(FT3) New Panasonic X 35mm f/2.4 macro lens coming soon?

FacebookShare

A source that gave me once a correct “rumor” just told me that he found an image of a new Panasonic 35mm f/2.4 X macro lens! It will cost LESS than the current Pansonic-Leica 45mm f/2.8 macro (Current price is 700 dollars/Euro on eBay). The 35mm is not a Leica branded lens. I have no direct contact to the source but if he is reading the message feel free to send me the image you found ont he web at 43rumors@gmail.com. You can also use “anonymous” tools like wetransfer.com or imageshack.us. Thanks!!!

P.S.: other sources can confirm that the lens really exists???
Links to the current Panasonic macro: Amazon, Olympus US store, Adorama, B&H, eBay.

For our readers:

Is that a lens you might be interested to buy?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
FacebookShare
  • Barry

    These X lenses will not be Lecia branded because they are of poor optical quality!

    • digifan

      So all lenses except Leica’s are poor?
      Why these idiotic notions that Panasonics lenses are poor.
      They are designed against the same philosophy as all others, they just use software corrections to achieve the last bit.

      • Barry

        No, the two X lenses available now are poor quality kit lenses.Leica would not put their name to such shoddy QC!

        • Haters gonna hate. I have a feeling you think just because a lens isn’t a super fast aperture it makes it poor quality. The 7D’s “kit lens” the 15-85 is every bit as sharp as the Canon 5D’s “kit lens in the 24-105L, it’s just not L-series because it’s an EF-S lens. Use the lens and try it and reserve your judgement until then.

          • Barry

            I have both and am dissapointed with the IQ!
            I speak with experience.
            I’m not a troll but someone with an EP-3, 12/2, 45/1.8
            And fabulous Panasonic NON-LEICA 20/1.7 and 14-45.
            I did have the 14 which was so so, but got ebayed when the 12/2 came along.

            The only thing ‘premium’ about the the X lenses is the price!

            • Entrakt

              What do you mean by “I did have the 14 which was so so” ?
              What do you think about this lens ? not good ?
              Thanks

              • Barry

                The 14 I had was soft in the corners. the Panny 14-45 blew it away in al regards except size. I’ve seen samples of 14s better than mine, but I’ve also read lots of people say they weren’t happy. The 14 is debated a lot – great vs poor. Mine was on the side of poor unfortunately. When I got the 12/2, which was far superior, the 14 got ebayed.

    • No, because the Panny lenses weigh less than a kilo.

      It is a mandatory property of all Leica gear to double as a self-defense weapon – in case somebody tries to steal your expensive photo gear.

      • digifan

        LOL

  • matt

    it must be a pancake or reasonably priced lens.. better both! :D

  • Bizzarrini

    Admin, is that the lens you were hinting about in this thread?

    http://www.43rumors.com/message-for-anonymous-source-here-you-can-ulpoad-the-image/

    • admin

      Yes!

  • Sören

    I need a Tele-Macro.
    There are tons of good and cheap 50mm legacy macro lenses, but all high quality tele-macros are rare and expensive.
    So please Panasonic or Oly, give me a 100/2 macro, I don’t care about AF or OIS…

    • I’m not huge on macro, but still e.g. 4.0/100 would have been nice. Peeking into the small details at times is rather entertaining.

      I personally do not have use for f/2.0 for the macro. I’m not even sure that DOF of f/4.0 @ 100mm would be large enough: online DOF calculator says it would be for 20cm distance only 2mm. For 10cm, DOF calculator says depth is flat 0mm ;)

      Edit1. Strangely enough, I see neither teleconverters nor extension tubes for the m43. Am I missing something?

      • Vivek

        There is one set of extension tubes available on eBay from PRC. Sadly, the lenses from Panasonic and Olympus can not be used with that because there is no electronic communication. Without power and communication with the cam, the lenses are dark and dead.

        However, the tubes can be used with manual lenses with real adjustable apertures and manual focus.

      • Sören

        Yes, you are right. The DOF at f2 would be minimal and most of the time I stop down to f8 for my macros.
        But in the last time I enjoy to play around with minimal DOF, especially in plant & fungi macros.

    • Leendert

      Yes, I need a 90mm f2.8 or 100mm F2.8 macro too!

    • Mr. Reeee

      +100
      Agreed. A longer macro would be so much more useful.

