The 100-400mm lens displayed recently at Salo De La Photo (Image via Focus-numerique).
A second trusted source confirmed the new Leica 100-400mm lens will be announced in February at Cp+ show. And yes the price should be around $2,500 (Panasonic did not share him the exact final price info).
The source also had the final prototype lens in his hand and said he was actually “impressed how small it is” compared of the impression you get from the pictures. It’s close to the [shoplink 56517 ebay]size of the 35-100mm X lens[/shoplink].
—
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!
To get notified on all upcoming news and rumors be sure to subscribe on 43rumors here:
RSS feed: http://www.43rumors.com/feed/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/43rumors
Twitter: https://twitter.com/43rumors
GooglePlus: https://plus.google.com/+43rumors/posts
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
81 Responses
That is a steep rice for such a slow lens.
Well, if at least its IQ lives up to the price tag.
The biggest problem with the slow tele lenses is that they are also relatively soft, esp on the long end.
If that lens would be sufficiently sharp to also allow the close-up filters, it would be something really interesting.
Heavy fast tele optics are usually treated with a certain respect. They are so big and heavy, you want at least monopod and you certainly aren’t going to shoot at arm length, aiming from the LCD.
While slower tele zooms are small light, everything else being equal, I suspect that they do test the limits of IS. There are forum talk about the collar for the panasonic 100-300 and on how it made it a much sharper lens.
I bet it works pretty well with dual IS like the GX8. All that magnification + zoom capability requires a lot of glass, probably causing unavoidable light fall-off. Sure they could have built it differently but at what cost? If it was faster (starting at F/2.8) I think we’d be talking over $3000!
Well for the price it should be atleast f5.6 at the long end – it would still be more expensive than the 35-format Canon 100-400. The Zuiko 300 will be 420 f5.6 with the teleconverter.
While you spend time mounting that teleconverter I have allready nailed the shot with the 100-400mm. 😉
I would be tempted, rather, to crop the 300mm. At f6.3 you will be forced to use a 2.5x slower shutter or a much higher ISO with the attendant loss of detail imposed by noise reduction. You’re gonna need a tripod. While true, that the convenience of a zoom gets you more shots, the question at the end of the day will test your level of satisfaction. Of the keepers, how many will be Reader’s Digest good or National Geographic excellent? Depends on the subject too. The point is, to have fun.
I have the 100-300. While the 100-400 is tempting, it might not be necessary.
You will think me a complete phlebian. I have six lenses, four excellent, one very good, one impressively adequate, nothing beyond 150mm yet. I really need to suck it up and get the constant f2.8 40–150mm mZuiko because I am not hurting anywhere else. I am more tempted (here is the shame part) to cough for the 14-150mm f3.5–5.6 first because I am outdoors a good deal, at the park, on outings for scouts and the like where art and perfection are not the primary objectives. After those, I gotta figure how I will go longer. I don’t look long very often, but when I do, the subjects are not hopping birds, so I think the teleconverter will prove excellent enough, 212mm adequate.
Well I have the 100-300 too. It doesn’t know what to do with DFD. If youcan live with the soso IQ at the longer end and the lousy actionshooting (at least on my GH4), it is oke. But if you want am excellent lens with great AF it is quite sure the Leica will deliver here.
I have to 100-300 also. I think it’s a lens you need to use within the right expectations. I don’t even bother mounting it on the camera if I don’t have a fair bit of sunlight to work with. When I do though, It’s not as bad as people say, but yeah it’s going to need a tripod and static subjects if you want to shoot on a cloudy day. And I avoid going over 290mm and try to stay at F8 if conditions permit. It seems to be sharpest around F7-F8.
I think it’s clear that the f6.3 aperture was chosen not to meet a price point, but to meet a weight and size target. An f5.6 lens would have – at the very least – an 8mm larger front element.
In reality, probably the difference between a 72mm and an 82mm front element, to give a sense of it.
35-100? Never. More like the 40-150/2.8. The front lens diameter simply cannot be less than 63.5mm (400/6.3), so it will probably come with a 67mm filter thread and the barrel diameter will be something like 70mm in diameter, so the length will probably be around 16 or 17cm. Still compact for a 400mm zoom, even if it’s just f/6.3, but not that compact.
