DxOmark (Click here) posted and wrote that this is “certainly the best (MFT) kit available based around zoom lenses“.
The 12-35 and 35-100mm basically have the same kind of quality. And it’s rumored that Olympus will launch a f/2.8 zoom with even better image quality. It’s likely going to be announced along the new OMD in September. But I still need to get a confirmation form trusted sources about that…
The Panasonic 35-100mm store links to [shopcountry 33626].
Links to the two superb Zuiko f/2.0 zooms:
14-35mm f/2.0 on [shoplink 25320 ebay]eBay (Click here)[/shoplink] and via Slidoo eBay.
35-100mm f/2.0 on [shoplink 25119 ebay]eBay (Click here)[/shoplink] and via Slidoo eBay.
68 Responses
Can someone explain me, why is the new rumored Olympus zoom a constant f2.8, and why isn’t Olympus making rather an f2.0 zoom instead? Is too hard to copy the 4/3 zoom to m4/3? Or is too big? I can’t really understand, because both cover the same size sensor.
It will be both too large and expensive. Look for pictures of the 4/3 lenses on an m4/3 body and you will understand.
I could maybe imagine such beast on a GH3. Not exactly Olympus’s idea
It might be largre but not as big as the 43 version,. M43 is completly diferent system from the 43 DSLR,. You should see the example on 7-14 from both 43 oly and M43 Lumix – its much smaller
On the other side, the moderate tele zooms (40-150mm) for FT and MFT are almost identical in size. It seems you can reduce size mainly in the wide angle and normal lens range. You can also reduce size to some extent with optical compromises and software correction. A f2 zoom would be still so big and expensive that you can get a better balanced full frame camera/lens combination for both a similar price and similar overall size.
With fullframe camera/lens combination i talk about a zoom at f4, because you get a similar DOF as with a f2 zoom in MFT and also gain up to two stops better low light performance (you can use higher ISO and get the same results) with the best full frame cameras.
you dont get anywhere near 2 stops
Wide to normal m4/3 14-35mm zoom would certainly be smaller, because of shorter flange distance. Even Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 for APS-C is smaller. Maybe Oly could make a 12-25mm F2 for m4/3? I suppose that could be as small as older Panasonic 14-140mm, which is fine AFAIC.
If comparing only existing 35-100mm f2 for 4/3 and 35-100 f2.8 m4/3 difference is quite huge, 1650g vs 360g. Doubt they can make much smaller, cheaper f2 zoom without big compromise in IQ.
4/3 lenses were telecentric, micro 4/3 relaxed that requirement to achieve lighter, shorter lenses.
The Panasonic patent for diffraction prism based color separation at the sensor (and 1+ stop advantage over Bayer filters) appears to require telecentric lenses, so perhaps they’ll go full circle, in time.
But will the Olympus version have OIS?
Of course not.
That’s the thing I hate about m43, IS differencies and issues. I hope, Panasonic will have IBIS one day, until then I must stick with Panasonic lenses.
+1
Or at least in premium models, that would be a good differentiator between low end and high end bodies.
is the mayority of your shooting at night with no tripod? its silly what you think you need but actually dont. All other companies are churning out primes with no IS and people use them just fine. heck, IS is off for most of the time on my cameras, I have a bunch of examples where IS ruins a photo. I use my olympus primes on my panasonic bodies and nothing has blown up, and photos are sharp
I said that it’s stupid to have m43 format, where one company makes mostly stabilized lenses for non-stabilized bodies, and the others do it vice versa. My opinion is that IBIS is the way to go. You never know when it may come in handy regardless of used lens.
IBIS is desirable feature, but for the few shots that I missed where I could blame it on the lack of IBIS on my PL 25/GH2 combo, I feel that it simply doesn’t warrant all this fuss I can read over m43 forums.
Yes, you never know when, but my past experience tells me its not the first thing I have to look for in a camera and that its something I can look past.