      I have the Nikon 60mm f2.8D macro lens and have been using it with a TC-201 teleconverter, which is actually quite a nice combo, except that I seem to be losing about 2 stops. The 2 together + the adaptor are huge.

      So, I’ve been considering a Nikon 105mm f2.8 macro lens. It’s only a bit larger than the Voigtländer 25mm and also uses the same 52mm instead of 62mm filters. AF on a macro lens isn’t particularly helpful, unless I want to spray and pray shooting bursts, or don’t care what it decides to focus on.

  • I would like to have a macro lens, but would prefer 50 mm. Obviously “X” can be booth average and quality. The Pana/Leica 45mm is decent, but compared to the famous Olympus 4/3 50mm macro not HQ. That and the high price made me wait and see if an better quality/price macro lens.

  • Dez

    No, thats definitely not that lens!
    Comon, Oly and Pana are choosing every time the easier way.
    Thats not a technical success, building a 35mm f2.4 lens. Thats one of the most common lenstype. (The 48mm f1.8 is a little bit better, but thats the most common and less expensive lens type. Thats why it is called “normal”.)
    What about 17mm with around f1.4 for street phorography?

    • Zorg

      No, it’s called “normal” because it gives a normal perspective, i.e., the perspective of human eyes.
      Technically, the normal focal for 24×36 is 43 mm (length of the diagonal), but historically it was difficult to be precise enough so 50 mm became “normal” for reflex cameras (rounding up). For rangefinder photography, many reporters adopted 35 mm as the “normal” (equally far from the true “normal” but giving a wider view).
      In mFT, the “normal” focal length is 21.5 mm. The Lumix 20/1.7 is the closest to a normal lens. In a way similar than for 24×36, we could go up a bit to include 25 mm (such as Voigtländer’s) or, for street photography, down a bit to include 17 mm (such as Olympus’s).

      I agree, though, that 17/1.4 would be AWESOME. And even more if borderline pancake (slightly bigger than 20/1.7 should be feasible) ;-)

      Back to the topic:
      35/2.4 macro is useless. Large aperture are nice in macro to have sufficient light to frame, but today this is in a large part compensated by auto-gain EVF. On the other hand, 35 mm is too short ; anything between 90 and 105 macro would be very nice (f/2.8; f/4 if really compact), even 150/4 macro would be great; they would double as a nice, relatively compact tele for the system (something that is missing right now).

  • Vivek

    Perhaps Panasonic finds it profitable to flood its line with more and more cams with more and less features and a variety of lenses.

    Why is it that they would not make proper sized versatile flashes for these? Or for that matter continuous lights. Olympus has a fine LED light- but it is not a system thingy. EVFs are cash crows for the manufacturers (along with the batteries)…

    Does anyone using the m4/3rds use flash (full TTL that is)?

    With so many non compatible, non interchangeable batteries, and accessories, I think the whole “system” is not a good one.

    There is a glimmer of hope that Sony will rectify this big void…..sad.

    • digifan

      @Vivek
      Though both Panasonic and Olympus make m43rds equipp it doesn’t mean they should work together. They are competing with each other, thus some accessories are not compatible. For us consumers that’s a bummer.

      However you can still use the lenses and the flashes on all bodies.

      I think with Sony it’s even worse you can’t even use proper flash on the C3 an 5(n) type of camera. No interchangeability even within the same brand.

      • Vivek

        I can see Panasonic filling the hole Olympus dug themselves with their cams without any EVF (or with an add on EVF). It seems Cloning rather than competing.

        Is there a versatile proper sized flash from Panasonic? No.

        How many batteries have they introduced?

        Oh, the pathetic Sony did not even supply their first mirrorless cams with a body cap!

        Things appear to set for a radical change with the rumored NEX-7.

        By the time the NEX-7n gets introduced in ~6 months time it will all come together.

        In the meantime (my guess based on the history), Panasonic will come up with 2 more new batteries and 5 more lenses and lower priced equivalents. Loads of fun to read but it is not amusing to be an user.

        • Igor

          “Fake forum comments are ‘eroding’ trust in the web”:
          http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15869683

          • Vivek

            In a few months, you will find out if Panasonic will introduce any more new batteries and or the lenses. Not fake but a sad reality. :(

            • The discussion here is about a possible new macro lens. I don’t see any connection with your complain about non-compatible batteries on some of the new Panasonic cameras. Nonetheless, since you mention it, I don’t believe that any company would intentionally make incompatible components across their products. In case of batteries, it is a minor issue considering that properties of rechargeable batteries decline during its lifetime anyway.

