Mockup 35-100mm lens without aperture marks (Image courtesy: ePhotozine).
Marc Baber (Panasonic) said in an interview (youtubevideo below at 8.30) that the compact 35-100mm lens that will come later this year has a constant f/2.8 aperture just like the 35-100mm X Panasonic lens.
One of my very trusted sources (Thanks!) said that Marc Baber made a mistake. The lens will not have a constant f/2.8 aperture. Probably Marc was caught in a moment full of stress and made that error. Obviously we understand Marc had a busy time so don’t worry 🙂
—
For sources: Sources can send me anonymous info at 43rumors@gmail.com (create a fake gmail account) or via contact form you see on the right sidebar. Thanks!
For readers: Don’t miss any news. Join our group on facebook and follow our tweets.
Rumors classification explained (FT= FourThirds):
FT1=1-20% chance the rumor is correct
FT2=21-40% chance the rumor is correct
FT3=41-60% chance the rumor is correct
FT4=61-80% chance the rumor is correct
FT5=81-99% chance the rumor is correct
109 Responses
Must be a mistake, but if true, I will buy 2 of them :.D
Exactly at 8:55. But does he say ‘constant’? Anyway Mr. Baber seems so sure about f/2.8… I’m very curious but more likely to be an error.
Yes, he sys “throughout the range”.. Very impressive if similar IQ..
Oh yeah, tks… haven’t noticed… even more curious then… 🙂
No chance it’s a constant 2.8… Otherwise where’s my 12-35 2.8 pancake?
Possible it is. If you think about the new Canon G1X II, with a sensor that has a 1.9 crop factor, the lens would be equivalent in m4/3 terms to a 12-60mm f/1.9-3.7. And it’s a collapsible pancake, basically. IQ? Still to be seen. I don’t expect too much, but probably good enough for most uses. (By the way, that camera with that lens costs $800. Just to remind why the biggest barrier to adopting m4/3 system is the price against Canikon, not the quality).
Focal lengths aren’t comparable. Wide zooms can be miniaturized as we’ve been seeing. The same doesn’t apply to teles.
Yes, but that from Canon is a 5x zoom vs. a 2.8x zoom. And that zoom goes to a 120mm eq., not so far from the 200mm eq. of the 35-100. And it’s a pancake! So I still think that possible it is. (Though that doesn’t mean it might not be a mistake. Probably it is a mistake).
Like I said before, not even comparable.
It’s easy to figure by comparing the sizes of the Olympus 45mm F1.8 and the 75mm F1.8.
But we’ll know soon.
Exactly. My big wish list for m4/3 is for them to make a m4/3 version of the 12-60. The Canon lens has to fill a LARGER image circle yet they managed to make a 12-60 f1.9-3.7 lens. Why can’t Pana-Oly make a lens like that. It would be the lens that would see the most use, perfect focal length range, and much faster than the 14-42 that there are endless variations on.
What a cool lens for the GM1. Gotta have it.
@Admin…not often you commit to buying new m43 gear (aren’t you on your second body now?)! If this is a reasonable lens in terms of performance, and is F2.8 constant, I would have to get a copy as well, but I have my doubts!
Agree – highly unlikely. Even if it starts at f/2.8 and goes to f/4 (more likely f/5.6) it will still be a nice lens. I was expecting to be a slower zoom starting around f/3.5 going to f/5.6. Constant f/2.8 – definitely buying. F/2.8-f/4 – would consider buying. Any slower … probably won’t buy.
this news is 2 days old.
why should it be an error?
the actual 12-35 is not extending, this one will extend.
the barrel diameter is comparable, it is just a little more compact.
No problem it’s 2 days old cause it’s so relevant. Very nice admin pointed it out, to put some pressure on the marketing-blah-blah guys. And no, in fact the 12-35 extends when zooming… the 35-100 that does not. And both have 58mm filter size, while the new one will probably has a 46mm thread.
Because i tried to check the news with sources. And now I am the first to tell you the manager made a mistake 😉
A bunch of double aspherical glasses combined with ED, super ED, super high grade, super super… :-p
I’d bet 4.5 – 5.6.
If this is really under development, I am buying this lens for sure!
Constant aperture seems pretty stupid anyway, what is the point of constant aperture? A lens capable of 2.8 throught the range probably could have had a lower f-number with good quality in some of its range.
Filmmakers like constant aperture because it means exposure stays the same while zooming.
