(FT5) Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 without O.I.S and not Leica branded (the 12-50mm lens with Power O.I.S.)


The Four Thirds Panasonic/Leica 25mm lens

According to our trusted sources the upcoming Micro Four Thirds lens will not feature in lens stabilization. And unlike the Four Thirds version the lens will NOT be Leica branded! One source told us the lens should be available in April!

We have also an update on the 12-50mm f/2.5-3.3 lens. The lens has Power O.I.S and not Mega O.I.S. stabilization. The difference explained by Panasonic: “The newly developed POWER O.I.S. (Optical Image Stabilizer) nearly doubles the hand-shake correction power of conventional MEGA O.I.S.”

We also heard that there could be one (or two?) more lenses. We are currently investigating those new rumors…

Feel free to share rumors by using the anonymous contact form on the right sidebar. Or contact me at 43rumors@gmail.com. Thanks!

  • akey

    I did a little study on internet and found that power O.I.S. compensate slow hand shake much better than mega O.I.S. If this is true, then it should work well when you try your best to hold the camera steadily, in this case slow movement is hard to overcome.

    • Zonkie

      Yes, POWER O.I.S has been used in compact cameras for quite a while now and all the tests I’ve seen say that it’s a big improvement over the first generation MEGA OIS. I was wondering not long ago why Panasonic was still using the old system on all their new m4/3 lenses. Good to see them finally upgrading to the much better one.

  • twoomy

    Admin– Any word on when the 12-50mm would be available? How exciting! I want that lens now!!! :)

    • admin

      No word. I can only speculate with an announcement at the CP+ show in Japan (early february). it’s the biggest asian show of the year. Would be bad for them to miss the appointment and announce the lenses 2 months after it…

  • jammur

    No OIS? The it will be perfect on the Olympus m43. sigh.
    Lack of internal IS on Panny’s was a HUGE mistake.

    • Jules

      here we go again…

    • Eric

      True, it’s been beaten to death, but it’s still a valid point. While I don’t think OIS is a necessity, I’m not going to buy a Panasonic body without as long as Olympus offers a suitable body with it built in as an alternative. I don’t see why companies view the lens/body debate as an either/or proposition. Panasonic should do both. Simply disable the in-body OIS when an OIS lens is attached.

  • choison

    有支 20.7 又出支 25.4.. 好似唔夠吸引啊. 反而支 12-50 好似實左的.. 4月出鏡.. 花紅洗晒啦.. 仲要交稅.. Pan 記搞乜啊.

  • grzybu

    Maybe it will be pancake or something almost as small?

    • Voldenuit

      I wish ppl would stop obsessing about pancakes.

      Pancakes are not the best optical design and trade off many parameters for their compact size. I’d rather have a lens that was a little bigger and superb than one which was slightly smaller but not great.

      m43 already has 1 great pancake and 2 unspectacular ones. There’s no need for a second pancake at almost the same focal length when the new lens could distinguish itself in other ways (eg optically, AF speed, bokeh, etc).

      • Tomas


        • Don Pope

          Well, M4/3 is all about the compact size, so pancake lenses make a lot of sense. If I’m going to get a big lens I might as well get a DSLR.

          • Tomas

            +1 (but a different Tomas).

            They don’t call it MICRO four thirds for nothing!

          • Eric

            That’s not true for everyone. I simply prefer EVF’s to OVF’s. I also love the potential of mirrorless systems. I truly believe contrast detect AF will be better than phase detection within 5 years. I’d love to see an entire range of body’s and lenses and all shapes and sizes. A camera like a GF2 + 20mm makes a great travel camera, but I would also like something a bit more substantial for use around the house and studio stuff. For the latter use a non-pancake 25mm would be preferred. So in short, I agree, make the 25mm of the highest optical quality. We already have the 20mm for times when small size matters.

          • Eric, I agree about the EVF – I’ve gotten spoiled by its what-you-see-is-what-you-get preview.

            When I pick up my Canon 40D now, I’m frustrated that I’m not viewing what I’ll be actually be capturing – the depth of field, the white balance, the dynamic range, the lens flare, etc. Granted, the OVF looks fantastic. It just has little to do with my final image.

          • Godot

            A lens can still be reasonably small without being a pancake.

            That’s what I expect for this one. Something roughly the size of the Olympus 9-18 in its collapsed state — still quite small, but not a “pancake.”

      • DonTom

        Bit hard not to obsess on pancakes when the compromises turn out as well as they did on the 20mm. After all, for many (inc. me), m43 is all about a satisfactory compromise between size and performance. I would love a fast 12mm pancake, as a small travel lens for architectural and landscape opportunities. I doubt I would buy it if it was a big lens, may as well buy the new zoom instead.

        • Voldenuit

          They didn’t turn out so well on the 14mm though. Nor the 17 mm.

          Historically, pancake designs on film SLRs were mostly resricted to slow normal lens focal lengths, and that was probably for a good reason. Also, pancakes have more vignetting than standard optical designs.

          The 20mm already has 1.5 stops of vignetting wide open. Do you seriously think a faster lens such as the 25/1.4 won’t face similar or worse problems in pancake form?

          Enough with the pancakes. We have one good (if overhyped) pancake. We don’t need a slew of mediocre pancakes chasing its tail.

          Give us good lenses.

          • Archer

            Pancakes are for breakfast.

          • Vlad

            Well, Pentax managed to make some real good quality with their Limited. Why that wouldn’t work here?

          • Eric

            Pentax doesn’t have any pancakes faster than f/1.9. All their other pancakes are between f/2.4-f/3.2. Ultra fast apertures is one of the problems pancakes have.