I agree. I would love to see these two lenses side-by-side. Curious that he “said” that…but did not “show” us??? He certainly could have. LOL! 🙂
I have seen the mockup 100-400 mm lens and its significantly larger than the 35-100.
The diameter of the 40-150/2.8 is 150 divided by 2.8 = 53.6mm. Yet it uses 72mm filters.
This is 400/6.3 = 63.5mm, so its going to be even larger than the 40-150mm, more like 77mm or maybe even bigger than that.
Considering how tiny the 35-100mm f/2.8 is, how could a reasonable 100-400mm be close in size?
Completely agree: I have the Gh4 and the 35-100 and by the look of it it is substantially smaller than the 100-400. Of course!
Rather curious about Bence Máté’s opinion, he made the famous GH4 wildlife test pictures using the much lower class 100-300.
Like he will be impartial on that. Bence works for Panasonic, his shots are very nice surely but he is not a good source for independent advice/information.
bence works for Panny. His opinion is not impartial at all.
any pictures of it zoomed out?
Please let a 45-200/4 or 100-300/4 be next. F6.3 is next to useless indoors.
I thought that this lens had a constant aperture up to 300. So it is already 100-300/4. 400/6.3 is just an extra reach.
No way man, it’s atleast f5.6 or slower at 300 mm. If you need 300 f4 Zuiko is the way to go. I doubt even 150 mm is f4.
Although I have not yet seen a zoom that was constant over part of the range, I have seen a few where the aperture fall-off was more or less linear up to the middle, and parabolic above. Naturally, I am very curious. If there is any truth to the idea you mention, the argument will remain in favor of the mZuiko because we have yet to see the long end of a zoom quite able to match the sharpness of a prime telephoto. With the poor aperture you will be forced at times, besides, to use high ISO’s that depend on more noise reduction (minor loss of detail). After the wait and see, we will know for sure. Fingers crossed. Price might be a bit high.
Highly dubious.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard of anyone using an 800mm equivalent lens indoors. But I guess it could make for some interesting photography if you absolutely have to…
Seems like M4/3 is the wrong tool for that job, though.
Did I ask for a 100-400/4?
I need to make podium & stage shots from 30′-50′ away at indoor events and keep ISO at or below 3200. MFT is just fine for this, especially with DxO’s PRIME noise reduction. When I use stand-mounted flashes to light the room or stage, I can even work with my 45-200/3.5-5.6, but I’d really rather have another stop and better optical quality at the long end.
I see. But it’s clear that this lens has a lot of appeal to other people. It’s just not for you.
If you don’t need the range, why not use the 90-250/f2.8 for 4/3, for instance?
Yeah, the 100-400 looks like a nice lens. I just don’t need 400mm indoors. 200mm to 300mm at the long end would do it. As for the 90-250, it is not native MFT, so AF would be slow, it lacks OIS, and it costs $5000, so not a good option for me.
I’d think the Oly 40-150 f/2.8 would be ideal for this. If necessary you could use the 1.4 TC but I’d think sans TC would work better.
150mm is too short. I need at least 200mm and at most 300mm. With the TC it might fit the bill. But, I’d rather have a 100-300 as this would better complement my 35-100/2.8. I’m not keen on the 40-150/2.8 as a medium tele due to its size. I can put my 35-100 in a coat pocket. So, a 35-100 plus 100-300 combo works best for me.
Get the 40-150 pro olympus lens
Because 150mm is the same as 200mm or 300mm? Odd suggestion.
I think a good quality 100-300mm F/4 would have been far more attractive . An effective 800mm as in the 100-400 is very much a niche market, especially with its F/6.3 aperture at the long end
That Pana/Leica looks quite manageable, smaller than I expected. Personally I have no interested in it. I would love to see a few faster zooms for MFT. A remake of the Zuiko 14-35mm f/2 would be lovely. Or get Sigma to make their 18-35mm f/1.8 for MFT too. I’m standing here waiting, money in hand. 🙂
Love the size but not the max aperture. Are these related?