So set the camera in A-mode, an you will have constant aperture. I don’t like having less performance from my lens just because som filmmakers are to lazy to turn a dial. Or eventually just make a “lock aperture”-button on the lens.
You wouldn’t want to use A-mode (even if you could) when filming because you don’t want the shutter speed to change as a too slow or too fast shutter speed changes the way the footage looks.
If you want constant shutter and constant aperture, sett it in M-mode.
That’s what Manual mode is for.
I know, I was just making the point that constant aperture lenses are useful for film makers as the only real variables you have are aperture and iso (with regards to exposure) I know shutter speed can be changes slightly but really you want to keep it around 1/50. If you are filming in very low light and you want to keep your iso lower than 800 then you need a pretty wide aperture there for a zoom with a constant aperture of 2.8f is beneficial.
A constant aperture zoom is very handy when shooting stills, too!
I seriously doubt this little lens will be constant aperture. f3.5 or f4 to f5.6 is most likely, as with the 45-150mm.
I hope this is available in BLACK! 🙂
Why is it “very handy”? It easy to set a constant aperture yourself, or even have a dedicated button as i said, what really is more handy is the the ability to ha a lower f-number. Just make the lensens for instance 12-35 F2-F2.8 (or whatever the lowest f-number would be with a lens of similar quality and size, only not contrained by a constant aperture), instead of F2.8 all the way, and have a “lock minimum f-number to 2.8” as a button on the lens. Both camps can have it their way (and I bet the large majority would prefer to not lock it)
I may be wrong but I think you may be confused about what constant aperture is. Its doesn’t mean it only has an aperture of 2.8f thats just the minimum and goes up ton 22f. It just means if holds the same aperture through all the focal lengths with the min of 2.8f & max of 22f in this case . I agree e it would be useful to have a lower aperture for the wider focal lengths but 2.8f isn’t bad especially on a telephoto lens @ 100mm.
I know what a constant aperture is, the point is, a lens optically capable of having F2.8 constant is optically capable of having a lower f-number in some of its range. F 2.0-F.2.8 is better than F2.8 the whole way. F2.8 isn’t bad, its just worse than it could have been if not for the stupid old tradition of having constant aperture.
Yea, I see your point. I guess it is probably restricted at the wider focal lengths which does seem a bit stupid.
I think you’re oversimplifying lens construction in your mind. You’re playing the “what if” game… thinking that a constant 2.8 lens could be a 1.8 to 2.8 lens.
Of course this is possible, but more realistically for a shorter zoom – not 35-100 (70-200mm in 35). Maybe a 35-70.
Besides, where have you ever seen such zoom lenses??? T
Sure we (myself included) wouldn’t mind buying f/1.8 (or f/2) to f/2.8 35-100mm lens but that lens would still probably be bigger than a constant f/2.8 lens.
***
I’m still hoping Panasonic or Olympus would make a compact 12-25mm f/2 lens that is also parafocal and not these ubiquitous varifocal lenses that lose focus when zooming in and out!
Just look how big that Sigma 18-35mm (or whatever) f1.8 is! It’s a beast!
But that is 1.8 through the full range. Not what we’re discussing here.
Constant aperture through the entire zoom range.
That’s exactly what constant aperture is.
And that’s exactly what the discussion is about.
Nope. This thread is all about how constant aperture zooms could be made with a faster aperture at the wide end without adding any weight or size. Then you brought up the Sigma as an example of added weight and size. But that’s NOT what’s being discussed here. That is yet another constant aperture zoom. Get it now?
Erik, yeah, that is an example, maybe it wouldnt be 2.0-2.8, maybe just 2.3 to 2.8, or something similar, the point is that they are limiting it “artificially” at the wider end, except for theese f2.8 zoom almost every zoom lens on every cam has a variable aperture.
It probably wouldn’t be any bigger or heavier, because the constant aperture zooms are being artificially limited at the low end to follow a “tradition” where constant zooms are considered “better”.
When I’m not using manual lenses, where I physically set the aperture, then a constant aperture in low light is much simpler, especially when zooming. I almost always shoot in M mode.
I use my 7-14mm when shooting interiors and must use the zoom to compose the room in the frame. Often I’m working under time pressure, limited access to a space, get a bit fixated on the composition and the clock and forget to adjust the aperture. Dumb yes, but my reality. 😉 So, a constant aperture is a good thing for me and yet another reason I love the 7-14mm!
