Bits of rumors: Panasonic 45-300mm at Photokina (along the GH3)
a photoshopped 45-300mm lens
Aleo Veuliah had a talk with an anonymous guy from Panasonic Portugal and reported the content on dpreview forum. Aleo posted some correct rumors i the pat so there might be some truth behind the info he got. First he says the GH3 is coming at Photokina and that it will be similar to the GH2. He also said that: “Photokina this year will be important to Panasonic more than 2010 was, and that we might see besides the 12-35mm and 35-100mm f/2.8, another new zoom, he talked about a 45-300mm”
I really do hope that when the Panasonic employee says Photokina will be important more than ever that there will be more lenses than the 45-300mm and long awaited X zooms. By the way, it’s so pity that my trusted sources confirmed that the two X zoom lenses are coming after June only 
P.S.: Message for Olympus. About time to make a Micro Four Thirds version of the current Olympus 14-35mm f/2.0 (here on eBay) and 35-100mm f/2.0 (here on eBay) Zuiko lenses!
Miroslav
2 years ago |“it will be similar to the GH2″
Similar only in shape and controls, I hope
.
45-300mm will be either monstrous in size or with slow aperture.
Agent00soul
2 years ago |Son of the Bigma… Bigmasonic…
bilgy_no1
2 years ago |45-300mm is an insane lens specification anyway. There already is a 100-300mm if you care about length, or a 45-200mm if you care more about the gap between 42 and 100. If you care about both, just get a superzoom. Such a lens will not perform so well anyway…
BLI
2 years ago |Nikon is supposed to come with an 18-300 DX lens. Tamron already has an 18-270. Problem is: these are usually not top lenses; they are, however vey useful travel lenses.
Esa Tuunanen
2 years ago |Not usually but almost exclusively.
Big zoom number and small size is bad combination especially with lower than arm and leg cost.
Only really high quality aiming “ultrazoom” lenses are Canon EF 28-300mm (weights ~1.7kg) and 4/3 Panasonic Leica D 14-150mm which is optically clearly superior, and weights nice comfortable ~0.5kg.
Nikon’s 28-300mm FX lens is already lower quality because of size being too heavily compromised (smaller+lighter than Canon) and that’s really the class of Lumix G 14-140mm along with Oly 14-150mm. And the usual lower priced ultrazooms are just compromise of compromises.
And if Nikon wants to imitate that Tamron, that’s not the smartest idea.
http://www.photozone.de/nikon–nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/716-tamron182703563pzd?start=2
Pierre
2 years ago |A previous rumor said that the GH3 would be smaller than the GH2.
Hopefully will this be the case!
Panasonic should be inspired by its competitor Sony who manages to create such a small and good Nex-7!!
Agent00soul
2 years ago |The GH2 is the right size. The NEX-7 is too small (IMHO).
Joe Gunawan Fotosiamo
2 years ago |I love the GH2 size, as well as the OM-D size with and without the grip. The NEX-7 is pretty small, and probably won’t be as well balanced once you start getting bigger lenses
Bob B.
2 years ago |As if Sony had any decent AF lenses to put on it?
Bob B.
2 years ago |I kindof agree….maybe the GH3 could be “slightly” smaller… I am currently using a G3 and GX1 and I think that the form-factor on the GX1 is a little small for my liking…if it was slightly larger it would handle better in my hands. Great camera tho.
pn
2 years ago |As one who needs to put the camera into an underwater housing most of the time I use it, the smaller the better is for me – as the housing will add significantly to the size, anyway.
(I also don’t think the NEX-7 is too small even without additional housing around it.)
Ben
2 years ago |Amen
Rock Hudsen
2 years ago |Rofl
Rock Hudsen
2 years ago |Nex7 wipes the floor with about any non fullframe camera
twoomy
2 years ago |Yeah, too bad there are no decent native lenses to put on it, except for an overpriced 24mm. I guess that’s why you use it to wipe the floors?