At $2500 this will be an expensive lens. The IQ will have to be very good to justify the price. Certainly could be. Panny and Oly are making super good and technologically forward lenses at the moment.
At that price, It had better be amazing! with decent close focus to boot.
it’s not going to be 2500$ and it’s not anywhere close to the size of the 35-100. Absolute bogus post and click-bait. Really shouldn’t have posted but hey…
It will definitely be 2500€ in Europe. We get screwed on so many levels…
Not necissarily. This is all based on a price quoted for Sweden. I compared Swedish prices with Dutch prices and those were sunstantially higher. If it is 2500 euro based on Kronor it will likely be 2000-2100 in NLand Germany. When the pound is less strong, it might be even more interesting to buy in the UK.
The Panasonic 35-100 on sale today on amazon for $760, introductory price was $1300. The 12-35 is $648, introductory price was $1300.
So this will be $2500 on release day, then $1500 a year after.
On sale today….in the USA I guess. In Europe these lenses still cost what they always have. Lenses do not get cheaper, bar some special days. If people can wait 3 yrs or so on such a deal on the 100-400: fine. I am not going to wait: when the reviews indicate that it is very good wide open at all FL and excellent stopped down a litte, I’ll buy it.
Oddly, this lens brings another argument for a high resolution version of μ4/3, perhaps in the form of a second camera body you carry around. (Would it be possible to build a camera with two sensors, and have a means to shift back and forth?) Here’s how the argument goes: the current μ4/3 recipe gives us 16 and 20 megapixel sensors that compete on the level with APS-C sensors, especially as regards 3200 ISO. Full Frame wins equally over both at 6400 ISO. The partial answer is to use fast-aperture primes that back you away from the necessity of deeper ISO’s. At the moment, however, no crop sensor camera can deliver 36 or 42 megapixels native. Sensor shift only works on static subjects with a camera mounted on a tripod. The point is, when you have 36 or 42 megapixels, you can crop more and get away with owning fewer lenses. When we look the other direction (down) upon one-inch sensors, we may ask about a 4/3 sensor with the same pixel pitch, netting 38 megapixels and giving up the 3200 ISO. Or we could favor ISO slightly, say with 32 megapixels to clean up 1600 ISO. What then? A second camera body would cost less than a $2500 lens and be very usable at f2.8 (40-150mm) insofar that the temptation to crop would not be a sin. We would still be able to print at every size within current range.
Hoping the hybrid IBIS/OIS is a breakthrough for long focal lengths, which may compensate for how slow it is in certain situations.
I fail to see a market for this at that price, despite some enthusiastic comments here. The main alternative with budget conscious hobbyists would be some aps-c dslr with tamron or sigma 150-600mm, which are fairly good lenses for aps-c. Narrower fov at the long end with same aperture (6.3), so less noise expected given the bigger sensor. Would be heavier of course, but at 800mm+ equivalent, the lessen noise would be worth the trouble. Tamron is $1200-1300 + tx in Canada right now. The 100-400mm at us $2500 would be cdn $3000-3500. Just buy a sub-$1000 camera to go with the tamron and you still spared $1000. I know the Lumix is not a third party lens, but even with stellar sharpness, given how narrow the aperture is, at ISO 6400 on a m43, there won’t be that much details to see anyway when taking photographs of moving subjects. And about the lens being more upmarket, I don’t think people going for National Geographic fame will want that lens if it’s only great in very good lightning condition.
I tend to agree.
I find it very, very, very difficult to believe that this lens will actually cost $2500 in the real world. At least not in the US market, which is what is being quoted for.
There are just too many alternatives that are too appealing. At $1700-1800 I think they will sell 10x more than they would at $2500+…
It will be less than $2500 but still expensive. They surely hope we say it in reverse order: Yes, it is expensive, but not as much as rumored… Overall impression is much better this way, isn’t it?
I went into mFTs to get rid of behemoths. If there is anywhere where you can lose appreciable amount of weight it is precisely at these focal lengths. I took a look at the 150-500 Sigma on D7200 vs a GH4 plus 100-300. Just as an indication. The difference is as expected: huge!
Anyone who can live with the Sigma 150-500 or 600 is someone who should never have gotten into mFTs in the first place I think.