              • Vivek

                It isn’t a minor issue at all if you are in the EU zone. The new battery for the (then new) GH-2 retailed at 85 Euros. Pretty expensive in its own right but was atrociously expensive when you see prices like US $55 for the very same from the usual links from north America. Active targeting of Panasonic to disable 3rd party batteries does not help either.

    • @Vivek:

      I use a Metz 50 AF-1 that fully works with TTL and high speed synchro with my E-PL2. Also, may camera can wirelessly trigger it (still with TTL) via the pop-up flash. I also have a 128-bulb LED light that I can mount on the hotshoe of my E-PL2, which I use for video and sometimes stills.

      As for batteries, I got a bunch of cheap, 3rd party ones with 1600mAh capacity.

      As for Sony, all but the expensive NEX-7 don’t have a hotshoe. And, the lens selection still poor.

      Though the m4/3 system isn’t perfect and has less cooperation between Pany and Oly than desired, it is still the better mirrorless system.

      • Vivek

        ronnbot, Thanks for your kind information. Here is what I would like for flash:

        Micro sized TTL ones that are useful for macro work. Even ones with GNs on the pop-ups (if they can be mounted close to the subject) would work well for close-ups and macros.

        On the LEDs, there are practical problems with the likes you mention.
        The LEDs used there have low CRI. Not great for photography. I am not sure what sort of LEDs are used in Olympus’ macro light.

        I had to construct my own out of excellent LEDs (CRI >90) from Nichia.

        Perhaps, Panasonic raised my expectations sky high with their introductory G1- features of which are yet to be matched their competitors.

        At the moment the GH-2 is my most preferred mirroless cam. I suspect the NEX-7 (not that expensive and I can still use NEX5’s batteries with it) might tilt that preference to Sony.

    • Voldenuit

      I use a FL-360 flash (full TTL). It makes a huge difference in some lighting situations, allowing me to take photographs that I can’t take without a fullsize flash, adding more punch to photos with fill-in flash, or getting indirect lighting with bounce flash. It is really big, though.

      I would like a more compact full size flash unit (a la Canon 270 EX) with tilt and swivel, and Panasonic *really* needs to get with the game and offer wireless TTL flash controls (I’m currently using a flash extension cable).

  • Yun

    If this new lens is X branded , it should be considerable as I believe the image quality will not far behind the 45mm Leica . A close call !
    Myself more interested on Nanoho , lovely the design & now still waiting for someone to review it .

  • Bob B.

    I might have been interested in the new macro…but I own the P/L 45 f/1.8 macro..(great lens-portrait or macro), so I have no need. ..but the more lenses the merrier!
    Barry: I own the Panasonic 45-175 X lens. I had the known problem with the IS with this lens (it was a limited problem) and is appears to be corrected after I downloaded the firmware fix (which came extremely fast from Panasonic). The lens is VERY decent. Is it as sharp as my Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. No. (that lens is so sharp is is scary)…but the Canon lens is 5x the price and on a full frame camera.
    The Panasonic 45-175mm that I own is very decent (not a scientific term, LOL). The thing is …it is so small that I take it anywhere any time and have incredible pull power in a very small package.
    Here is a shot on Luminous landscape shot with that lens on the new GX1. I think it is very respectable for a $450 “micro zoom” . Not bad a all.
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/1photo-pages/protest.shtml
    Let me say too…that I am not a fan of zooms at all…I own 7 primes for my MFT kit and just the one zoom, but there is not much out there for MFT right now in the tele area. I think this lens beats the 100-300 with contrast and sharpness (but it does not have the reach).
    I am not personally familiar with the 14-42mm lens..but I suspect from what I have seen of the images (that lens has the same IS stutter that my 45-175mm had).. I think it needs and IS firmware update which it has not gotten yet from Panasonic in its firmware fix. Perhaps that will be forthcoming… I have not given up on the X products just yet.

  • I’m guessing that this lens, if it exists, will be very compact and light. For things other than macro photography; as a general purpose prime, it isn’t fast enough. So it would have to be very compact in order to make up for its modest maximum aperture.