– BLACK, yes!! I agree.
Black lenses and black camera bodies should be the normal and silver (or other tones) should be the other choices. I don’t like how Olympus and now Panasonic seem to pushing silver over black lenses and cameras in the US market.
Yes, but the original comment by Atle43 was that a variable aperture zoom with, let’s say, f/1.4-f/2.8 would be even more useful than a fixed f/2.8 zoom.
… and a zoom with a variable f/2-2.8 aperture range would be even more beneficial. Filmmakers could still set it to f/2.8 and use that throughout the whole range and still photographers would get their extra f-stop at the wide end. Win-win.
Not necessarily. If I use my 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 in A mode set to f2.8, as I zoom in, my aperture changes.
Then set it to 3,5 and it won’t change, problem solved
But if you had a 55-200 f2-2.8 you could set it to f2.8 in A or M modes and your aperture would not change. Then, if you needed that extra stop at the wide end, you would have it.
Just because you don’t understand the need for something that professionals require and many enthusiasts desire … doesn’t mean it’s “stupid.”
It is stupid, because the only reason to have constant aperture is a possible marginal improvment in ease of use, traded for something that is greatly useful for most people and also a lot of professionals, that is more light-gaterhering ability.
When you do lot of photos (for example wedding photography), it is best to have the same settings throughout the whole day to make the post-editing easier and other characteristics more consistent. Marginal it may be but it definitely can make or break an otherwise good set for pros. Constant F is just not for you but that doesn’t make it stupid at all.
If you require the same settings all day, use M, do you require same aperture setting all day, use A
Well I would like to zoom in zoom out at 2.8 cause it’s a murky sky. I also want my OOF to be roughly similar. Your argument doesn’t make sense. Constant zooms exist for a reason.
When if you hadd a F2.0 to F2.8 lens, just set it to F.28, in A-mode, and it will stay there, just try. My argument makes a lot of sense, what doesn’t make sense is to cripple a lenses ability to do low-light/low DOF-shots because some people cannot figure out a constant aperture mode. The exist for the reason “tradition”, and that people thing “professional” when they see it, its time that stupid tradition ended. This can easily be solved, just add a “lock at F.2.8”-button on a F2-2.8 lens, and bot camps can have it their way.
Haha, and how many zooms are 2 – 2.8? You know well that the majority of constant zooms are 2.8-4.0 and clearly even 4.0 is nothing to write home about in low light. What if I don’t want my grains to be all nasty and inconsistent in a late afternoon and the subjects are far away? In many times it will be fine and good to use lower F and larger shutter speed, but not all the times.
Your argument is that we don’t need these physical improvements because you can use electrical and physical combinations to solve the problems. However, you can only push the sensor so much if other factors are inadequate. There is no tradition here, everything was there for a reason. Yes the normal guys admire these lens too much but it was simply because these large and expensive lens are used by pros to earn hard cash. Until the pros stop using these lens then I will agree that it is a stupid tradition. Not now.
“how many zooms are 2 – 2.8” — perhaps as many as fixed 2.8 zooms because any zoom is internally capable of smaller f-numbers at a shorter focal length than at any higher focal length. It’s just a matter of physical construction of any zoom lens with a single aperture: the shorter you go, the smaller f-number you get from the same physical aperture opening. A fixed f-number zoom is nothing different and so is artificially limited for you by the manufacturer to underperform in terms of brightness at shorter focal lengths.
Sr for not making it clear, I mean fixed 2.8 or fixed 2.0 zooms.
Quan: please read my posts, I never saif lower f-numbers are not needed, I said the opposite, that these lenses have to HIGH of a f-numer on the wide end, because they are limited to be constant aperture.And my example is the same with any other variable aperture lens, lets say its a 2.8-f4 then, if you need constant aperture, just set it to F4 in A-mode, and it will stay there.
I do see that, but what if I want it to be constant 2.8 for the whole range and not either 2.8 in the wide end and 4.0 in the long end? That’s one stops difference and it certainly can make or break a set given different conditions. Even if you give me a 2.0 to 4.0, I will still prefer the constant 2.8. It’s not all about getting the most out of the lens, it’s about getting constant physical conditions for the whole set.