For me this size looks very promising, the price strongly depends on that small size plus excellent IQ. If it is excellent. I am in.
Well I went in to mFT for size and weight loss. What you propose is totally contrary to that goal, which I am sure of many other users went into mFT for. If size and weight weren’t an issue at all, why di dyou get into mFT in the first place…?
It may be that I find m43 to be a great compromise between size, IQ and costs for most, but not necessary all uses. In that case (long telephoto), it is not a lens that I would have to lug everywhere, only on purpose for special occasions, so I wouldn’t mind the weight that much. Realistically, I don’t have much use of a long telephoto lens, so I wont get an APS-C camera just for that. At the price of the Tamron or Sigma, the Lumix would be a serious consideration, though. I may end up getting one of the old cheap zooms (75-300 or 100-300) and live with the no so great IQ/AF/build quality. Or wait till the price goes down like for the 35-100mm I just got.
He: to each their own.
You do realise that the specific combination of D7200 + 150-600 Sigma f5 to f6.3 actually weighs 3,5 Kg! Now, if we suppose that the 100-400 Leica weighs 1Kg we can add the 12-35, 35-100 f2.8 and still be at 2,2 Kg in total.
Also: the Sigma costs 1500 dollar at B&H and the D7200 body only 900 or so. How is that going to be cheaper.
And when I looked at reviews of that Sigma it was specifically noted that it was heavier than comparable Tamron and Sigma lenses mainly do to the use of better quality glass. Which is a good indicator that just comparing FL, weight and price is not such a good idea in the first place.
But having 3,5 Kg in my wrist of around my neck is excatly what I don’t want. If the Leica indeed is at 1 Kg at least that part is covered pretty well.
Finally: when I go out on a plane to some foreigh country, it will actually set me back big time. You;ll very likely have to pay extra for that edded weight and you’ll need to toss that plus your mFT setup on top of that too.
At least the 150-500 Sigma is cheap, is not weathersealed and IQ is not good. At f11 or so it becomes better. It still weighs 2 Kg…So with the D7200 it is still 2700 gram.
To me in both cases: why would I want that? I hated that DSLR around my neck with those lenses. And it wasn’t nice at all having it in my hand either most certainly not on longer hikes through nature.
If anything, now tht I looked more into it I see even more reason to buy the 100-400 (since I have use for it to begin with). As long as it is good wide open.
If the manufacture reads any of these, please MAKE THE ZOOM SMOOTH. The 100-300 mm lens is impossible to make a smooth video zoom.
I intend to buy the better zoom, and even pay the premium for buying lens as soon as it is available. I hope I’m not disappointed, I personally thought the 100 300 was ok, but I’m always looking for a longer reach and an optically better zoom lens.
Also, the issue of a faster lens is not that important to me. The size and weight is.
The constant improvement in stabilization, processing “grain” out of images, and the ever increasing sensitivity in sensors, really is easing the need for “large glass”. Want one more f-stop?, just wait a couple of years and the new cameras will probably deliver even better images with two stops higher asa settings than we do now. The cost of the new camera would be less than the cost of a massive lens, and save the cost of chiropractic back therapy required as a result of carrying tons of glass.
Hate to say it but with this pricing, the 300mm f4 Olympus sounds like a better deal, especially since it is looking like it will indeed have OIS. I’d rather get that and 1.4x adapter.
That is a Small lens for a long tele zoom!
I highly doubt the price will be anywhere near 2500$, but certainly won’t be cheap. If the OIS is up to the task, and the dual IS implementation on the GX8 proves effective with it ( dual IS will soon be on other Pana mdls), then this lens will be a somewhat uniqu proposition.
And of course w/a veryr long tele, a zoom is so much more versatile, that IF it’s in the same price range as the Oly 300, and doesn’t suffer too much in the IQ comparison at 300, then I’ll bet this ends up outselling the Oly lens easily
yes, zoom is so important for locating and framing!
I have seen some comments on getting A d7200 or so with a 200-500 or 150-600. Well: I did not get into mFts for nothing. I got into mFTs for small size and low weight. Sure: not at all cost. But we do not know how this lens performs. Since it is a Leica we can expect excellent performance. If so, it could be worth its money (like any lens: depends if you have use for it).
