Dpreview forum user Moonlight Knight (Click here) reports: “Based on an accidental leak by a staff of a certain company closely associated with Panasonic, the price of the upcoming Panasonic X 35-100mm f/2.8 should be more expensive than the X 12-35mm f/2.8 by no less than $200 (probably like $300).”
The just announced 12-35mm X lens is priced at $1,300 at Amazon, BHphoto and Adorama. If Math doesn’t lie than the 35-100mm f/2.8 lens will cost around $1,600 🙂
In Full Frame terms this lens will have a classic 70-200mm field of view with f/2.8 light gathering and a Depth of field of f/5.6. Bye the way, a nice depth of field calculator is available here at Cambridgeincolor.
That lens costs more than a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 for example ($899 at Amazon) and less than the Canon 70-200mm ($2,990 at Amazon). But if the 35-100mm matches or even exceeds the 12-35mm lens quality I am fine with that price. But that’s me, you may have another opinion 🙂
106 Responses
HAHA
Laughing at the trollproff statement admin was forced to make for killing those dof posts? HAHA it is so sad it needed to go that way. Stay strong admin.
Admin, You are getting politicaly right!!
Agreed.
Adam should keep the old statement to see how many times the dof/35 mm equivalence discussion will be repeated.
Agreed.
Damn Admin, You just took away half the fun.
But there will still be some who get confused about using a 35mm lens on a m43, is it a 25mm @f2 or is it a 50mm @f1 or was it a 50mm at f4 or was it ………..
And then those who use the calculator but do a conversion first…….
Wow, there is something else this calculator talks about print size I don’t make prints……. is a big CoC better than a small CoC (can we say that in public?)……. Should I move small CoC to the center or can I mix them up? Will they fight or argue…..
Admin you have caused more confusion, maybe.
it will be interesting to see what the GH3 delivers with these new fast zoom lenses, I have a feeling it will look more like a modern looking Panasonic L10
Remember, this is a video lens. Yes it will shoot stills. However, its main purpose is to give the video shooters a bright zoom with IS. The 75mm F1.8 is a much better option for stills only shooting.
LOL, maybe in your universe. Still photographers ALSO love bright zooms with IS. If you’re shooting sports and other events, a 70-200 type lens is much much much more useful than a 150 prime. Remember, this is a lens that can be used for more than one purpose. 🙂
I agree with twoomy, this is a still lens that is optimized for video, not the other way around.
The Canon L lens is closer to $2299 than it is to $2900. That is a big difference.
Correct. The Canon is $2299. And that is an incredible piece of engineering and design.
I doubt that this lens can touch that…but it is a HELL of a lot smaller!!!!!!!!
Think I will buy the 75mm f/1.8…and skip this zoom. Too expensive and does not really fit my kit….but a nice option for many, I am sure! MFT is becoming quite the “system”!
I was really excited for this lens, but I could almost buy both Cosina lenses for that price…
So far 2012 is the year of semi-pro (expensive) m43 gear, which is great and all… but I for one am hoping the second half of the year brings back some of the budget-oriented goodies, like an E-PM2 and a 17mm 1.8 (with similar build quality as the 45mm 1.8).
Yes, a new version of a 17mm with improved optical formula, brighter aperture and possibly sealed and please not only in silver… dreaming.
I’ve been saving up my money for new pancake lenses which make a world of sense for the m43 system. There just isn’t that many of them out there. Does anyone know if it’s techically more difficult to make longer focal length pancake lense, than it is to make a shorter focal length? I’d really want something more longer than the Panasonic 20mm, but I wouldn’t call the Sigma 30mm a pancake.
Yes it is impossible to make longer focal length pancakes. Tele lenses are long.
I don’t mean exactly tele pancakes but something around the 30-50mm scale. There are some really short, longer focal lenght pancakes for the Pentax K and Samsung NX mounts for example. I don’t see why m43 should lack in this area.
Sort of. Use a fancy Fresnel type lens and you can make a tele almost arbitrarily small, as Canon does with their DO lenses.
Pentax SMC-DA 70mm f/2.4 Limited pancake lens is comprised of 6 lens elements in 5 groups, measured 63x26mm (49mm filter size) and weight 130g.