Ok I can set all to 4.0, I know that. But 4.0 is certainly not enough for the long end in certain conditions. I am no pro, but has it been so easy to deal with 4.0 even with FF in low light, no pro would pay 2k grand for those constant 2.8. Therefore as I said, if there are zooms from 1.8 or even just 2.0 to 2.8 70 -200 mm, I would be all over them, but there is none. That’s why your argument “just bump it up to keep it constant” doesn’t cut it.
Moreover, has it been so easy to make 2.0 to 2.8 zooms out of fixed 2.8 zooms, why don’t they just optimize it? Why is the Canon 70 – 200 not 2.0 to 2.8. Even the smaller Oly and Pana are only 2.8 constant. There must be trade-offs and consistency are valued more in those cases. The argument that manufacturers artificially limited for you by avatards also doesn’t make sense. Yes they can do that for one lens, but why not creating 2.0 to 2.8 as a higher tier to get cash?
The whole point is that a zoom lens the is capable of F2.8 at the tele-lens is capable of a lower f-number at the wide end, they are just limiting the lens-potensial. A similarly constructed lens would give you two choces, lets say choice A, constant F2.8, Choice B F2.2 – F2.8, would you choose A or B? Or another example, would you rather choose F5.6 constant, or F4-5.6 ? THAT is why constant aperture is stupid, you are “artificially” limiting the lens to have higher F-number than it could have on everything but the Tele-end.
Of course I understand that, but there is almost no lens (2.0 – 2.8) like that on the market even if you look back to the manual ones. This is true for all manufactures and all lens range for all periods. Why? The reason all manufacturers just artificially limit the lens’ capabilities makes little sense. There are many 4.0 – 5.6 but the majority of them are not top-notch.
“but what if I want it to be constant 2.8 for the whole range and not either 2.8 in the wide end and 4.0 in the long end?”
That is not the point being made. We want it to be f/2 on the wide end and f/2.8 on the long end. That way you can have the best of both worlds.
“Haha, and how many zooms are 2 – 2.8?”
And that is the entire point of this argument. There are none and there should be. And there is no good reason not to make them.
With a zoom that had a variable f/2-2.8 you would still be able to do that.
That does not make any sense at all…
If you want to, you can fix the aparture with your camera settings. Why fix it in the lens and lose a degree of freedom?!
There is no lens that just has constant aperture of F2.8 – but they have the ability to have the same Aperture of F2.8 in the various focal lengths the lens supports –
No one is asking you to be at F2.8 – all F2.8 lenses will allow you to be at F5.6 or F4.0 for example if you think that being at F2.8 at 100mm is stupid –
A rather odd comment Atle43 – I guess all the wedding photographers around the world are just pretty stupid – as what wedding photographer for example does not have a 70-200mm F2.8 – you must be right and the rest just has not clue
I guess that means that a Prime F2.8 is also pretty stupid as one can also say that it has a constant aperture of F2.8 ( just one focal length )
There are many variable zooms say 28-100mm F1.8-4.9 (Sony RX100/m2) but there is also Olympus Stylus 1 with 28-300mm F2.8 – Do you know why Olympus just did not make their lens F1.8-2.8? there are physics involved – size and weight issues as well
So you have a choice – you would of course take the 28-100mm F1.8-4.9 using your logic –
there are however many that find that a 28-300mm F2.8 is more practical for them –
If it was so easy to make a 28-300mm F1.8-2.8 then I am sure Olympus would have made it or someone else –
you win – rest of us are pretty stupid
You obviously didn’t understand Atle43’s point.
A constant max aperture zoom is artificially limiting the max aperture at the wide end. An f/2.8 zoom could be easily made into an F/(2.8-x)-2.8 zoom without a size or weight penalty.
As far as I can tell the only reason for this is the perception that the constant max aperture zoom is better. This comes from the time when zoom lenses had manual aperture rings. You simply couldn’t manufacture a practical variable max aperture zoom because when you set the max aperture at the wide end, you would not be able to zoom to a focal length that didn’t support that aperture.
When electronic film cameras came about, the cheap kit lenses started having variable max apertures because now the aperture could be set electronically, but high quality lenses were still manufactured with mechanical aperture rings because they had to work with both the old and new cameras.
This created the false perception that fixed=good, variable=bad.
I know that I’m dreaming, but a constant f4 lens would be interesting…
Yes, hopefully he meant a constant f4 – that would be cool with me.
“UPDATED: The new 35-100mm compact zoom will not have a f/2.8 constant aperture!”