By the looks of it, it is precisely why I went into mFts. The French article I read said it was really small and very light.
If so: no, there is no use at all to go back to a D7200 with 150-500 or so Sigma lens. It is precisely at those long FL zooms where a smaller sized sensor makes things count. I guess this lens will be near 1 Kg. For the FL it can give is, I’d say: thx, it is what I was waiting for!
Regarding the price, I don’t know any source at Panasonic, but I do know marketing. Pricing an item is a complex form of art, and you have limited capacity to change an introductory price for the first 3 months (minimum) after an item is out. Major factors in setting a price are customer profile, market expectation, competition and innovation. If manufacturing cost + profit are higher than the price setters, you have a product lacking any business sense.
Estimating what Panasonic would do, I’d say that there is a very good chance that the lens would be introduced at 1899 USD, may be at 1999 USD. If they do put it out at $2500, they miss the ball in a big way.
I got to “fondle” this “prototype” (a non working dummy with correct casing, size and weight) at the Stockholm Photo Show, a couple of weeks ago, and was really impressed by the weight and size.
It’s similar to the Oly 40-150/2.8 in size, but noticeably lighter! The price? Crazy! …but if you’re a wildlife photographer, and the IQ is as good as the Leica name promises, I think that they might meet Panasonic’s sales estimates quite well (I don’t think that they will produce this lens in any huge quantities).
Regarding the price, I was told by the Panasonic rep that it would cost somewhere between SEK20000-25000 (with 25% Swedish tax), which could very well translate to €2500 and $2500.
Now, at this price point, this lens won’t be for me, as I rarely need that kind of reach, but I was surprised and impressed by the size and weight…
In Sweden. Where I aw prices of lenses (the cheapies available) were considerably higher than in NL. SO I go for 2000-2100 euro online. Now if what you say is correct and it perfoms really well, such a lens is simply unique. No more tossing around kgs. But I wonder how such a lens could be signifcantly lighter then ath 760 gram Oly (without the collar). Seems impossible or we have to worry about the glass they used. We’ll see.
Well, he could’ve lied or just not know what he was talking about (both are unlikely), or my memory of the weight in hand of the Oly could be off (quite possible, but I don’t think so). To be on the safe side, I’ll go ahead and change “MUCH” into “noticeably”. Either way, with those apertures, I wouldn’t be surprised if they got away with using less glass than in the Oly 40-150/2.8…
About the price in NL, you might very well right – I don’t know. What’s the VAT in NL?
I am not implying anyone is lying. I am just saying that I saw that in Sweden the cheapest shops sell some lenses I checked (like the 15 f1.7) for above 500 euro’s whereas I can get them for close to 400 in NL. If this is the regular difference, we are 4/5* 2500 = 2000 euro.
What also might be a facto is that he mentions Panasonics official price. I am unsure, but most of the time these prices are higher than any streetprice….If so, we can expect a lower price in Sweden too.
I’m sorry Jørgen, I didn’t think that you were (implying…) – those were my words. 😉
What the rep said to me, to be exact, was that he thought that it would be SEK22000 or 23000, but hat he wasn’t sure, and didn’t want to risk ending up being a liar, so his “offical number” was SEK25000.
And yes, Sweden is expensive for photographers (and everyone else). 😉
Looks like a very compelling lens, virtually the lens I waited for to replace my Panasonic 100-300, wich is a good lens but not weatherproof and with poor built.
But the price… It is not a Leica lens but a Leica aproved Panasonic lens. The built and number of glass elements should be similar to the Oly 40-150,2,8 as the prince should be as well. I see no reason to pay 1/3 more just for a Leica labeling. I think max. 2000$ would be a fair price and be the magic priceborder for the mayority of potential customers.
Agreeing on the price. The rumored 2500$/€ are ridiculous. At 1500€ I would seriously considere it. Above that: nope. At 1300€ almost definete buy, but looking at the canon 100-400 L zoom its going o be 2500 🙁
If the reported price of $2,500 in Europe with 25% VAT is correct, the price in the US, without VAT, would be $2000. You might be able to wait a few months and get a gray market unit for $1,500.