Michael
2 years ago |Touché
. Hehe.
tmrgrs
2 years ago |Most mirrorless enthusiasts think that the GH Pannys are too big and clunky looking. Sales numbers don’t lie. If Panny had put a little more effort in designing the GH form factor to be more attractive to its intended customer base, it wouldn’t be the E-M5 that’s creating so much excitement right now instead IMO.
Charlie
2 years ago |Yep, GH = D3100 DSLR in size. NEX 7 fit most hands nicely. I think we’ll see some “too small” complaints about the OMD.
Milt
2 years ago |Don’t care for the NEX7 in my hands at all.
MichaelKJ
2 years ago |Sales numbers can, in fact, lie. You seemed to agree when I noted that the D800 was on top of Amazon’s Top 100 Camera & Photo category.
tmrgrs
2 years ago |I wasn’t even thinking about Amazon. GH Pannys are not even on the radar for most mirrorless users simply because they have no real presence at the other retailers and camera stores. And they don’t feature them because there’s no real demand for them. Only on forums like this does anybody ever mention them because the internet can concentrate a small number of users in one place where they can appear to be more numerous than they really are in real life.
Oly DSLRs are the same. Not very many have ever bought them out in the wild but DPR’s Oly DSLR forum is a home away from home for many who did buy them and it’s a very active forum but not representative at all for what’s happening with 4/3 DSLR’s out in the real world.
Ernest.orf
2 years ago |Bua not is all about image quality any good semi – or professional cam , can deliver some good quality, NIKON D7000, canon 7d, pentax K5, olympus EM5 , Fuji x and more , but u need to see the whole system itself, sony is far FAR , for a confortable use , the kit lenses has a lot of vigneting, , not ergonomic at all, and plus is the SONY UNIVERSE, bateries around 70€, a few lenses,no IBIS, and a lot of things more , i really dont like panasonic at all , but they are really good with their products, the G , GH series are small and confortable, as a lot of options in lenses , not only panasonic, leica, zuiko, sigma,sangyang,volanger, toy , and more.
Think ok it ^^
mahler
2 years ago |Hopefully not. If you want something smaller get a G3, and pay for the usability deficits due the smaller size.
The GH2 design is already close to perfect, so that all Panasonic needs to do is to improve the haptics slightly and possibly use even better quality material (the current is not as bad as some people claim).
matt
2 years ago |+1
everyone who dreams about smaller gh2 should buy a G3 or GX1 .. there´s nothing wrong with the gh2 size.. I have the GH1 and I like more camera with grip because it´s more comfortable
Jedd
2 years ago |G3 and GX1 are missing on video capabilities, intentionally disabled in firmware. You have to rely on hacks to unlock them.
And my guess is that for 99% of the buyers m4/3 is about the smaller size and they don’t consider GH1/2 just based on that.
Yun
2 years ago |45 – 300mm is interesting for wild life subjects , Pana need to make it fast , below F4 then this definitely make sense for us .
Still no news of the very highend camera that above GH ?
Jim Ramsey Khoury
2 years ago |f4-5.6 would still be ok I suppose
Agent00soul
2 years ago |Below F/4 would make it very large. I think the wide zoom range tells that this is not going to be a fast high-end lens.
JF
2 years ago |+1
Bob B.
2 years ago |Well…if this 45-300mm rumor has any validity, it seems a little odd considering that Panasonic is already selling a 100-300mm, f/4-5.6? Wouldn’t there have to be some significant change or improvement to manufacture another lens in such a similar focal length?
Pedro del Río
2 years ago |Agree. However, Panasonic produced a 14-42mm when it already had a 14-45mm.
Me
2 years ago |They had to, because the 14-45 was too expensive in production for a kit lens, minimizing profit. So they came up with the 14-42…
Pedro del Río
2 years ago |I see. I do not know anything about optics besides refraction angle = incidence angle, but why would a 14-42 be significantly cheaper than a 14-45? I guess they made lower quality.