I do not understand the complaints of people not willing to pay for good quality. Good glass costs money. And just because the glass sits in front of what many still consider to be an inferior system, doesn’t make the glass less complex, less perfect or less expensive to develop and produce.
MFT is growing up, the quality increases. It’s getting used more and more for serious work, so it’s only natural that the range of serious items increases.
Whoever doesn’t like these prices can stick with a cheap plastic Canon EOS 1000D and one of those plastic super zoom lenses that pure mathematically offer the same depth of field as the MFT Panasonic lenses.
+2.8
+5.6 😀
+35~100
The recent Nikon primes 28/1.8 and 85/1.8 have a decent price tag and good quality. So the Nikon D3200 would also be an option for a smaller camera. And you can use the lenses on the D800.
http://camerasize.com/compare/#289,317
But yes, a MFT body with primes is still smaller.
When you examine the performance of Nikon lenses, keep in mind that their MTF charts are at the old film standard of MTF 10/30, as opposed to Olympus 20/60, a more appropriate standard for smaller sensors and higher pixel densities.
Is there a relationship between these charts. (10/30 and 20/60) Can one be multiplied/divided by X to make it compatible? Or are they only compatible within in a certain range?
Is it 5.6 (FF equivalent)? LOL
If it has a big CoC it is. So no need to print it at double size to make up for a small CoC.
Here we go, we are into another “mine is bigger than yours.”
On aps-c, you have the choice of the high price brand 17-50 f2.8 or the cheaper third party same range and aperture lenses. On µ4/3, there is only the high price brand lenses.
Sometime, price matter, 1600 euro is the price of tamron 17-30 f2.8 and sigma 70-200 f2.8, but it’s big lenses, not small cute µ4/3 😉 Add 400euro for the Canon 1100D and you have a big all around gear.
The curse of a new system – even one that is as well developed as the m43. But it is growing and we can hope that third party developers will start making m43-lenses that are not made for APS-c
especially if Canon maces a similary sized system… Then cheaper lenses will become available without loosing as much in size and quality.
I want small size, good in low-light, but i am satisfied with reasonable quality in the other fields (sharpness and so on), I don’t do “serious work”, an the 1000D is too big. So i would like some cheaper lenses too.
For the Pro people which use only M43 system , this is a very good news and will buy it, but for the person which is treat M43 as a spare cam or a casual cam. , or the consumer which will only point and shoot and never change lens. I think none of them will buy it….
agree with Bob.B , i will also think about of 75/1.8 instead of this lens…..
Same can be said for all system’s new high grade optics.
I never thought it existed: I met someone who did not knew her Rebel’s lenses are interchangeable. I did not bother to ask about her knowledge of PASM, RAW, DR, ISO, etc…
If Canon releases a new L, I don’t think she’ll care, let alone know about it.
Most users of interchangeable lens cameras (M43, APSC and even 35mm) only use the lens it was bought with, and that is invariably a zoom. I think the purchase of additional lenses is 1 lens per 2 users (read it somewhere recently and open to correction).
It will be worth the money. Especially for those people who have the money. I will stick to my 50-200 and hope for an auto-focus solution first …
Whats about the weight and size? And more important what comes after 100mm 🙂 100-400 would be my wish and 3.5 to 5.6 would be sufficient.
Yeah I’m happy it’s coming but it’s too expensive for a casual buy, you buy this lens if you need it, otherwise slap on a 45-200 for $200.
That said, if you’re getting addicted to buying more and more lenses, why not just buy this and the 12-35, maybe 1 other bright prime (20mm or 25mm) and be done with it, no more GAS (except for cameras!).
Good comment, especially when we all know one bisic thing. You cannot take a picture no matter how good the lens is without a body, better to buy a good body first, then improve the lens stock.
what ever happened to those of us who just wanted to take a few photos?!?! $900 for a 75mm lens and $1600 for 35-100mm?
even if I got 100 keeper photos, that’d be $9 each or $16 each. I doubt I’d ever get 100 keeper photos… more like 20… that’s what $45 or $80 each photo…
I think I got interested in the wrong hobby. Maybe I can just buy a xz-1 and pretend the lens is fast enough and covers the same range?
