenses are not as good as their TopPro FT brothers in this discipline.
Sorry wrong post.
The 35-100 f2.8 looks very compact. If the optics are up to par and I can afford it, it will be my next m43 lens purchase.
Too bad there is no power zoom aside the zoom ring. It would be a killer in the video world.
Power Zoom = consumer level gimmick. No thanks.
Not really.
You can zoom more discretely with these X zooms.
Excellent spec, the key for m43 is size
so it is much better to make a f/2.8 yet smaller size zoom
rather than f/2 as big as FF DSLR lenses
If size does not matter, why don’t we just use DSLR?
so I think panasonic made a very smart move
Small and light, constant aperture f/2.8, OIS….
The only thing we don’t know are optical quality and price
I would be a game changer if they have excellent optical quality and really reasonable price (e.g. $1000 USD!)
Panasonic should not forget the pancake 2.4/70 mm(eq)
These lenses are very attractive for those who are willing to pay for quality. They are not cheap but much cheaper than f/2.0 lenses.
The M4/3 market must have grown large enough for Panasonic to take on more risk to build more HG and SHG lenses. I hope Olympus will do the same.
My type of photography does not need f/2.0 and would like to have one or two f/2.8 lenses.
Seems many comments are more negative than realistic. Why not a 12-100/1.0 zoom that weights 200g and cost 200 euro?
Olympistas are close a religious sect: The 4/3 lenses are very good, but they are very heavy and very expensive too. In fact the corresponing CaNikon lenses are even better, lighter and cheaper.
If the 35-100 delivers in IQ (have 12, 20, 25 and 45mm), and forthcoming camera from PanOly is a definate step forward, I will stay in m4/3. If not I will turn to Fuji/Sony or Canon who probably will use their new sensor also for an ILC.
I don’t think that it’s “Olympistas” that are complaining. It’s more likely CanNikonistas with their constant yapping about FF and shallow DOF. I don’t understand what they are doing here in the first place. Probably disappointed about their CanNikon and so they must come here whining about Oly and Pana, to make them self feel better with their choise of camera.
What, I have both a Nikon and Olympus….
That said, I don’t understand the DOF whining also. I personally prefer to shoot APS-C at f4.5-5.6, so f2.8 on m43 should be awesome! Lots of light and not so shallow DOF that I can’t get the main subject in focus and still isolate the background.
Agree its more likely CanNionistas with their constant yuapping about FF and shallow DOF. More likely encouraged to be proxies for the big boys who fear these lenses really will be competiton for their own bigger offerings. Sorry lens speed is lens speed when it comes to available light and 200mm/f2.8 equivalent is equal DOF to FF 100mm/f2.8. Just add the 2X new teleconvertor to this lens and it will have the same DOF as the mentioned FF portrait lens at F1.4. While a front mounted teleconvertor might hurt edge sharpness that is irrelevant if you want shallow DOF. If you want same DOF as FF 100mm/f1.4 another alternative is use m4/3 100-300 lens which is f4 at 400mm equivalent will give the same DOF as FF 100mm/f1.4. You should also consider the fact that shallow DOF can be easily obtained electronically if not native to the particular lens.
These people are here for our amusement.
Where do you get the absurd idea that the corresponding Canikon lenses are better than Oly SHGs? I defy you to find a single objective test where any other zoom performs as well as Oly SHGs across their entire aperture and zoom range.
Having said that though, they are too big and heavy for me (though not bigger and heavier than the Canikon equivalents – that’s rubbish too). I think Panny has struck the best possible compromise between size and aperture with these lenses, and if they perform as well as promised, I’m willing to pay for them.
To tell the truth, it’s a bit of Olympus fans’ myth that the Oly SHG zooms are the best lenses of their kind.
The 14-35mm f/2 Oly may be a bit better optically than the 24-70mm f/2.8 Nikon, BUT the Nikon lens has far more useful focal range, better DOF control and is considerably cheaper.
If you compare the 35-100/2 Oly to the 70-200/2,8 VRII Nikon, the Nikon lens wins hands down: sharper (not absolutely but relative to the sensor size, for the same DOF), better DOF control, a bit smaller & lighter, cheaper, internal zoom. (OK, Oly may have a bit better bokeh for the same DOF).
And I’m not a Nikon fanboy.
Can you guys get off your DOF high horse? It isn’t everything. For me, it’s all about light gathering. 2.8 is sufficiently low for my needs.
