(FT5) HOT! Panasonic X 12-35mm and 35-100mm fast zooms!!!

Share


Click on picture to enlarge the image!

Wow! What a day! Panasonic already shared some details about the upcoming NEXT X lenses. There will be a 12-35mm and a 35-100mm fast X zooms!!!! Panasonic said they will come in 2012 and have a “large” aperture. Those are focal lengths very close to the amazing constant f/2.0 aperture lenses from Oly, the Olympus 14-35mm f/2.0 and the 35-100mm f/2.0! But I do hops they are not that expensive!

The 14-35mm costs around $2100. Check: Amazon, Olympus US store, Adorama, B&H, eBay.
The 35-100mm costs around $2500. Check: Amazon, Olympus US store, Adorama, B&H, eBay.

Let’s assume the price is close to the Olympus lenses and the aperture f/2.0:

Will you buy the fast zooms?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Preorder the current X lenses:

Black 14-42mm X lens is available for preorder at Amazon (Click here).
Silver 14-42mm X lens is available for preorder at Amazon (Click here).
Black 45-175mm X lens is available for preorder at Amazon (Click here).
Silver 45-175mm X lens is available for preorder at Amazon (Click here).
Black GF3 with 14-42mm X lens at Amazon (Click here).
Red GF3 with 14-42mm X lens at Amazon (Click here).
White GF3 with 14-42mm X lens at Amazon (Click here).

Share
  • MikiCoga

    Ok, after being very excitied about that news, because they seem great lenses… well I think that any lens for 2100€ or 2500€ or rahter over 1000€ is too expensive for what I’m using my camera for. But that will be a lure for profesionals. That’s a +1 for M4/3 against competition!

    Now m4/3 has pro lenses and it needs a pro camera like NEX-7, whose caracteristics should be allowed for next Pana and Olympus cameras… Then NEX-7 won’t be a winning horse because it’s lenses are not as good as m4/3 and even had tehm, they would be inconsistent with NEX bodies as now.

    • voldenuit

      +1.

      $2,000 is too expensive for these lenses.

      If you’re a Canikon user, you can get a Tokina 17-50/2.8 for $340, which performs very close to nikon’s 17-55/2.8 ($1,000). A Sony user can pick up the new 17-50/2.8 for $700.

      m43 users have been paying a price premium for far too long. I might go as high as $1000 f0r the 12-35, but any more and I’m opting out.

      • Michael Megdyeis

        The prices mentioned are way too high given the fact that Pana has one camera for the pro segment (GH2). The rest are increasingly Mickey Mouse like – for goodness sake: You have the best dslr video cameras on this planet, and only ONE!!! with manual video.

        Yes I would have to buy the lenses, but all the owners of the none-GH2 cameras, who do not have deliver sell-able results, can easily live without overpriced lenses.

        Or stated differently: There are a few (hundred?) Pana-pros on this planet + a few thousand “rich “geeks””, who would be willing to spend that much on something that can be manufactured much cheaper. And a lot of people who would like one for a fair amount.
        Argh.

        PS f/2.8 is not enough for serious purposes. f/2.0 is a must for a lot of photographic reasons!

        • Andrew Howes

          It may be that lenses faster than F2.8 are sometimes needed, but the fact is that there are only two zoom lenses available anywhere for DSLR cameras that are faster than that — Oly 12-35 and Oly 35-100. Professionals on every other system get by perfectly fine with F2.8 lenses, used for “serious purposes” — if they need faster, they’ll switch to a prime.

        • voldenuit

          I agree with Andrew. If you need faster than F2.8, you can always use a prime. Once you start compromising the size of the lens unduly, you lose the main advantage of the m43 format – portability.

          Going to F2 might give videographers an extra stop of leeway with shutter speeds, but an F2.8 zoom would only be 1 stop behind the APS-C crowd in DOF control and be much more portable (many of my Canon friends prefer the 70-200/4L over the 70-200/2.8L for this very reason).

          While I love the idea of an F2 zoom; given the choice, I’d probably opt for an F2.8 specimen for the cost and weight savings.

        • Richard

          Argh!

      • Joel

        I just want to point out that those prices are for the old (and huge) 4/3 Olympus lenses and in no way relate to these upcoming Panasonic lenses…

    • Humbalut

      the price is a joke for a m43 lens.
      if i have 2000$ and want the best image quality im buying a FF camera.

      im also unsure if pros will buy a 2000$ lens for a m43 camera.

      some will but you will not see these lenses often outside a camerstore….

  • Andy

    Oh goodness sake Panny…just announce a decent rangefinder style camera ala GF1!