Seriously what’s going on here? are “professionals” actually buying these cameras and lens or are regular joe’s forking out that type of cash on camera stuff?
How does the existence of these lenses prevent you buying less expensive ones and just using them?
Does the existence of Lamborghinies, Ferraries etc, prevent you buying and driving a Kia?
Than you buy a cheaper zoom.
“Does the existence of Lamborghinies, Ferraries etc, prevent you buying and driving a Kia?”
YES.
The old kit zooms like 14-42, 12-50, 40-150 and so on won’t magically disappear or become ten times more expensive than before just because a few super-quality lenses that cost a lot are launched.
In fact I think this is great because it means there’s more of an upgrade ladder than before. If you want sharper, faster glass than the kit zooms, now you can get it if you want.
And yes I think a few pros are starting to get interested. I suppose pros also might be interested in smaller, lighter gear as long as it can deliver the quality they expect.
@Rasmus “And yes I think a few pros are starting to get interested. I suppose pros also might be interested in smaller, lighter gear as long as it can deliver the quality they expect.”
Exactly, you dig it!
Not all Pro’s want Canikon super heavy kit. At least not this one 😉
Same here! Well actually, I use both. Nikon FF and big lenses when I want the best quality and the bulk is not an issue (no, I don’t shoot MF), but m43 all the way when I still want very good quality with much smaller size and weight. Cameras like the EM-5 and new lenses like the Pany 12-35mm and new Oly primes really help make this system more and more attractive and competitive. m43 is simply more fun to carry around and shoot with (for me at least). And the camera that you take with you is the one that gets the good shots.
A bit of both, by the looks of things. Of course, if you buy a $900 lens to only take 100 “keeper” photos with it you’re doing it wrong! 😉
Why do you complain, these lenses are clearly not for you since you can’t affort them. If you had use for them you’ld have the money.
Why does every wannabee pro complain about the prices of this high grade gear.
If you’re not pro or serious about photography buy the cheaper lenses!
Ansel Adams said that if he got 12 good pictures in a year, then it was good year. Given I’m less than half the photographer Ansel Adams was, that means it should take at least 20 years to get 100 good pictures.
Sure, if you were shooting LF view cameras in national parks waiting for “perfect light.” I don’t think the typical usage pattern of small format cameras precludes them from managing more than a dozen great pictures in a year. Or even in a day, if you are focused about it.
The other way round is better in my opinion.
Take a basic body and combine it with a good lens.
@squeegee What a ridiculous comment. I expect that a lens like those could be used for many years to come. If you can only get 100 keepers during that time, then maybe you should work on your skills, rather than buying expensive gear.
Stick with the cameras. I returned to pix after a few years in model rail.
Cameras are far cheaper.
You buy this lens. You own it for -years- and only get 100 keeper photos?
Fukkin lol you scrub.
That’s a most reliable source well worth being posted and pondered. Where can i send my 1600 USD?
But was it 4/3 or Leica’s younger sister?! Crazy
too expensive… 14-140 is less than half this price
Agreed, but having the 14-140mm and while getting some awesome versatility, it is not the most sharp lens, not to mention the aperture.
I would like some bright, a bit longer telephoto prime to get those shy birds on frame.
Well … 12-35mm 35-100mm 100-300mm, what a nice range … shame the scary price…
I was waiting a long Time for this Lens + was also about to buy the 100-300.
In January i became inpatient and started to reevaluate my (expensive) Wish List. I decided to buy a used FT 50-200 along with an E3 instead, also traded in my m.zuiko 9-18 for a FT 11-22.
Only kept the 25 1.4, sold my GH2 to get a OMD and am now waiting for the m.zuiko 60mm Macro Lens which may replace my old but nice russian 50mm Macro Lens.
I decided to use MFT mainly for Street and Macro with fixed Focal Lenses, everything else will be handled by my “old” FT Equipment which alltogether did cost me less then the 35-100 will cost alone.