Regards,
AJW
Yeah – the obsession with shallow DoF is mostly just measurebators trying to justify spending thousands on a camera they never use because the can’t carry it anywhere (and they don’t know how to use a camera anyway). For people who actually do use cameras, there are actually very few situations that require more shallow DoF than what these lenses would provide – probably only professional portrait photographers would find it useful. For just about anything else, extra DoF is an advantage, not a disadvantage.
The switch on the lenses looks identical to the power zoom switch on the X 45-175 lens, so they may be power zooms after all.
I think it will be great to have a choice of weather-sealed lenses. With the new Panasonic lenses, there should be a lot of emphasis on performance at the full aperture. If you have to stop down to f4.5 to get good performance, there is little point in having these lenses. The 12-50 Olympus lens is a cheaper sealed alternative if you think these are too expensive.
The switches in the picture are OIS switches, not zoom rockers. Further, for powerzooming, you don’t necessarily need a rocker. The lenses can have zoom rings and still be powerzoomed (using the rings instead of rockers). It’s not an oxymoron!
Too expensive!
Admin: Would it at all be possible to determine whether they feature an internal zoom, or if they have a more conventional extending zoom?
Thanks,
AJW
Well, I use the E5 and 12-60 most of the time, and I bet people will love using m43 cameras like the GH2 (or 3) and these lenses when out hiking and doing landscapes. They are just fast enough, the constant aperture is a bonus, the size is not too big. The only thing that remains to be seen… are they optically decent, and will they cost too much. Making them constant f2 lenses would have likely been a ridiculous trade-off for size and cost.
If you shoot any kind of events “real” 2.8 DOF of an FF camera is very valuable for background separation and of course 85mm F/1.2L is pure magic on 5D, that’s why people who make money on photography are not rushing into m43 camp.
But for the armature crowd, who is the main target of the system you now have almost everything to be happy with. 7-14mm for wide angle (shallow DOF is not needed very often), fast 12mm, 14mm, 20mm, 25mm and 45mm primes (good DOF)for portraits and events and now long time missing 35-100mm f/2.8 for the tele shots. (good DOF as well, especially on the long end).
12-35 f/2.8 seems to be a bit pointless for stills considering how expensive it’s going to be and available primes. But should be great for videography.
Low light performance is never going to be as good as FF system. So what?! Get yourself tripod, good external flash and a diffuser. It’s going to be a much better investment then anything else.
What’s missing is a good dynamic range with low base ISO, manual focus peeking and working focus tracking in video. Hopefully GH3 will give us that.
You need to clarify that. I shoot sporting events (well lit daytime outdoors) and f2.8 is often too shallow on APS-C. I much prefer f4.5-5.6 and come out with great separation.
I think the f2.8 aperture is a better choice than a f2.0 aperture, and the reason is size.
With Olympus’ 4/3 cameras, they tried to compete with the semi-pro and pro-level APS-C and full frame SLR systems. They were starting out at a disadvantage compared to those cameras in terms of ISO performance and ability to isolate the subject with shallow depth of field(assuming those are important, which I think it’s fair to say they are for most pros). To overcome this, they produced a unique set of f2.0 zooms that allowed for similar depth of field control and the use of lower ISOs than the full frame competition.
The problem is that they still weren’t competitive. While the f2.0 zooms were unique on spec, they weren’t unique in what they could be used to do compared to the professional systems from other manufacturers. They allowed similar levels of DOF isolation. They also allowed faster shutter speeds, but the full frame SLRs still had better high iso performance that more than made up the difference. And, by having to use a faster aperture than the competition, the lenses were still large there was no significant size advantage compared to the full frame systems. The other systems were just more versatile overall, and the one advantage 4/3 might have had, size, wasn’t there.
These lenses are much smaller than their full frame equivalents, preserving the one key advantage the m4/3 cameras have over the competition: the right balance of size and capability. They won’t allow the same level of DOF isolation and they won’t help to make up the difference in ISO capability, but they preserve the small size, which is the only pressing reason to choose these cameras over DSLRs.
It remains to be seen whether they will sell at that price though. That’s beyond the range most consumers would be willing to pay for a lens, and I’m not sure how many people are actually using these cameras to make money at this point. Still, they are filling an important gap in the line-up if the system is to eventually gain more professional users.
For all those complaining about too much DOF with m43 or 43 system: here´s a link where you can calculate the DOF for different systems and lenses :
http://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html
If you look at the GH2 with 100 mm ( the new 35-100 mm lens ) and the Canon 7D with 200 mm ( the 4,0/70-200 mm lens , which I assume to be even bigger than the 35-100 ) , you will see, that the differences e.g. portraits at a distance from 2 or 3 meters are not that big as many will think….. Somewhere between 2 and 4 cm….