Jesper
2 years ago |You can easily google the differences Panasonic made to make the kit zoom cheaper. But here are some for you to get the picture.
1. The OIS select function has been removed from the barrel, it is now controlled from the menu.
2. Material for the lens mount has been changed to plastic.
ntsan
2 years ago |front element of the lens is smaller on 14-42 vs 14-45
Bob B.
2 years ago |Also..the 14-45 was significantly sharper over the entire range. It was Panasonic’s best kit lens to date…if you need a kit zoom buy a body and find this used online…
Charlie
2 years ago |So Panasonic replaces better/sharper lenses with cheaper/lesser ones?
Bob B.
2 years ago |yes…they do..why we don’t know….but at least the original kit lens is good….more than we can say for that water-resistant junker they are attaching to the new OM. Just makes you want to buy the body alone and put a prime on it now doesn’t it…
Olympus and Panasonic both degrade their cameras with their kit zooms!!!!!!
Ash
2 years ago |yes
Jedd
2 years ago |del
Anonymous
2 years ago |For m43 are necessary faster zooms than f/5.6 or f/6.3.
If I want a long tele, the most important is quality and aperture at the long end. 45-300mm will be dark, too big and not good optically.
The system needs something like Canon 70-200 f/4L, but lighter, smaller and cheaper, with simillar optical quality. It will be equivalent 140-400mm f/4, very usefull and not so dark.
Dario
2 years ago |Why a 45-300 when a 100-300 already exists? I find hard to believe Panasonic will release such lens.
Jim Ramsey Khoury
2 years ago |unless they go crazy and do a f2.8-4 or something
spam
2 years ago |45-300 would give 28-600 equivalent with two lenses. I’m not sure I belive the rumor, but this lens make sense to me. The 100-300 is nice, but you have to have the 14-140 to avoid a gap in the zoom range and a lot of people buy the 14-42.
There are fairly inexpensive and light consumer zooms from both Canon (55-250), Nikon (55-300) and others. These are fairly small lenses with good price/performance ratio and a Panasonic one would certainly sell well.
It’s only a 6x-7x zoom range and with max aperture of F4.0-F5.6 it’s likely to give pretty good performance for the moeny.
Pixnat
2 years ago |Boring to see always those mockups… I wonder if those lenses will be really produced one day!
Bob B.
2 years ago |It does seem like those fast X zoom lenses were rumored ages ago…it is almost like a joke now as to if they will ever be produced????????? How long has it been since we all became aware of them on this website????
Pixnat
2 years ago |7 months ago… So bring it on Panny!
Ron Zack
2 years ago |+1
Elf
2 years ago |I don’t really care too much about a 45-300 lens, as I suspect it will be severely compromised at that great a range. Those other two are the ones I want. 12-35 and 35-100, I see by photo’s f2.8 58mm filter size which makes them comparable in size theoretically to Oly 40-150. I have resisted preordering OMD waiting for these two lenses. The price of the OMD will drop significantly faster than the price of these lenses. Bodies seem to update yearly.The price on these lenses will remain high. IMHO I want these for my EPL2, GH2, cameras. Only changing lenses to add a prime.
sneye
2 years ago |Fast zooms for m4/3 are tricky to design and build. F/2 zooms? Forget it. Maybe when liquid lens technology becomes available. I hope Olympus (or Panasonic, but that’s a long shot) finds a way to allow seamless operation of its 4/3 lenses on m4/3. Until then I will keep using those lovely little primes when fast apertures are needed. The more I use them the less I like zooms anyway.
pana
2 years ago |Please, no more zooms. Where is the FAST long lens, decent quality 200 or 300mm 2.8 please.
Tropical Yeti
2 years ago |I have followed yesterdays link about GF5 announcement, when it opened, this popped into my eyes from top of the page:
“Several patents pending on the image plane phase difference AF Olympus”.