With a smaller lens, that would have to be the case.
Of course it will not have an F2.8 constant aperture.
It will have a smaller number after the ‘F’ – say F1.8 or (why not?) F1.0 – according to its smaller size.
‘The smaller the number, the smaller the size.’
Love the sarcasm
What will you say if it turns out to be true? I mean, this guy is an official rep for Panasonic and he clearly did not mis-speak, he pretty much repeats it. Do you remember when the x14-42 came out? Not a lot of people saw a Pancake zoom coming. And what a m43 sensor in a rx100 sized camera? I say it’s doable.. But who, knows. I’ve certaibly been wrong before.
I’d be happy and rather surprised.
I suspected it was a mistake. So tiny with such a constant aperture… I don’t think it’s possible yet. And I would like to compare the RAW files to other bigger lenses to look at the (heavy) in camera software corrections it would need.
If it isn’t constant aperture I hope it is something like an f/2.8-4 or 2.8-3.5 or something. High quality and maybe $500 price tag. That us my hope. I don’t need a super high speed lens here, but I don’t need an affordable medium telephoto that is high quality and is medium fast, but small. Its just if any of the aperture is below f/4 or it runs more than $500 that it is effectively worthless to me.
Still hoping sigma comes out with a 90mm f2.8 (or maybe f3.5 or 4) sometime soon. Logical follow on to their current mirrorless strategy. It would make a 135mm on APS-c and 180mm on 4/3, both very usable and “normal” focal lengths. A great addition to the 60/2.8 of theirs I have and filling in the top end of my medium Tele range.
and a macro 🙂
Do need. Sheesh autocorrect.
You guys are idiots. Of course this is a mistake. Shame on 43rumors for allowing the posting of this nonsense.
Did he not talk about this for almost a minute? He clearly says that like the other lens, it will have “2.8 throughout the range”, making a big deal about how the Panasonic engeneers have outdone themselves. I think it’s true. But time will tell.
Toys for little boys.
You mean trolling.
Sexy as hell.
Well…makes sense that it can’t be a constant f/2.8 ….but Marc did seem very positive about that.
I beg to differ, the way I heard it come over he seemed anything but certain, in fact he didn’t seem to have much of a clue about it at all.
I’m not sure what you are referring to at the 8:30 mark that was highlighted, he even praised the engineers for being able to make the smaller lens f2.8 the same as the larger one. It was likely a mistake since the lens doesn’t show what the aperture is but to say that he seemed unsure when he made the statement is just not true unless you just thought he sounded confused throughout the video
I’m sorry but I have watched it quite a few times to make sure I heard it correctly, and he definitely hesitates when he makes the comment about the new lens, a sure sign of uncertainty.
….or pausing to get he facts straight before he spoke! 🙂
In which case he really messed up, not very professional of him to not have his facts straight before opening his mouth.
Then if he wasn’t so sure, why praise the engineers?
Who’s praising the engineers???
Um, Mark.. The guy with the black lumix shirt?? He was commending the engineers work. You did watch the video, right??
In that case I take my comment back, it sounded as if you were suggesting I did.
” Probably Marc was caught in a moment full of stress and made that
error. Obviously we understand Marc had a busy time so don’t worry”. You’re a good guy, Admin, covering Marc’s tracks on what sure comes across as accidentally going public with inside information (he does seem awfully certain and adamant with what he stated). The day long pause in the correction (if that’s what it is) adds fuel to the fire, s good luck putting this genie back in the bottle 🙂 ! In any case, it’s fun to dream.
Obviously, Panasonic marketing types in the US should be fired – they are clueless. Just look at the lens prices they set. No wonder they cannot sell anything.
Looks like in the UK they are just as clueless.
Oh, and Olypus can charge whatever for their made in china everything? Oh yeah, they’re fanboys are blind….
Many Olympus lenses are also overpriced. But compare similar lenses – weather-sealed Oly 60/2.8 macro for $500 ($400 on sales very often) vs Pana 45/2.8 macro for $900 ($720 now on sales when nobody buys it anymore). $1300 for 12-35/2.8 vs $1000 ($800 in kit, $850 on sales) for better made 12-40/2.8. Try to buy Pana 45-150 for $119 as you can buy Oly 40-150 any day. 42.5/1.2 for $1600, when Fuji 52/1.2, overpriced too and obviously more expensive to make due to longer FL (and larger glass as a result) is $999? WTF?