Way more often, I find myself cursing at not having brought my 14-140 or willing to change my priorities for one of the UWA zooms…
+1
“All other companies are churning out primes with no IS”
Notice the three wides in there:
http://www.dpreview.com/products/search/lenses#criterias=SpecsCoreParams%2CSpecsImageStabilisation&includeDiscontinued=No&sort=newestFirst&view=list&page=1¶mSpecsCoreParamsLensType=PrimeWideangle%2CPrimeNormal%2CPrimeTelephoto¶mSpecsCoreParamsLensMount=CanonEF¶mSpecsCoreParamsSubcriteria=LensMount%2CLensType%2CAdditionalFeatures¶mSpecsCoreParamsSearchType=Simple¶mSpecsImageStabilisation=Yes
From an engineering perspective I think it would a good idea for Olympus to put an IS sensor in the end of the lens. That would increase the accuracy of the IBIS.
Makes sense in theory, but Panasonic lens IS and Olympus in body IS don’t play well together. I don’t see why/how an Olympus lens IS would be any different.
That’s the thing I don’t understand. Why companies like Olympus and Panasonic don’t cooperate on such an essential thing which is a problem-less lens/body compatibility. Do they want a strong m43 market, or not?
Problem-less lens compatibility?
I use Olympus lenses on my G2
I use Panasonic lenses on my E-P1 and E-M5.
They are compatible without any problems.
That I do not get a form of IS when neither lens or body provide for it seems rather logical, and is a matter of a (often desirable) feature not being present. It has nothing whatsoever to do with compatibility.
+1
I get what you are saying Bean5y, but putting a “gyro” sensor at the end of the lens barrel probably isn’t necessary. The effective focal length of the lens is what counts, and is presumably extrapolated by inputting the lens length either electronically (native lens) or manually (adapted lens).
All it would add is cost and complexity.
More info on Olympus’ zoom…please!
If Olympus comes up with F/2.8 with similar vocal length ,. I believe it will be smaller than the one that Panasonic launched,. Because its just simply no OIS on the lens ,. The good thing is if Olympis can make like the 43 version with faster aperture F2 it could be bigger or the same size from panasonic since Olympus won’t use OIS on their lens
Good point.
That would be awesome. They could also make the focal range less to reduce the size.
I know it won’t happen, but I would love a 17-35mm F2 (or even a 25-45mm).
Yep, this is why IBIS suits (to me) the m43 format all along, as one main advantage over bigger sensors is lens size, and OIS makes lenses a little bigger.
On the other hand, an F2.0 lens will be substantially larger and more expensive than F2.8 all other things being equal……it’s always a compromise. I would personally pay maybe 30-50% more for F2.0 over F2.8, but not double.
It’s hard to make a direct comparison, but in Olly four thirds:
12-60mm F2.8-4.0 = $999
14-35mm F2.0 = $2,299
Too bad Olympus doesn’t make OIS lenses, it leaves out a big part of the micro 4/3 market. I don’t even know that I would by Olympus telephoto lenses if I had an Olympus body. I would be concerned that I might want to switch micro 4/3 camera makers some time in the future and ”
obsolete” my Oly lenses.
Too bad Panasonic don’t put IS in their bodies, then all Panasonic user’s could use Olympus Lenses.
Indeed. As a Olympus user I can mount native Olympus and Panasonic lenses on my camera. And they will be all stabilized. A Panasonic user can’t. It think it’s actually in the disadvantage of Panasonic to have it like this. Some m/4 costumers will buy Olympus body’s because of it.
I just find it amazing that with all the Olympus bodies with IBIS, anyone would want to purchase a Panasonic body, Oh I forget there are those who want a video camera and not a stills one, funny thateven more of a case for IBIS.
Panasonic offers excellent stabilization in most of its lenses. Before the E-M5 the only way to get effective stabilization for video was to use Panasonic lenses. Besides, stabilization is unnecessary in most situations. It’s not a valid alternative for action scenarios nor can it entirely replace a tripod when critical sharpness and detail are required. Nevertheless I like the IBIS solution better than OIS.