  • Now, Panny needs to bring a great new body to the table (GF7?). No silver crap, let it be minimalistic, black, magnesium alloy if possible, with a handful of tactile controls – feel free to copy as much as possible from NEX7 :). Most m43 users are not expecting FF performance out of it, and we can live with that, so something like the GH2 sensor would be a good starting point with regards to IQ. We have a much better lens lineup than NEX, and there are more to come, we have quite an advantage there.

    And! Last but not least…please, actually deliver the goods…a lens or camera body in a powerpoint presentation somewhere is no good for anyone to actually take pictures :)

  • Tom

    I really would like to see this as 2.8-4. I don’t doubt that they’ll make the mistake of making it 2.0 or something, but it WILL be a mistake. It’ll be big and expensive and pany simply can’t compete with canikon on big and expensive. I’ve never heard of anyone complain about zuiko 12-60 being 2.8-4 (except people who had never used one, but refused to pick one up because 2.8 is far too banal for their art). If it is 2.8 and GOOD wide open, like the 12-60, no one needs more. There is very little room for $1,000+ lenses in micro43. This could be an amazing $500-600 lens of if could be a $1500 lens that no one ever uses. Also, a quick note to all of you begging for FAST ultrawides: it is pointless attribute. Ultrawides will never have narrow depth of field and ultrawides are almost never going to need a very fast shutter (oh and if need ois on an ultrawide, you probably need to see a doctor about a neurological condition). 50mm 1.2 = niche lens with real artistic potential. 12mm f2 = stupid marketing ploy.

    • Gylles

      Hey Tom, people use camera’s for different purposes. You’re just commenting from your own perspective.

      Have you even considered people who use M4/3 for video…?

      You really want stabilization for video, even if you have a wide lens. And if you’re shooting video 1/50th shutter at 25fps and 1/60th shutter at 30 fps, and if there isn’t a lot of available light you really need a faster (stabilized) lens.

      Have you even thought of the AF100/AF101…? Yes a lot of people who have one of those camera’s would be willing to pay more for a fast stabilized zoom lens.

      So just think about what you’re saying before you start to say that people need to see a doctor about a neurological condition!

      The admin of this site does great work on providing us with info on these products, so don’t go insulting people on this site about something you clearly don’t know enough about…

    • JF

      hmmm, but as m43 high iso isn’t the best of the system, I think f2 on a 12mm can be useful for low light photography no ? as not everybody wants to carry a big tripod everywhere…??

    • Renato M.

      I agree some points of what you said. I don’t think that a US$1000+ will be a good thing for m4/3, some said that these kind of lenses could bring PROs to m4/3, which is pointless, there is no need for that, you have to understand the people that buy your stuff, and the vast majority of m4/3 users wouldn’t buy a US$1000+ lens. That’s not the point of m4/3, at least not now. I think it will be more like Sony’s new 16-50mm constant f/2.8 that will cost US$700. So maybe you could make those two lenses constant f/2.8 and sell it around the same price range.

      But 12mm on a m4/3 is not really a ultrawide, it’s a 24mm and a f/2 on a m4/3 has the same DOF as a f/4, which is not that pointless, although I still think that f/2.8 would be more reasonable.

    • Gabriel

      I have a EX1, and i use 24mm f1.8 a lot for city night landscape or in subway. It’s helps a lot to keep iso low and speed high enough for sharp pictures.

  • Thyl

    Not sure of course, but to me, the price clearly points to video applications. More than 2000 USD is something only few photographers will be willing to pay for a system that starts to run in its difractive limits pretty soon. But cinematographers are completely painless ;-) in this price range and will get narrower focus ranges. A Zeiss ultraprime is at about 10000 USD.

  • Camaman

    Why so high prices anyway?
    They are not so revolutionary in design? Not any smaller to.
    People justify the high prices of 24-70mm, f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8 FF lenses by offering high cost of the optical material needed to produce them.
    These uses way less glass. What is their justification…???

    • Jón

      Things are hardly ever priced in that way. (Material+work)*profit margin %. They are always priced “how high can we sell this at”. Have you ever wondered that smartphones with cheap ARM-based CPUs cost as much as laptops with hard drives, keyboards and 17″ screens?
      No, I think Panasonic bean-counters and marketers know they will sell every one of these at those prices.
      My suspicion is that they will release a “pro” G/GF to accommodate them.