Now waiting for News about an E7 FT Body. 😉
What’s too expensive….. My brothers wife’s sister knows a guy who works in a camera store and the Panny rep told him it will cost $300 maybe $400 less. Her rumor should be f4 cause I know she isn’t lying……
C’mon get real that’s an F1 rumor max and the sheeples here are taking it as gospel WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!! You’ll have lots of time to whine about the price when the lens is announced. I suspect this is just Admin doing more of his diligent promote all things Oly. Makes that 75mm look Ohhhhhh so good don’t it.
Had to happen for this format to develop. While I’ll likely never buy one at that price, it doesn’t mean it isn’t warranted for pros/high-end enthusiasts. The 12-35 and 35-100 along with the better primes (Olympus 12mm, 45mm and 75mm, Pan 20mm and 25mm) dispel any question that mFT isn’t a “serious” photographer’s format.
And I’m now getting mighty curious about what the GH3 or “pro” Olympus models will be looking like!
What is glaringly needed now, however, is a pair of “workhorse” bright and light mFT zooms akin to the 14-54 MkII and 50-200 along with an affordable quality 300 f2.8 or even f4 for us less affluent but equally avid photographers.
This is where they’ve stumbled so far, instead releasing mediocre lenses like the 12-50 and startlngly over-priced 75-300 ($900, my FT 70-300 costs $230 on sale, typically runs $330). They need now to get back to basics and build some decent quality affordable zooms.
Don’t hold your breath too long for your wish list to materialize. There already PLENTY of M4/3 zooms that cover everything from 7mm to 300mm. Okay, a good 12-60mm would be nice. A 400m f4 would be great, as would a 100mm-ish macro.
I’m not waiting. Instead, I’ve been buying good quality used manual lenses to fill gaps. For about the same price as the 12-35mm I got Nikon 60mm and 105mm f2.8 macros, a Nikon 300mm f4.5 EDIF (with tripod mount) and a new Voigtländer 75mm f2.5 Color Heliar. I mix all these in with native M4/3 lenses and am pleased with all of them.
+1
I wish Olympus redesigned the 14-54 for MFT. Maybe it’s they do this already now that the 12-35 is out at that funny price.
I thought several on this blog had said the 14-54 MK2 works on m43 as it was redesigned for focus off the sensor.
Right, but the focus is reportedly still somewhat slow (up to 1 sec), and the lens is huge. I wish they could bring the same great value for money that the 14-54 and 12-60 featured in a special MFT lens with reduced size and proper fast AF. Not sure they can use the same glass to achieve all that, but I assume they could come up with something to that same effect for MFT.
I hope they can ban sample variation on the f/2.8 lenses so that you don’t have to keep swapping lenses until you find a good one. For these prices they should.
I think the price for 12-35mm/f2.8 will settle down around 1000 USD by terminal retailer. So It’s 1300 for 35-100mm/f2.8 . Though a little bit pricey for 35-100mm, it’s still a good budget for M43, if the image quality is as good as 12-35 or even better.
btw DP posted 75mm hands-on preview
This is a beautiful lens but why not with F2.0 to make it perfect ? Sorry , I’ll go for 75mm F1.8 instead of this .
Can’t Pana think of creating a lens that equal to four third lens like what Olympus is targeting ? Disappointing !
Crucify me if you want, but I honestly think that not every photographer needs every lens. The nature of personal photographic evolution involves a phase of specialization. After trying out every genre with more affordable tools, most photographers will develop certain preferences for genre and style which will dictate their further purchases of gear. For example, I can’t imagine a serious photographer who would NEED the 12mm AND the 75mm (unless we’re talking about a rare multitasking professional). Their respective applications differ too much. If you don’t know which expensive tool will serve your specific vision to the most then perhaps it’s too early for you to buy any of them. I’m just saying.
I agree with you to a certain level, most do develop a kind of preferred FL, but you certainly want at least 2 focal lenghts which differ extremely, but not necessarily zooms (I always smile at comments like “..I covered all needed fl’s with this wide to supertele zoom..”)..Anyway, what i mean is that i am a specialized shooter too (in the portrait range) but for casual or snapshots i prefer to have a wide with me, also it makes for a compact setup.