And what has 4/3 rumors to say about this, obviously very important PDAF news? … Nothing …
Todey there are several threads on DPreview, discussing these same PDAF patents. And 4/3 rumors has to say about this – again nothing…
Well, this is very interesting for me, and I can not read Japanese. Can you organize a translation? It seems as camera sexyness is the most important topic on this site.
Jesper
2 years ago |iirc, olympus has over years patented different PDAF vs. CDAF technologies. But none of them ever managed to reach consumers…
Denny
2 years ago |Is it tech technically difficult for Olympus to make a m43 version of 14-35mm f/2 & 35-100mm f/2 ?
Lars Beduhn
2 years ago |I would love a zoom lens from Panasonic with
175-300mm 2.8-3.5 to complement the 45-175 X lens.
or a
200-400mm 4.0-5.6 to complement the 45-200 lens.
As nice as a 45-300 might be, if it won’t be great (and it won’t be given the zoom range) I am not interested.
Pretty much all the standard focal lengths are filled. We don’t need another slow zoom with a focal length that is already available multiple times.
What m43 needs is some good fast and sharp primes. And reasonably fast zooms that have a shortzoom range, but good optical quality, complementing and not overlapping other lenses.
Or is my opinion/analysis flawed?! If I am missing some important point please tell me!
Anyways… just my 2cts.
spam
2 years ago |While I’d like to see a lens with at least 400mm it doesn’t seem likely. How many would buy a 1+ kg 200-400mm 4.0-5.6 lens for the small G/GH bodies? Certainly a few, but not many compared to a 45-300 consumer zoom.
A 175-300mm 2.8-3.5 would be even heavier and bigger than a 200-400 f5.6 and a lot more expensive. MFT’s strength is small and light and IMO Panasonic and Olympus probably do the most sensible thing when they focus on making mostly small and light lenses for the moment.
MFT really need to get focus tracking working well before fast telezooms make a lot of sense.
Esa Tuunanen
2 years ago |Good faster moving target focus tracking basically needs PDAF or similar tech which can instantly tell from single sampling where target is compared to focus distance.
And that should directly give proper focus compatibility with all 4/3 lenses.
Henrik
2 years ago |What we really need to see for photokina, or earlier if possible, is the next version of a 14-42 kit zoom. Panasonic, do it.
Anentropic
2 years ago |what, another one after the 14-42 PZ ‘pancake’ zoom released recently?
observer
2 years ago |The 45-300mm lens had to be a confirmation of a previous rumour:
http://www.eoshd.com/content/3670/pancake-sized-motorised-zoom-lens-coming-for-panasonic-gf7-gh3
It will be a collapsible pancake motorized zoom x lens similar to the 14-42 x lens. This is to entice those with “bridge” or “superzoom compacts” cameras to upgrade.
Anentropic
2 years ago |the pancake part of the rumor on the eoshd page is only talking about the already released 14-42 as far as I can tell
Ulli
2 years ago |last week I bought a used Zuiko 35-100 f/2.0 for a good price. I read the report on Pen & Tell that is focuses reasonably fast on the OM-D, The tester also had his E-5 with him for the comparison, and in some situations the OM-D even was a bit faster. So this is good enough news for me regarding that 35-100
Peter Bjorvand
2 years ago |how much was it as I’m dying to get my hands on the 14-35mm…for a good price as It’s Hugely expensive new in Norway (around 4000 dollars)
Ulli
2 years ago |I was lucky to get a used one on good condition for 1200 euros, I think the price for a used 14-35(if you can find one)here is prob between 1200 and 1400 euros. You might keep an eye on Ebay auctions.
Miroslav
2 years ago |Other testers did not confirm that AF speed of 4/3 lenses has increased on E-M5: http://www.pekkapotka.com/journal/2012/2/26/olympus-e-m5-af-speed-with-43-lenses.html .