      • Michael Meissner

        Bear in mind, the cost of the material in a smartphone is only a small part of the overall cost. People cost to develop the phone, the cost of machines to make the phones, and shipping all add to the final price. Development costs must be paid for before the phone can be shipped, so it is always a gamble of whether the phone, laptop, etc. will return the investment. Granted, there is always, pricing for what it will sell at, but the manufacturer’s cost does include more than just the cost of the components.

      • michael

        “Have you ever wondered that smartphones with cheap ARM-based CPUs cost as much as laptops with hard drives, keyboards and 17″ screens?”

        No. Shrinking things down costs more, especially in the beginning of the technology.

        I can build a desktop with the specs of a MacBook Air for next to nothing, but it ain’t gonna fit in my briefcase.

    • Renato M.

      man, you don’t know shit about what you are talking about. do you know how to make a high quality lens with constant wide aperture? no, you don’t. less glass should cost less? your ability and knowledge to think through is as good as a door.

      less doesn’t always mean cheaper. one high quality glass can cost 100x a bad quality glass. and for good lenses you need high quality material and construction, if not you will have a useless lens, full of distortion, color aberration, vignetting, etc.

      why would they “invent” that lens like that should cost more? does that even make any sense?

      please, make a favor to the world and think a little bit more before say BS like that and if you have any doubts if you are saying stupid things, just don’t say, ’cause it will certainly be stupid.

      I think this video can help you understand how much “rubbish” you said… hahaha… DigiRev is more for entertaining purposes, but it helps illustrate.
      http://youtu.be/hk5IMmEDWH4

    • DrDave

      I would buy the 35-100 for video if it has F/2 or better.
      Right now I’m using a set of primes to do that, like the Nikkor 85/2.

  • Z

    (1) Note in the slide the barrels seem diff sizes on the two, so relative to each other the 35-100 is actually a bit smaller (or 12-50 bigger).

    (2) They seem massively smaller than the 4/3 14-35 f2 and 35-100 f2. You can tell based on the barrel. So either its the technology of the Power Zoom or they are not f2.

  • Eric Stemen

    I hope these lenses are stabilized. I need that for video.
    The price does not bother me for video.

    • mpgxsvcd

      +1 These lenses were shown without Stabilization. I need it for video.

  • Renato M.

    Nanoka or Nonaka?

  • MikeH

    Looks like 43 rumors got rumor pwned..

    http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1314334915.html

    GF3X mentioned, though the only difference is the bundled lens?

    • So? I don’t recall any claims here that GF3X was anything else than a new kit.

    • deniz

      i can hear the lens motor in the video on that link. doesnt seem right for a video lens.

      not that i care about video :/

  • safaridon

    First congraduations to Pany engineers for their new lenses! Only hope management and marketing takes advantage to deliver sooner than later and for reasonable price.

    From all the previous rumors seems very plausible that the new 12-35 will be a F2.5-3.3 and just about the same size of the existing kit zoom only a little larger diameter. This lens is needed as an option for existing G3 and GH2 and kit lens for new GF7 and GH3 for wanting faster lens speed and not power zoom. While I would have liked it range to be original 12-50, with extended optical zoom of 1.3X with little or no lose in resolution this lens will get there anyway and enable it to be both smaller and faster. I would expect this lens would be about $500-600 in price.

    I don’t think Pany needs to hurry on delivery on the second 35-100 lens and again I think Pany will aim for getting a f2.5-3.3 just to claim it is both faster and smaller than the competition. Again this lens appears slightly larger diameter than the 45-175 or closer to existing 45-200. This lower volume and likely expensive lens no doubt aimed at the professional crowd and to match APS-C or FF offerings.

    I think Pany is wiser to concentrate on these lenses then the earlier rumored reworking of excellent 7-14mm or a 75-300mm which would bring nothing new in either zoom range or lens speed to the table.

  • Scott

    They better be at least 2.8. If they are then I would pay 1500 t0 2000 for them. Most professionals dont question the price on good lenses. I am looking forward to the day when I can shoot a whole wedding with an ep3. To do that I need better lenses than what they have now. The primes are good for cool shots but at weddings you cant use a prime the whole time, and if you do you will miss a bunch of awesome shots just because you cant compose.

  • MightyMike

    Judging by the dimensions in the photo based on the mount size the filter thread will be either 49mm or 52mm and this pretty much rules out F2.0 across. I’d say these are to be F2.8 lenses and that will be a nice addition to the system.

    • nobody

      Rather 58 or 62mm filter size, IMO.

  • Admin, I would put 2 choices – “too expensive” and “not interested” as it is hard now to figure out, which one is more important for m43 users

  • uth
    • admin

      Thanks!