You’re right of course, but my point is only one of your primes has to be expensive.
agree
I don’t agree. I never understood why people like setting guidelines for other people. As craftsmen we choose the right tool for the trade. If someone needs the 12mm and 75mm who cares? If someone buys the 12/2, PL25, 75/1.8, 12-35 and 35-100 what does it matter to anyone else?
thats also true, but as mostly is the case, we see things from our own point of view.
It’s my own opinion. As such it does not have to apply to anybody else. That said, too often I have seen beginners who spend large proportions of their available resources on quality glass which was purchased after too little consideration. If you buy something you can barely afford it would be sensible to make sure that you actually need it (or at least can benefit from using it). All this may not apply to you, but it seems to apply to some of the commenters on this blog. The Internet makes it so easy to lose one’s sense of perspective.
Agree!
Come on, beginners ALWAYS make errors. At the least though, buying a wrong expensive lens is nothing too scary as they usually hold their value s/h. Cars and gadgets lose value much quicker. If beginners devoted too much time to “considerations” nothing would ever begin 🙂
(Oh, well, I’ve been ruminating over which tele lens to buy for my m43 for over 3 months already :))
For example, a wedding photographer would need both primes: wide angle to show the overall environment and the telephoto prime for the “candid” portraits.
I hope this isn’t just a trick to make us feel like we’re getting a deal when/if it’s priced at $1300-1400.
While I’m now liberated from this lens because of its price (kind of a relief)I am really worried about how much the GH3 is going to cost…Perhaps I’ll be liberated from that as well.
So much for all those posts lamenting the price of 75/1.8. If the zoom is going to be priced at almost twice the price of the prime (!!!), no thanks. I will skip the versatility of the zoom and keep the prime.
I for one would like to see a m4/3 version of the 50-200. I don’t even care if it’s particularly fast, I just want a weather-sealed long zoom that’s of comparable quality & price to the 12-50.
It’s all well and good to say that “if you’re not a pro, you don’t need the expensive glass” – this is true. But I would like it very much if m4/3 didn’t follow the example of 4/3, where only the most expensive lenses were weather sealed.
I long for the FT 50-200mm replacement as well. Just make it a bit smaller, I mean LIGHTER above all. IMO something like 70-200mm f/2.8-4 with software-corrected distortion would be a very nice compromise. And it also should be a bit cheaper (at least after flaying early buyers 😀 )
It would be BIG: 62mm filter thread, 10cm long at 70mm and 700 grams minimum.
It COULD be a 58mm thread, and 650-700g would be an OK weight for me. Quite a bit lighter than the FT 50-200 Zuiko.
I’m not too picky about the aperture. I was skeptical about the “dim” 12-50, but after a couple of weeks with it and the EM5, I’m sold. The optical quality is as good as or better than I used to get from my 25/2.8 and 50/2, and ISO 1600 is good enough on the EM5 that I’m satisfied with the 12-50’s light-gathering capabilities. (Coming from an E520, my mind is blown.) Now I want that, but in a longer zoom. And I want it weather-sealed.
(I also want a faster/quieter-focusing Panny 20mm, and a 45 or 50mm pancake, for my “pocket camera” GF3. Then I’ll be all set.)
The 12-35 is definately on my list, but not the 35-100: Have a Zeiss 50/1.7 and a Leica 90/4. MF, yes but very neat and the IQ is on top. Also have a Nikon 200/4 (neat, excellent) and Zeiss 300/3.5 (big, OK)
I nominate Ulli and sneye as the thoughtful and civil posters of the day.
+1!!!
Yeah I am really hoping it is a nice lens, but also that sigma, tamron, et al start churning out the 3rd party alternatives soon.
Well, no new lenses for me then! I guess I’ll put my money into the OMD, and wait a year on the new lenses and see what happens. We do need Sigma and Tamron in m43!
I think the price of these two zooms should be rather more reasonable in a long-term perspective, both for the announced 12-35mm and for the rumoured 35-100mm. In a long run, let’s hope for 700-800€ in case of 12-35, and 800-1000€ for 35-100. Then I shall buy them.