Thanks for that. However, most DoF knights would rather remain in their land of fairy tales, I think! 🙂
As a DoF Knight, I would like to point out that I originally stated that on longer lens (35-100) the DoF with f/2.8 might be OK IMO, but wider angles need wider apertures. This seems to be hard to understand. I wonder why?
It’s hard to understand because the DoF doesn’t depend on the focal length…
Oh, but it does. And the difference is huge when shooting something at, say 1,5 meters.
Between 50 mm lens and 12 mm lens on M43 it is 0,05 m vs. 1,03 m. So with 12mm lens in M43 you get more than a meter in focus (about three feet) while with 50 mm lens you get only 5 cm in focus (about two inches)
And to drive my original point: even with f/2, one meter DoF is way too much to have any meaningful subject isolation which means you lose any ability to use DoF as compositional tool. Luckily we (at least I) tend to shoot closer with WA lenses and this helps even things up a bit meaning f/2 @ 12 mm is actually ok for the most time. DoF changes rapidly after moving closer from 1,5 m.
According to DOFMaster online calculator, with Panasonic M43 camera such as GF1:
***With 50mm lens @ f/2:
Subject distance 1.5 m
Depth of field
Near limit 1.47 m
Far limit 1.53 m
Total 0.05 m
In front of subject 0.03 m (49%)
Behind subject 0.03 m (51%)
Hyperfocal distance 83.4 m
Circle of confusion 0.015 mm
***with 25mm lens @ f/2:
Subject distance 1.5 m
Depth of field
Near limit 1.4 m
Far limit 1.61 m
Total 0.21 m
In front of subject 0.1 m (46%)
Behind subject 0.11 m (54%)
Hyperfocal distance 20.9 m
Circle of confusion 0.015 mm
***With 12mm lens @ f/2:
Subject distance 1.5 m
Depth of field
Near limit 1.15 m
Far limit 2.17 m
Total 1.03 m
In front of subject 0.35 m (34%)
Behind subject 0.67 m (66%)
Hyperfocal distance 4.81 m
Circle of confusion 0.015 mm
@Mungo – no it doesn’t! Many misunderstanding you have here…
first, moving too close to subject with any lens will introduce perspective distortion – but WA lenses are more prone to it – congratulation to your approach
for 2nd, as Mike has stated – DOF doesn’t depend on focal lenght (go educate yourself)
http://bit.ly/194qxM
with the same aperture (say your example F2.0) the DOF depends on photographer position relative to the subject he is shooting. Telephoto lens (longer focal length lens) will allow you to ‘be closer for free’ – i.e. without walking to the subject to take a picture – where subject is say filling the picture frame. Whereas with normal/WA lenses you need to approach the subject by foot, move closer, to have the same composition.
But if the subject framing is the same (e.g. person is filling the picture exactly on 3 images with 3 lenses) the DOF is the same. Perspective changes of course.
P.S. to your DOFMaster values – you are taking 3 different composition of an image (3 totaly different shots) so of course the DOF varies…
P.P.S. the DOF is sufficient on m43, I like it much more than on FF where it is too-much sometimes. More shallow DOF won’t make you a better photographer…
@wonderer
I know all this about perspective distortion, so your throw at me was kind of pointless. And the fact that DoF remains essentially the same when focal length changes but composition stays the same. But here is a thing: it stays the same WITHIN THE SYSTEM, because it is not only about Focal length. Circle of Confusion which is related to the size of the sensor is the real culprit here and the real reason why FF cameras have less DoF.
Again from DOFMaster, both at 1,5 meters.
Panasonic GH2, 25mm @ f/1.4:
Subject distance 1.5 m
Depth of field
Near limit 1.43 m
Far limit 1.58 m
Total 0.15 m
In front of subject 0.07 m (47%)
Behind subject 0.08 m (53%)
Hyperfocal distance 29.5 m
Circle of confusion 0.015 mm
Canon 5D mk II, 50mm @ f/1.4:
Subject distance 1.5 m
Depth of field
Near limit 1.46 m
Far limit 1.54 m
Total 0.07 m
In front of subject 0.04 m (49%)
Behind subject 0.04 m (51%)
Hyperfocal distance 59 m
Circle of confusion 0.03 mm
You see, with 5D mk II DoF is half to that of GH2. (0.07 m vs. 0.15 m). And speaking from experience, that shows in pictures.
It is nice to have all this dirt thrown at you when you just state your opinion on a matter. “Go educate” etc. Reminds me why I seldom take part on these discussions anyway. Or maybe I should just say the same thing to you Wonderer?
The example in Luminous Landscape used DIFFERENT distance from the target. My point at the time was that with SAME distance on the target DoF changes on different focal lengths.