Ulli
2 years ago |yes i read that test, I was only mentioning the claim from Penn & Tell regarding to the AF with 35-100/em-5 (I translate) “..ok, the E-5 is faster, but the AF accuracy is spot on – with focustime even under hard conditions, like reflecting glass in backlight, under one second, with the 35-100….the E-5 is faster but not that much anymore…”
The lens where the AF was sometimes faster with the E-M5 was with the 14-35:
http://pen-and-tell.blogspot.com/2012/02/e-m5-und-das-ft-14-35-f20.html
Rock Hudsen
2 years ago |Bunch of pityful fanboys on p&t
Ulli
2 years ago |i think the real fanboys are on forums like here and DP;-)
Matthias
2 years ago |Message for Olympus. About time to make a Micro Four Thirds version of the current Olympus 14-54 or 12-60 and 50-200
14-35 and 35-100 is a to limited zoom range for me.
Rock Hudsen
2 years ago |Why dont buy an e5 instead of waiting for something to catch up which was not meant to
Ulli
2 years ago |Thats still an option for me, the E-5 looks like a great camera, at lower isos its excellent, but with the OM-D you can go big if using big lenses, and compact, when choosing one of the small mft lenses. Wile the E-5, even without a lens on it, its not really a camera to take with you everyday. It’s just nice to have choices
Mar
2 years ago |Yea, but the problem is quality zooms and/or teles = big lenses.
Makes the entire point of m43 gear moot.
Sure, it’s nice to be able to use smaller lenses if you don’t require big and heavy zooms on a trip or whatever, but again, why not just get a m43 + few small primes next to an existing 43rds (or some other DSLR kit) instead of wishing for m43 to be good at everything (which it obviously can’t be).
There’s no point in forcing m43 into everything.
You wouldn’t buy a small town car if you drive a lot on open roads and highways.
Ulli
2 years ago |I think you are missing another point of M43, though maybe notlike that intended, but its a very “lens friendly” platform, so thats why you see people coming with extreme combinations. We are not forcing anything. Ofcourse I can choose for gettin a FT body (maybe I will), but like I said before, its nice to have those choices within (m)FT
Mar
2 years ago |I’m not missing the point.
While it’s lens friendly in a way you can adopt various other mounts, for native tele lenses and fast zooms, there’s no advantage.
One could argue it’s even worse because of the small bodies with worse ergonomics and CDAF which is not nearly as good at tracking as PDAF.
Ulli
2 years ago |you forget that the SHG and some HG lenses are the best in the world, wouldn’t that be an advantage? I gladly give up some ergonomics, but thats not really a disadvantage for mft only. If I put a 35-100 f/2 on a OM-D, I believe the balance is as bad on a E-5 without a grip(I tested the lens on a E-5, but not yet on the OM-D); the 35-100 is just like that, its huge, it would compare to a (fictive)70-200 f/2 on the socalled FF cameras. While I said I prefer a small lens on mft for snapshots, its better to have more mass during serious shootings like modelphotography imo, because the mass gives me more real estate to get a grip on for lenghty period which is something I prefer in that case. So I think the MFT system can fullfill that wish for my purpose with bigger lenses.
Matthias
2 years ago |E-5 is to big and to heavy for me, I need something compact. For me it would also be ok if new lenses don’t have excact the same optical quality like the old FT Pro lenses (I know that’s not easy to make Pro lenses in a compact way, but maybe a little bit better then the current mFT 14-42 and 40-150, even if these are really not bad lenses), but it would be nice if they would be faster then the current mFT zooms.
karay
2 years ago |+1
14-54 f2.8-3.5 would be nice: reasonable speed, size, price
Ron Zack
2 years ago |Well, then buy one! A micro 4/3 version of the 14-54 would only be an all-plastic affair to reduce weight anyway. The regular 4/3 14-54 Mk II works great on all micro 4/3 cameras with an adapter.
inis44
2 years ago |Admin, when will we see lens poll?