Yes, Olympus’s IBIS is a big advantage, but is up to personal choice of lenses if it’s really needed or not.
my oly lenses work on my pana bodies, I must be a genius
they offer an advantage with a few prime lenses in very narrow shooting conditions ,there are Panasonic zooms from 24-600mm equiv all with full AF and OIS. As lenses get wider than this the need for IS diminishes greatly, even with the fast primes the need for IS diminishes ,and forget it for moving subjects.The value of IS is the most exaggerated aspect of any Olympus model. I guess all those millions of photographers using the big two are just all dumb,after all look at the huge financial success of the camera companies that have IBiS surely Olympus,Sony & Pentax must be making a fortune.What do you mean they have the biggest losses in camera divisions of any makers Nikon and Canon have dozens of zoom lenses with IS covering everything from 16mm to 1200mm, there re also a huge selection of off brand lenses with IS/VR
A 2 stop difference at 25mm isn’t exactly ‘small’. Neither is IS only usable in very extreme cases (it is for example quite useful for panning shots at pretty decent shutter speeds in full sunlight, it is very useful for still being able to get a slower shutter to smooth that fountain in full sunlight, just to name 2 uses that have totally zero to do with low-light)
Its not absolutely needed either, but you are not doing your argument any favor by denying the usefulness or acting as if a 1 1/3 to 2 stops difference is so small that it can just be ignored.
That YOU don’t need it is something else, and totally valid, its your choice, but if you want to make suggestions beyond your own use, at least try to make a honest argument.
The 45mm that I owned refused to work on my GF2-GX1, so I ebay’d it.
But seriously, No. You sound idiotic. A camera doesn’t need ibis to work. Olympus lenses work great on Panasonic bodies WITHOUT ibis.
Get off your high horse.
Olympus patent for constant zoom is bigger than panasonic’s one. Just from patent.
Comparing the available zooms, it’s also apparent that Panasonic is able to make smaller zooms. Either because they have more technical know-how, or because they rely more on software correction, or both.
I doubt they have a greater technical knowledge in the design of lens glass, so its almost certain to be software correction. Speaking of which, does DxO take software correction into acount with it’s testing, or not?
@Narretz, I disagree. Apart from kit zooms, Olympus’ wide angle, telephoto, and super telephoto zooms are all smaller than their Panasonic equivalent. At this point, I’d wager that they’re both limited by design choices and physics far more than by technology or knowledge.
These lenses are awesome. The 12-35/2.8 has better overall score than both Canon and Nikon 17-55/2.8 with better sharpness and CA than the Canon and better transmission and vignetting than both:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/173/(brand)/Nikkor/(camera1)/0/(lens2)/960/(brand2)/Panasonic/(camera2)/0/(lens3)/169/(brand3)/Canon/(camera3)/0
Don’t compare with Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM or Tamron SP 24-70mm F2.8 Di VC USD, you will be sorely disappointed.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/960/(brand)/Panasonic/(camera1)/0/(lens2)/886/(brand2)/Canon/(camera2)/0/(lens3)/885/(brand3)/Tamron/(camera3)/0
Check what DXOMark ‘perceptual pixels’ means and how they depend on resolution of the sensor. Then switch from 1Ds Mark III to something closer to 16Mpx of GH2 and you will see how scores goes down. Also look on elements of the rating – not only on the final score, esp. vignetting and chr. abberations.
For example: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/960/(lens2)/886/(lens3)/885/(brand1)/Panasonic/(camera1)/0/(brand2)/Canon/(camera2)/586/(brand3)/Tamron/(camera3)/680
Pei, thats because the canon and tamron are tested with a 21 and 36mp body, change the bodies to 15-16 mp body and it looks different again.
Pei: not correct. Try to select a Rebel as main camera for the lens. It scores less than the GH2 and 35-100mm combo!
Oh man, if I can get my hands on the Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0… *music and fireworks*
As a user of the 12-35-100mm f/2.8, I greatly appreciate its performance, light weight and compact dimension.