HAHAHAHA!!! What a Fanboy!!!
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-H-HS12035-LUMIX-12-35mm-Series/dp/B00843ERMW/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1394231813&sr=1-1&keywords=lumix+12-35
$1300.00? Where? And who said it’s better built? -LINK??
-Who buys the Oly60mm? And last I checked, the P/L 45mm is better built as well!
-The Pana 45-150 is better built and a better lens than the oly version, look it up.
Why am I even replying to you? You’re spewing FUD on Oly lenses nobody buys!!! Where are these lenses on the amazon charts? Where are they on ANY charts?? -The only reason the Oly 12-40mm is even on the Olympus charts is because it’s New. It’ll soon drop.
Ming Thein tested the macro capabilities of the Panasonic 45mm vs Olympus 60mm and Olympus came out on top.
http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Camera-Photo-Compact-System-Lenses/zgbs/photo/7161083011/ref=zg_bs_nav_p_4_173565
Read it and weep…. BOTH the OLD and NEW Panasonic 14-140 are selling MORE than the Olympus version.
In fact, there’s MORE Panasonic lenses on the top of the chart, compared to Olympus ones.
Humble yourself.
I recon this lens is going to complement the 12-32 pancake so it’s only reasonable it falls into the same performance range, which is – compact, variable aperture, fine consumer quality, shiny 🙂
I think Panasonic is betting on the GM1 and that people will like to see smaller bodies and lenses – which makes sense. Recall the old Cell Phones in the late 80’s and 90’s they where huge and of course none of use want to return to that 🙂
So to make the GM1 more appealing they need more small form factor lenses to match the smaller bodies –
So I love the fact that Panasonic is working on shrinking their lenses – I see Olympus is likewise making smaller lenses –
So it the new small lens F2.8 throughout ? I wish – and if that is the case then that would be fantastic ! however I recall seeing some specs on it few weeks back that it would be a F3.5-F5.6 – just can’t recall the website –
So I do suspect that Marc had a super busy day and miss-spoke – I have seen some other videos with him and he seems to struggle a bit – I am sure he is super knowledgeable but trying to go over so much info in such short videos can be stressful –
So if it turns out to be a 35-100mm F3.5-5.6 with IS as GM1 has no IBIS and is priced well under $500 – hopefully say 250-$350 then it would be a welcome addition to the hopefully large collection of these small small lenses –
If we also get in that small form factor few fast primes and a 12-35mm F2.8 then I would be happy – it could really cut in on the RX100m2 market
Judging from the apparent size of the front element – no way is it f/2.8. It might be f/4, but more likely f/4.5 or f/5.6 . . . Though if he is right and it is constant aperture throughout the zoom range then f/4 would make more sense. Wish we could see the rear element size . . .
Would like to see a small12-60mm like the new Canon G1X-II
“moment full of stress”??
Really, Admin? Stress?
Fan bait post, I assume?
Looks like it turned into a Troll bait post instead; I mean how could you seriously take issue with what the admin wrote? Unless you think that that this Mark guy gave the wrong information on purpose???? Or you believe that he gave the correct information and that contrary to the laws of physics, and conflicting source-information, this lens is a constant f2.8???
Regardless of which of these unrealistic scenarios you happen to prescribe to – the admin’s explanation is far more probable (hint: that’s why he said “probably”). It is also the most courteous and gracious response regarding this rep; (hint: read the admin’s comment and then compare it to your own post – you should be able to see the difference in savoir faire).
Simple… I watched the video.. The dude didn’t look or acted stressed at all.
Did YOU watch the video? Did he look “stressed” to you?
Then again, don’t bother, you’ll probably say yes to justify your argument.
Well, you weren’t joking when you said “simple”. Lucky thing that the admin has you to raise the fanboy flag every time he posts something; your latest “reasoning” makes it clear that you could do so much better at his job.
still waiting for a 7-300mm f/2 lens at that size. =D
Like duh looking from that size how can it be constant f/2.8
I really think Panasonic shouldn’t spend time working on the same focal length with just more affordable price and smaller body. Cos we all know at the end, the lens will be f/3.5 to 5.6 at least. Otherwise the lens can’t be cheap. I prefer they do something different, such as 8-20mm f/2.8 OIS or even 12-60mm f/4 will be interesting 🙂
I agree