  • Monodrift

    I did a rough mount-match in photoshop to give an idea of the size of the 12-35mm. Didn’t have much to work with, so this is just for a general idea.

    http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/1720/matchor.jpg

    • admin

      Cool!

  • It would be hard to justify that money for an f2, though for a 35-100 I might consider it. But these don’t look near large enough for f2. What I would buy is a 35-100 f4 or faster in the same price range as the Olympus 4/3 50-200 — if it had the same optical quality.

  • pdc

    Now for the GL3.

  • Nelson

    http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k77/ntsan/size.jpg

    12-35 and 30-100 is only slightly longer than 14-45 and 14-140, I am pretty impressed by the size!

    • safaridon

      Something looks to be off scale in the depiction of relative sizes by photobucket? Just take a look at actual photo depiction in prior post from imaeshack and you will find that the new 12-35 lens is about 13% longer and wider than the 14-45 lens. Looks like Pany is limiting the diameter of its new lenses for m4/3 to about 2.7-2.8″ which matches the outer mount ring shown on the GF2 and GF3 and to limit the length of all but the 100-300 lens to about that of the 14-140 lens?

      I searched the pictures but could not find any clues about maximum aperature which I assume from rumors and diameters shown will be f2.5-3.3? Also no markings to designate OIS but I assume from X series that is the case.

  • Daemonius

    Considering size, its f2.8 or at max f2.5 zooms. But it has excellent choice of focal lengths and combined with being fast, it should be great lens. What about some pro grade body?

    And what will Olympus do? Redo their 4/3 lens to m4/3 and realease finaly some m4/3 pro camera?

  • The new fast Panasonic X-lenses are a hard strike for Olympus.
    It is a diabolical strategy to defeat Olympus with its own arguments – the Super High Grade Zuiko lenses 14-35mm/f2.0 and 35-100mm/f2.0 and transfer it more quickly from Four Thirds to Micro Four Thirds. Probably they will even have an electric-powered zoom button for HD-video – God grant that Olympus will find a competitive answer soon!

    • Snowbird_UT

      The answer is Sony. Oly better run like hell over to the Sony fab and get a new sensor!!!

  • This is what I’ve been advocating for a while: a more modest zoom range in exchange for a (hopefully) brighter and more compact zoom lens. I’m hoping for f/2; Micro Four Thirds needs faster lenses to compensate for the smaller sensor and to allow for DOF control similar to that of APS-C sensor cameras with their f/2.8 zooms. If Panasonic can design a 14-42 f/3.5-5.6 the size of a pancake, then Panasonic may be able to make a 12-35mm of this size (thanks for the size comparison, Monodrift) that has a maximum aperture of f/2 throughout its zoom range. An 12-35mm f/2 zoom would be a strong argument for me to stick with MFT. But not if it’s f/2.8.

  • nobody

    Admin, you don’t have any info how fast these 2 zooms will actually be?

  • sparedog

    if they are f2 constant through the zoom, i’ll buy them both, doesnt matter the price.

  • nobody

    Going by the image of the prototypes, the 35-100 cannot be faster than f2.8 at the long end, IMO.

  • uhmm…as for 12-35mm,
    35mm is short. 12mm is good. I want 12-60mm (like Olypmus 4/3 fast zoom).

  • Nick Clark

    I think people have kind of missed the point – the prices posted are pure speculation from Admin based on more speculation that these lenses *might* be f2, which is unlikely in itself…

  • SLO

    Great news! Given the shrinking of the PL25 to mPL25, sub f2.8 is possible.

    As Thom Hogan has said m43 is one great sensor away from changing the game. These two fast zooms, a wide zoom, 25/1.4, and 45/1.8 or PL45 covers most needs, even many pros.

    This is getting serious!

  • Anonymous

    I wonder if the lens have an F 2 constant aperture as the Oly SHG 4/3 version,.. What was Oly thinking, that their pride legacy glass had slipped into panasonic member,.. Oly must answer this by making more SHG glass,.. Or better version of 12-35 & 35-100,.. This batle of super glass is getting more interesting,.. More great choice for m4/3 user

  • Peter

    I would be very tempted by a 12-35mm f/2.8 with Power IS for less than 700 euro (streetprice). Given the current prices on f/2.8 zooms for APS-C 700 euro should be feasible methinks.

    Would be a nice travel combo with the recently announced 45-175mm lens IMO

  • vanawesome

    Now that’s more like it! Those pancakes were really getting me worried, these however, these are going to be great. 12-35 is going to be such a nice range for the GH2. I imagine that this lens will rarely leave my gh2 body once I get my hands on it.

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