Matthias
2 years ago |And I forgot that also a 200-400 mm would be nice
Anonymous
2 years ago |“Message for Olympus. About time to make a Micro Four Thirds version of the current Olympus 14-35mm f/2.0 (here on eBay) and 35-100mm f/2.0 (here on eBay) Zuiko lenses!”
Message for admin: those lenses would be equal in size and weight to 4/3 versions of the lenses, and would actually cost *more*, because there’s a price premium on m4/3 stuff – Olympus is the new Apple, and they charge extra for the bling.
Not a single m4/3 body suitable for such lenses exists. They are all too small and too lightweight – yes, the E-M5 with the grips as well.
Furthermore, Panasonic basically covers the same focal lengths with their upcoming zooms. Why would Olympus bother making duplicates? If you think someone would pay 2500-3000€ for a 35-100 f/2 only because it does CDAF, hah… Proper lenses need proper bodies.
Matthias
2 years ago |I depends how much chromatic aberrations are produced by the pana lenses, they are corrected in the pana bodies but not in the olympus bodies if I remember right. I don’t want to spend time on the computer to correct this
Esa Tuunanen
2 years ago |14-35mm could be done smaller for mirrorless mount because for 4/3 mount that whole focal length range needs retrofocus/reverse telephoto design which causes its own aberrations to correct increasing size.
Vivek
2 years ago |I sincerely hope that the size of GH-3 remains the same size or a bit taller. I also hope that the GH-3 will have the swivel LCD and not a tilt only stuff. If they add a global shutter and other goodies, it be just fabulous.
E-1
2 years ago |Hmm, we’ve bought the 100-300 last weekend. If the 45-300 is better, I’m a little bit sad.
Pedro del Río
2 years ago |I will buy a Lumix GX1 in a couple of days. I think that after the purchase I will stop reading photo forums for a year or so, to avoid frustration.
Jb
2 years ago |If 45-300mm is motorized and retractable, i think not good 100-300mm
juan caballero
2 years ago |“my trusted sources confirmed that the two X zoom lenses are coming after June only ”
june 2012 or 2013?
please tell me as if it’s in 2013 I buy the 14-35 f 2
thanks
admin
2 years ago |June 2012 of course
Charlie
2 years ago |Just in time to document the end of the world.
Jb
2 years ago |i think this is 45-300mm design:
http://i.imgur.com/dxfGU.jpg
Esa Tuunanen
2 years ago |And long end would be dim enough to have diffraction in action even wide open…
Biggstr
2 years ago |Committed to Olympus camera bodies and given my experience with the Panasonic 45-175mm “X” lens (double images at low shutter speeds) and the aperture noise in the 14mm and 20mm lenses, I’m going to stay away from Panasonic lenses. Somewhere on the Internet there was an allusion to the fact that the “X” lenses were Panasonic’s first venture into lens design without Leica. Maybe that was a mistake on Panasonic’s part.
semiot
2 years ago |That 45-300 picture is fake!
Ranger 9
2 years ago |“About time to make a Micro Four Thirds version of the current Olympus 14-35mm f/2.0 and 35-100mm f/2.0 Zuiko lenses!”
Yes, absolutely! There must be at least 15 and maybe as many as 20 people who actually would BUY a pair of bulky, heavy and crushingly expensive lenses to use on their Micro Four Thirds cameras. And Olympus wouldn’t have to worry about distribution, as all those people could just fly to Japan on their private jets and pick up their lenses in person at the factory.
Elniorg's Journeys
2 years ago |+1
I don’t understand admin’s obsession with these unrealistic designs…
safaridon
2 years ago |The picture shown in EOSHD is that of the lens of the 16X lens from the compact TZ25 same lens speed and focal length. What is confusing is the description given is clearly that of the compact Xlens 14-42 which was released about the same time frame shortly after the rumor.