    • Brod1er

      I agree it is likely to be the size of the 20mm f1.7. A 35mm is a useful missing lens size although two features seem odd:
      1. Why make this macro so close in FL to the 45 Leica?
      2. FL and aperture likely to be covered by BOTH the two new fast X zooms.

      • Chez Wimpy

        >1. Why make this macro so close in FL to the 45 Leica?

        Probably because Panasonic would rather sell 35/2.4s than NOT sell 45/2.8s

  • dts

    oss pancake or cupcake?

  • dvdyeo

    I wouldn’t buy this for the focal length or aperture. lumix 20mm and mzuiko 45mm more than suits my photography needs.

    Nanoha 5x lens would offer more creative possibilities than this lens. Much more worth the money imo.

  • Who needs a 35mm macro, when the Voigtlander 25/0.95 works well for flowers and other small subjects? For bugs, the 35mm is not long enough.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/miklosrabi/5703690333/in/set-72157625827439410
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/miklosrabi/5518800257/in/set-72157625827439410
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/miklosrabi/5703690119/in/set-72157625827439410
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/miklosrabi/5623951845/in/set-72157625827439410/
    etc…

    Please Pana give us a 75/2.8 or something very similar WITH A TRIPO COLLAR.
    Thanks.

    • Mr. Reeee

      +1/2
      Yes, almost. It was a happy surprise when I discovered just how close I could shoot with my Voigtländer 25mm. Images are excellent, especially at 5.6 and up. It’s still not “real” macro, but it’s great when I don’t feel like carrying my Nikon 60mm macro and monopod (I bought it for the lens ;-) ).
      I agree, 25mm or 35mm or even 45mm certainly is not long enough for shooting creepy crawly thingies.

  • Jón

    The MFT should really shine in macro, yet I’m a bit disappointed that Olympus and Panasonic don’t support it more. We have the 45mm Leica, and that is it. No 30mm, no MFT version of the Olympus 50mm, and no extension tubes…

    • Vivek

      I agree that it should really shine in macro, with liveview, swivel TFT/EVF.

      Having fly by wire lenses with CDAF does not bode well for macros. They are missing a few “minor” details in their approach to photography. :-)

      • Mr. Reeee

        Exactly, which is why I bought a manual macro lens. Focus by prayer… I mean … wire is no substitute for real mechanical focus.

  • 35mm macro seems silly.. I mostly use 100mm macro or 35mm with extension tubes, cheap manual focus lenses that have excellent IQ.. No thanks Panny, get to work on that GH3 please…

  • snowflake

    I voted no only because I already have the 45 mm macro.

    I would be interested in a longer macro, 60 mm macro with f2.8 or better.

    A longer focal length gives more distance to the subject, which is a real plus with bugs, and the longer focal length makes the option of using extension tubes for greater magnifications possible, and it makes it easier to light the subject without having the lens shadow impact the image. Going to a shorter 35 mm macro is going the wrong way.

    I also like to use such a lens also as a ,” face/shoulder” portrait lens, hence the f2.8 request.

    I would have preferred the original 45 mm macro to have had an f of 1.4 for better focus control when used as a portrait lens, but have resorted to using my old Canon 50 mm 1.4 lens, which works fine.

  • Michael Meissner

    I voted no because I think for a macro lens you generally want more distance, and hence a longer focal length. With the classic 4/3rds 35mm, you generally have to be on top of the critter.

    Now from a personal point of view, I wouldn’t be getting it because I already have the classic 4/3rds 50mm and the micro 4/3rds adapter, but I haven’t done much macro in the last year or so.

  • If this had been a reasonably quick and compact – a short telephoto pancake ? – 50mm macro I might have chosen it over the Oly 45mm f/1.8 but it’s the wrong side of 45mm for me

  • Chris

    If I won the lottery I would have them all, alllllllllllllllllllll LOL

    • +1

      I just ordered a 30+ year old used Nikon 35mm f2.0 SLR lens from keh.com to “fit” between my Lumix 20/1.7 and another old Nikon I have (a 55/1.2). I also have the Lumix 14-140 & 100-300 zooms.

      I mostly use my GH2 for video, and I love that there are so many lens choices for m43 new, old, good, not-so-good, pricey & inexpensive!

      My next lens purchase will probably be an old used Nikon 24mm ~f2-ish SLR lens.