BTW, these lenses should not be compared to FF lenses like 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 in terms of light gathering AND (consequently) price. To speak of the f-number as of the light-gathering ability is simply misguided in case of cross-format comparisons. The only thing guaranteed for the lenses of the same f-number (but a different format) is the same optical image brightness (ILLUMINANCE in photometry), but that’s NOT a physical quantity representing the final image quality! That honour should belong to the total LUMINOUS FLUX incident on the sensor area, or simply put the “total amount of light” collected by the sensor as a whole. Which also can be represented by the ABSOLUTE aperture of a lens (so approximately the lens diameter, at least for longer focal lenghs), not the relative one (f-number).
So please let’s stop using the “f/2.8 light gathering ability” term, since it’s just a RELATIVE light gathering ability, which does not tell us much in general (when comparing different formats).
Sorry for the long monologue, I just can’t stand the stubborn “f/2.8=f/2.8=f/2.8!!!” arguments of people who do not understand optics (or physics more generally). And I say it as a proud m43 equipment owner..
Semantics. F number, while relative to the lens, is still comparable across formats. Now be gone, equivalence troll.
Yes, I understand that your lack of knowledge of physics irritates you, but I am not responsible for it. Have a nice day, you “f/2.8=f/2.8=f/2.8!!!” troll…
So the light from a 50mm f2.8 lens per square micron on a 35mm sensor is different to the light per square micron on a m43 using the same lens.
By how much?
Does it make a difference to the international rating system used by manufacturers? By how much?
I think the esoteric pricing reflects why Japanese companies aren’t going to succeed in the future.
I think its because Joe Mama hasn’t bothered his wife to translate his life’s work yet.
There is still no official technical details on the 35-100mm lens (is it really f/2.8 or …?) and there is not any images taken with it. Let’s wait and see. There are more and more micro 4/3 lens choices, and the people who wants the best quality MFT lens no matter how expensive it is would get ones, and others may instead get something cheaper but still decent in imaging quality.
I’d still rather have the 75/1.8, those samples are sublme. I think Olympus will have a zoom to compete with this soon, can’t let Panasonic have all cash from fast zoom sales. At $1600 I hope Sigma sees this as an opportunity to sell a ton of 35-100/2.8 lenses at $900 and jumps into these waters as well – they have a good history of producing competing lenses at lower prices.
Its not likely this lens will outresolve the 4/3rs zuiko 35-100 f/2 @ 2.8, but if it gets close Im selling the one I have and buying the [12-35 /35-100 f/2.8] set, I am tired of that lens’ poor focus control for video work and im not talking about Auto Focus, its a terrible for manual focus too. Also, its not even that sharp until its stopped to 2.8 anyway.
The “Canon 70-200mm 2.8 L IS II” is obviously selling very well and is one of the most desired lenses from Canon and nobody complained about it’s (higher) price. Actually these two pro-lenses will make many FF users sell their old equipment, I’m sure.
If anything, a $1600 price on this lens would cause me to keep my Canon system, and instead spend the money to upgrade my mark 1 to the mark 2 version. There is a lot of value in that warhorse; it has been a mainstay in my work for years. Losing two stops of DOF control just to fit it in a jacket pocket with lesser build (for the same price I paid for the 70-200/2.8IS in 2005 no less!) is not my idea of a rational move. I wouldn’t pay $1600 for a 70-200/5.6 IS even if it were available, and why would I, when $400 zooms like the excellent Tamron 70-300 already cover that need with better range, and better DOF control.
I will be sticking with my 45-200 OIS when I need reach and m43 portability it seems.
$1,200 is about all I’m willing to pay. over that amount an upgrade from a GH1 is a better way to spend my money
I am sure the 12-35 and 35-100 are terrific lenses, and would be great on my G1. However, the 14-140, as relatively heavy as it might be, could be the best available lens for walking around with that body. The 35-100 would not be appropriate for my GF1 as far as portability is concerned either, and maybe not the 12-35. In sum, these lenses may be out of my budget, and/or not the right ones for the camera bodies I have now. Maybe Panasonic could provide a less bulky and heavy version of the 14-140mm to compete with the Olympus 40-150mm and 14-150mm lenses, particularly the former, since the G1 kit lens- the 14-45mm – is just fine thank you.
$1600 IS TOO EXPENSIVE FOR THIS LENS!!! The price is a deal breakers for me. Maybe $1K