I read Leica Leica Vario Elmar on it. The price is what the price is. Whatever you think of it won;t change it. If the lens performes very well and costs 2000-2500 euro I will buy it. Otherwise may be not. The Oly 40-150 is a completely different lens, wonder how you can compare it…
A Leica lens is a lens produced in a Leica Factory in Germany. Would be at a price tag of approx. 15.000 €. A lens produced in Japan is a lens labeled Leica or more correct PanaLeica, what doesn’t mean it is any bad but not any better than the way fairer priced Oly-Pro line 40-150, which is in facto not comparable because oft constant aperture of 2,8.
By the way: I work with Em1/Em5MK II but Pana lenses: 12-35,2,8/35-100,2,8/100-300,4-5,6 and the PanaLeica Nocticron 42,5 which is a beautiful lens but also slightly overpriced and no Leics lens as well. So i am not a fanboy in any direction.
A Leica lens is a leica lens when it is badged as a Leica lens and is not a counterfeit product. Period.
How good or bad it is compared to whatever we will know when it can be compared.
It is completely irrelevant who YOU are. You are not the subject. I am simply addressing your assertions. Who you are does not change facts.
The fact that this lens is produced in Japan does not make it any less “Leica”.
OK, so according to your opinion a Panasonic compact camera labeled as Leica wearing the red Leica dot on the front of the body and therefore sold at a 100€ higher price tag for 700€ is comparable to a Leica M model for 6000 € (body only)? Funny!
This is not the same. This not a rebranded product which we also can get in Panasonic form. It is just one Leica lens. It is built according to Leica’s demands and if it is not, Leica won’t allow its name on it. That is the deal. Leica for instance is not happy with lenses that do well after inbody corrections. Unless this has changed somewhere in the last few years, you might have had a point. But AFAIK that is not the case. And this is why 20 mm 1.7, 12-35 f2.8, 35-100 f2.8 while good do not have a Leica badge. Because they do not comply to Leica’s standard.
A more apt comparison is the that of the Leica SL. We all know it is “inspired” by Panasonic, as Leica has zero clue of what to do with 4K video (well: any video). It has no clue about most other things in that cam actually and it is known that it is mostly Panasonic made, may be the sensor is still OSMOSIS. So: is this now a Panasonic cam? Of course not: much like the lens Panasonic does not have a free hand. They can produce it, according to Leica standards and you cannot find a rebadged verions (Panasonic in this case) and you most likely won’t.
This lens is a Leica lens, built in compliance with Leica standards.
Leica SL as an example is a good point and if really produced in Japan ( I didn’t know that) I would love to follow this discussion on a Leica Forum. So I gonna wait for the finally by Panasonic released price (hoping that the discussion will show Panasonic that for many potential consumer the price tag is over the tops and that they keep it near or below 2000€), follow the test results, and ,if as excellent as to expect, go to a Leica Flagshipstore and find and buy there this Leica lens 🙂
Well…I can find Leica badged FZ1000s in the Leica stores. I can find other V-lux rebadged cams there too. So that does not seam so indicative as to what is of some standard and what not.
The Leica lenses that are produced by Panasonic in Japan are simply done so according to Leica prescription, controlled by Leica personel.
There are various such lenses available already and I have not come across one that is not performing well. They all are very good to excellent. I have little worries about this one, but time will tell.
A ‘Leica’ lens will have a Red Dot ! PERIOD!
Um, yeah. Pun intended?
The grip on that camera looks better than the Sony A7II. So sad.
The way dollar is headed that $2500 will translate to €3000 with taxes when it is released.
That woul make it almost 3x more expensive than I would be comorfotable to pay.
The way it looks now i wold be willing to pay that rumoured price for saffari week and return or resell it after i get back…
If it’s really the size of the 35-100, that is kick-ass. But, alas, $2500 is out of my budget … otherwise I’d love the lens for birding and wildlife. For now my 75-300 will have to suffice.
If the lens is $2000 in Canada as has been suggested, then it will be $1500 in the US. I think we just need to wait and see.