      Cheers.

  • I would have use for a macro lens occasionally, but not often enough to justify the price of the Leica-branded 45. This rumor-lens sounds like exactly what I would need. It would be more smart marketing by Panasonic, which is succeeding by emphasizing picture-taking practicality over forum-pleasing fantasy.

  • Ken B

    I have the 45mm F2.8 macro lens and I like it a lot.

    We need a 120mm f4 macro lens now.

    A 35mm means that you may need to get real close to your subject.

    it is not for me.

    Ken

  • Isaac ali

    I will definitely pick this one up if it is price similar to the 14mm. I reluctantly bought a 45mm 1.8 to replace my 50mm 2.0 but I really do miss macro. In just a few months m43 will have a mostly complete lens line up with the exception of prime telephoto lenses.

  • RW

    If you are buying this lens primarily because you want this focal length, and would also like the option of doing macro once in a while, this might be a useful addition to your kit. If you expect to do a lot of true *macro* work, I would give it a pass. Why pay extra for electronic contacts when autofocus is pretty much useless for macro work? For macro, you need the control of manual focus, and if you accept that you will be using manual focus, then there are many legacy Macro lenses out there that will do the job cheaper (and likely better) than this one.

  • pdc

    Panasonic can make some very good lenses, so Barry’s generalization is not fair.

    I currently use a Nikon 55mm/f2.8 micro-P for most macro work. I find the focal length a little long, but the imagery is excellent. I also use the Nokton 25/0.95 for close-up work in low ambient light, and given the situation the results are quite good, but always on the soft side.

    So, a good AF 35/2.4 macro definitely appeals to me, especially when you are in a situation where there is no time to focus manually. Bring it on Panasonic.

  • Chris K

    No, I want a longer macro lens, because I want more working distance than the 45/2.8, not less.

    A 100mm macro lens generally gives you about 6 inches of working distance at 1:1, which is sufficient for bugs. The 45mm has only half that, which is difficult to work with.

    I have the Oly 35/3.5, and its working distance is very short at 1:1. It’s not a big problem for still life, but it’s tricky with bugs. I usually shoot at 1:2 to avoid spooking them. This Panasonic will be the same story.

  • Peter

    I’m using an old Nikkor 55 F3.5 macro and Nikkor 105mm F2.8 micro. I can’t imaging using anything shorter. The 105 is what I use for flowers at botanic gardens, where you need to “stay on the path”. Many of us waited a long time for Oly to make a 43 100mm macro and Oly promised and never delivered.

    In the “for what it’s worth department” I find the 55mm F3.5 Nikkor AIS to be equal in IQ to the Oly 43 50mm macro. On ebay, you can pick em up for about $100.

  • Joachim2

    I would buy this objective only if it is a pancake. I would use it for portraits, but not for macros, so I would, if possible, prefer an objective without floating mechanism.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

What are Cookies?
A cookie is a small file of letters and numbers that is stored in a temporary location on your computer to allow our website to distinguish you from other users of the website. If you don't want to accept cookies, you'll still be able to browse the site and use it for research purposes. Most web browsers have cookies enabled, but at the bottom of this page you can see how to disable cookies. Please note that cookies can't harm your computer. We don't store personally identifiable information in the cookies, but we do use encrypted information gathered from them to help provide you with a good experience when you browse our website and also allow us to improve our site. You can watch a simple video from Google to find more information about cookies.

Cookies used by our Website
The 43rumors website, 43rumors.com, uses the following cookies for the collection of website usage statistics and to ensure that we can . These are anonymous and temporary. By using our website, you agree that we may place these types of cookies on your device.
Read how Google uses data when you use our partners' sites or apps: http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/partners/
Google Analytics Cookie Usage on Websites: https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection/analyticsjs/cookie-usage?csw=1#cookiesSet Addthis cookies: http://www.addthis.com/privacy.
Disqus cookies: https://help.disqus.com/customer/portal/articles/466235-use-of-cookies.
Vimeo cookies: http://vimeo.com/privacy.
Youtube cookies: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/171780?hl=en-GB

Disabling/Enabling Cookies
You have the ability to accept or decline cookies by modifying the settings in your browser. Please note however that by deleting our cookies or disabling future cookies you may not be able to access certain areas or features of our site. For information about how to disable cookies in your browser please visit the About Cookies website.

Close