While I would like to see such a compact lens as depicted in the photoshop I am surprised Pany would not have done that with the 45-175 lens already?
As others have noted Canon/Nikon/Pentax have some inexpensive and moderately small lenses with the same equivalent focal length so Panys version with 45-300mm would still be a little smaller and cheaper than the 100-300mm and make it a viable alternative to the growing superzoom compacts. The 45mm low end would make this tele lens more useful and less need for changing.
However I am intrigued by the picture in EOSH as that is what I had said for several years that Pany should do use the TZ lens only I expected it would be a noninterchangeable lens with less focal length say 4x used with 4/3 sensor. Maybe the camera picture is what the new LX will look like?
As for concerns raised concerning the AF problem with Xlens at a certain shutter speed remember the fact that Pany and others are racing to produce shutterless ILS cameras where this will be a non issue?
Rutrem
2 years ago |why the hell Pana should reliese an 45-300mm lens if already have the 45-175mm???
Ron Zack
2 years ago |No doubt the 45-300 will be a consumer orientated kit lens, not something most of the enthusiasts who visit 43rumors will find interesting, but for uniformed consumers, it will be a very popular lens.
Right now, Canon sells a consumer 55-250 f/4-5.6 for around $250 USD, but you can often get if for less when combined with a Canon DSLR. And Nikon has their very popular 55-300 f/4.5-5.6 for consumers, which normally sells at around $400 USD, but again, when combined with an Nikon DSLR, you can get it for much less. And most critics say that the Nikon 55-300 beats the older 55-200 for image quality.
Hopefully Panasonic is taking a page from the CaNikon play book, and will do the same with their new 45-300. The closest competitor, the Nikon 55-300, is only 530g in weight, and just 122mm long, which is very small and compact–and almost exactly the same size as the Panasonic 100-300.
Of course, the Nikon 55-300, when mounted on a Nikon D5100 or similar, is only the equivalent of a 80-450mm lens in 35mm terms. But the Panasonic 45-300 will the equivalent of a 90-600mm lens, which is nothing to sneeze at. It could be a fantastic, light weight zoom for people who just need to have a half-decent small tele with them. Combined with the typical 14-42 kit lens, you could have a combo that gives you a 28-600mm reach, with just two inexpensive lenses….not bad.
And I have no doubt the new Panasonic will be the equal, if not superior, to the Canon or Nikon offerings in regards to IQ, and obviously far superior in regards to reach.
If Panasonic were to be so bold as to even offer power-zoom on the lens for video use, that would be awesome, and make that lens far more useful than one would think.
As for the Lumix 12-35 & 35-100 “X” lenses — I don’t want to see them until they are perfected, no matter how long it takes. That means 101% useful out of the box, with no OIS or IQ issues what-so-ever, which is something we cannot say about the current two “X” lenses.
spam
2 years ago |It’s not obvious to me why a 300mm on MFT would give more reach than on a APS-C dSLR. Crop factor isn’t relevant, pixel density/size is. A Canon 18Mp sensor would give almost exactly the same level of detail as a 12MP MFT-sensor and the 24Mp Sony sensor is quite close to the 16MP sensors.
The bigger sensors would of course give a wider field of view with the same focal length, but the level of detail is determined by pixel density (assuming the lenses have equal optical performance).
Haswell
2 years ago |The new 45-175mm is a fantastic lens and Pana already released 2 other telephoto zooms 45-200 & the monstrously huge & heavy 100-300. Why a pancake 45-300mm now? They should “pancake” their 100-300 which has a range that I like but a portability issue that I don’t.
On top of all this, I think Panasonic should focus on releasing a lighter version of their upcoming 12-35 f2.8. Something like Nikon 24-120 f4 or Canon’s wonderful 24-105 f4 IS. In 4/3 terms, a 12-60 zoom lens. Olympus has a larger version of this I believe.