Of course I am taking three different compositions. After all, I was only talking about DoF, not composition at that point.
I talked about composition when I said that luckily we tend to shoot closer with WA lenses. It is kind of the point of those lenses. I am also educated enough to know when to use WA and when not.
On your last comment I can only say: it is entirely and totally your personal SUBJECTIVE opinion. As is the fact that I usually find DoF control less than ideal on M43 system. Which is the whole point I have been trying to make.
If you find DoF sufficient on m43, fine. You probably will be happy with anything the manufacturers throw at you. I don´t find it sufficient but I like the size of the cameras (and lenses) in that system. If there were a reasonably small and cheap FF camera, I would get that instead of any of the current m43 or APS-C mirrorless cameras. But because there isn´t I have to settle with M43.
Maybe Fuji´s new camera will be better option for me in the future, who knows.
Thanks for the link.
Sweet lenses I think. I sold my 45-200. Think I will go for the 35-100, rather than the 45-175 as I have the 100-300, the 7-14, and the 14-45. Will be interesting to compare the 35-100 X to the Pentax 35-70/f4 which has been a sweet daytime lens for video on the GH2. Of course, zooms can’t compare to primes, but you can lose a lot of shots or footage in lens changes!
sorry, replied to the wrong guy…
ups… morning, need a coffee I guess 😉
Funny to read so much negative comments when there are new lens annouced.
bert you should select a 5d at least, the 7D is aps-c senosored, so the difference is not that big
you are right, but even with this combination the difference is not much bigger.
@mungo: yes, with WA the differences are bigger. I normally use longer focal length if I want to get smaller DOF. The cases I need small DOF with WA lens are not that often..
@bert
I agree with you, although I do need small DoF more when closing in on tradition wide normal to normal focal lengths…
a long discussion, great. One thing I want to add from the note panasonic left on these concept lenses.
MAXIMUM APERTURES ARE ‘TO BE DETERMINED’
1. I don’t believe they will be F2.0, as you can’t cheat on physics/optics with such a compact size
2. They won’t be F2.5 like some hoped as Panasonic would already advertised them such to get ‘momentum’ to m43 system buyers, would not use F2.8 here.
3. They can end up as F3.5 constant aperture once finalized (seeing their size) – which would suck for me. Hopefuly it won’t happen as their price $1000+ would not justify such an aperture.
P.S. If panasonic wanted to earn money (looks a bit greedy with $1500) I can’t understand it hasn’t announced even smaller Pana 20mm MKII with some X-series branding, OIS, quiet focusing for video and price can be even twice as current one. Tens of thousands of sale opportunities here.
I doubt maximum aperture will go higher, but there really should be an update to this article saying Panasonic treats shown lenses as prototypes and that according to official roadmap shown on CES their aperture is to be determined : http://3.s.img-dpreview.com/files/articles/9105111751/PanasonicLensRoadMap.jpg
On Canon and Nikon full frame cameras, there are quite a few manufacturers building lenses for 300 to 900 dollars that appear to have fast apertures.
In actual practice, though, the Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina lenses NEED to be stopped down one full stop from wide open to even be acceptable. They’ve recently undertaken some improvements, with Tamron and Tokina moving forward quickly and Sigma lagging behind, but these are not 3rd party lenses, they’re Panasonic lenses.
Compared to Canon, Nikon, and Pentax lenses, these are comparable in price (maybe even a bit low) and micro four thirds has already shown that good sharpness is possible.
If image quality is paramount and price or size is not even important, you shouldn’t buy into micro four thirds.
But, if you want to look at quality vs price, it’s difficult to do better than micro four thirds. Remember, that super-cheap T2i kit comes with the horrible 18-55 lens. The kit lenses on Panasonic and Olympus bodies are MUCH better than that piece of crap.
(my dad, who got me into photography in 1991, bought a T2i as his first digital SLR last year. That 18-55 lens is garbage. The cheap fast 50 is a pretty close second for horrible build quality, edge sharpness, and overall MTF.)
You can get better image quality with an APS-C dslr, of course- but remember that good glass costs a bit more for APS than for m43, while the improvements are subtle.
“If image quality is paramount and price or size is not even important, you shouldn’t buy into micro four thirds.”
+1
Every improvement has a price, and every photographer has a certain point where a balance is found between price and performance. For most people size, weight and price are important issues while critical image quality is not. (If that were not the case we would all be shooting a hasselblad.)
While I love extremely expensive gear, I think systems like m4/3 have a lot going for them. Really good image quality, loads of different lenses and a size that is much, much more practical.