But one zoom lens I am looking forward to is the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8. Matched with a Speed Booster Adapter, this admittedly big and heavy Sigma zoom lens will become a 13-25mm f/1.2. In addition to the speed, one attraction of this combo is an optical design that will not need to have its borders and corners stretched.
Interesting comment, being a 12-35mm user too and looking for the ultimate fast lens for video.
BUT 2 things:
1.the 18-35mm f1.8 lens + speedbooster= more than 2000usd. for that price you dont even have OIS, and could find better for less (like the pana 43mm f1.2 OIS that wont exceed 1000usd)
2. The 18-35mm f1.8 is an APS-C lens so wont work with the speedbooster!!
Voila
1. There is IS in Olympus bodies.
2. Not from Metabones, but since there are already two clones, I suppose someone will come out with an APS-C to m4/3 focal reducer.
Of course, for that Sigma to be fully functional on a m4/3 body, an adapter that enables electronic communication between lens and body is needed and so far that has only been made by Metabones. AF speed is another problem, but Sigma would be very unwise to make a lens that is slow in CDAF because most DSLRs these days have live view, where contrast detection is used for focusing.
“one zoom lens I am looking forward to is the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 Matched with a Speed Booster”
+1
whats the boost gonna be on an aps c lens? .5? less? thats half a stop, is that worth it?
x0.71, 1 stop of light more, same as FF to APS-C. Lego was right, it would become 13-25mm F1.2 on m4/3.
I thought that the sigma lens couldnt be adapted with a speedbooster since its a crop lens
Very good scores for the 35-100. Frankly I don’t see the point in making another set of f/2.8 zooms for m4/3. Olympus should focus on lenses which are still missing from the system (such as a 12-60 f/4, a 10mm prime, a longer macro and perhaps a 25mm variant of the 45/1.8).
“and perhaps a 25mm variant of the 45/1.8).”
Why?? The Panasonic/Lieca is 1.4
Would have liked to see a comparison with the oly SHG f2 lenses for fun, but after looking at the dxomark site, they haven’t even tested those lenses.
DxOMark is losing credibility with PMP measure. It is garbage.
I think Ill throw this comment thread a curve an actually talk about these lenses. Having used the 12-35 for video work for a few months, and I have the Olympus 35-100 f/2 and for video use anyway and neglecting the DoF advantage of the faster, longer lens, there isn’t much between them. The 12-35 is sharp and a joy to use, the 35-100 is the lens I would have bought over the 35-100 zuiko had it been available. I would gladly take an Stop loss for much much smaller and lighter as well as real and accurate AF and top notch IS (the 12-35 IS is fantastic)
Thanks for sharing. It is depressing how i had to scroll halfway through the comments to finally find ione post on actual lens usage and experiences rather than measurebation.
They never tested the very good Pana 14-45mm! How can they claim “certainly the best (MFT) kit available based around zoom lenses”???
Hmm.. 12-35/2.8 vs 14-45/3.5-5.6… yes, how’d they come to this conclusion.
keyword being “kit”
Yes, so was I.
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GH3-DMC-GH3A-K-12-35mm/dp/B009XEZL4O
You really need to do a better job of moderating your site. Most of the comments here aren’t even talking about the Lenses!!!
I mean, look at the First comment posted!!
“Can someone explain me, why is the new rumored Olympus zoom a constant f2.8, and why isn’t Olympus making rather an f2.0 zoom instead?”
What does this have to do with what you posted above?? It’ should have been deleted!
Then, someone Finally wants to comment about the Lens..
“I think Ill throw this comment thread a curve an actually talk about these lenses.”
That was posted further down, because you’ve let the Olympus fanboys run rampant. Do you even read most of these comments here? TOTALLY off topic!
It seems whenever some post goes up of anything “PANASONIC”, it gets hateful comments or the topic changes to anything Olympus.
Seriously, this site is becoming one big joke. I lose respect for this site and you as an admin every day. It’s not even fun and exciting to come here anymore. The Bias here is a poison.