      • Archer


  • Uwe

    Are there any hints on the size & weight of these two rumored lenses?
    Not to mention the expected (street) prices…


  • Miroslav

    No one seriously expected OIS on 25mm f/1.4. Those who want it stabilized know whose camera to buy :). I suppose the size will be somewhere between old Olympus 14-42mm and Leica 45mm lenses.

    • grzybu

      No need to be a pancake, but lack of O.I.S suggests that it could be rather small, much smaller than 25/0.95 ;)

      • Jules

        don’t forget the AF motor.
        I don’t think it will be all that much thinner.

      • Miroslav

        Size depends on how much they want to rely on digital distortion correction. Leica does not want to do that thus large Leica branded lense.

        • Miroslav

          lenses not lense

        • cL

          Digital distortion correction = less optical quality required. I don’t think Leica wants to have its reputation as collectors’ brand be tarnished. Should I assume this new 25mm f1.4 would have digital correction? That’ll be a shame if it were true, then I’d rather wait for Olympus’s version.

          • Miroslav

            “Should I assume this new 25mm f1.4 would have digital correction?”

            Voigtlander 25mm F0.95 doesn’t have digital correction for sure. If Panasonic 25mm F1.4 AF is smaller than Nokton then it surely has some kind of software correction applied in camera.

  • CDMc

    Will the 12-50 be movie optimised i.e. HD designation? and +1 when is it coming, and do we know if it will come as a Kit?

  • Andi

    Are there any informations about the price?

    • admin

      No info yet :(

  • Thierry

    I guess the third lens could be the bright wide-angle Panasonic had “under consideration”

  • I think we will never see image stabilized f/1.4 prime lens on any manufacturer. IS takes valuable lens glass real-estate and increases complexity to design for that to be viable, IMO.

  • DonTom

    Good news on the 25mm being without OIS, I guess they left it out in order to keep the size down. Another Panny lens that will work best on an Olympus!
    Having tasted the speed of the Panny 20mm, I don’t think the new zoom will be for me, but a fast 12mm pancake would be great. Fingers crossed!

  • Rich

    Without stabilization, why would anyone want Panny’s 25mm instead of the Voitlander, unless the price is far less?

    • amne

      It’s probably interesting for people who prefer autofocus.

    • Jules

      two words : Auto Focus

    • DonTom

      Autofocus is all the reason many of us would need. It is also the reason why it won’t be smaller than the Voigtlander.

      • It may not be smaller, but I bet it’ll be a lot lighter! The Voigtländer is my favorite lens so far, but that thing – for its size – is heavy!

    • rawmeyn

      for some situations autofocus is just a great help…

  • DonTom

    To give a perspective on the new zoom, the closest 4/3 equivalents have 72mm filter sizes! My legacy 200mm F3 has that size, and looks huge on an E-PL1. Hat off to Panasonic if they can keep the size down…….

  • I’m afraid it won’t be much cheaper than the Voigtlander.

  • stonebat

    I’d get it if it’s priced under $1K. What other choices we have? Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 and Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 plus adapters? I’d rather get this new lens with POWER O.I.S.!!!

  • mpgxsvcd

    The 12-50mm F2.5-3.3 sounds like my ideal lens. I would love to sell my 14-140mm and the 14mm F2.5 and just use the 12-50mm and the 45-200mm. I would also keep the 20mm F1.7 for those really dark scenes.

    I really hope they build the 12-50mm. I will buy it at any price. However, I doubt they are going to build a zoom lens that is wider and as fast as the 14mm F2.5 pancake they just put out.

    Honestly, I think the lens will end up being something more like 17-45mm F2.8-F3.5. Getting a wide fast lens for m4/3s is a tough thing to do.

    • at

      A zoom lens like 12-50mm f2.5-3.3 is definitely targeted totally different from the pancake because the zoom lens will be quite big (maybe a bit pricey) with higher quality for enthusiast only. The pancake is only designed with GF users looking for compact size only.

  • cutegel007

    Admin- you’ve said previously that the Panny 25mm f1.4 will probably be a kitlens of an upcoming m4/3 body. Is there any news about it? Will Panny and Oly produce both high-end micro fourthirds body?

    • admin

      Hi! Have no update yet. The G3 could probably be the camera that will use the 25mm lens as kit option.

      Oly will bring a high-end camera. Panasonic has something different in mind (hope to tell you more about that soon).

      • cutegel007

        That’s very nice of you to have time to respond quickly with our inquiries, up for you man! Will wait for that “something different” from Panasonic.

      • cL

        Nice to hear there is going to be a nice Oly high-end coming. Hopefully either (or both) 25mm and 12-50mm is a good match.

  • HMR

    This is going to cost me a lot of $$$$$$ this year. I thought last year was bad. College for the kids is over rated.

    • wife

      No college
      No braces
      No piano lesson
      No shoes
      No dinner

  • Having used the 4/3 version for a couple of years, I regret that the rumored 25mm will not bear the Leica brand. There is something special about Leica glass, even when Panasonic make it. I’d be delighted if the new lens retains the OOF rendering of its old half-sister.

  • safaridon

    Very good lens news indeed. By leaving out the OIS hope Pany has been able to make the 25/1.4 smaller and less expensive as Pany not Leica design? Tests on small 14/2.5 wa on GF2 indicated could be hand held satisfactory even down to 1/2 second even w/o IS. Also quite possible Pany could easily introduce an electronic IS option to their m4/3 camera for use with the primes or legacy lenses just as Oly adds EIS for video?

    I don’t know why so many still doubt the existance of a 12-50/2.5-3.3 or that it is feasible without being very big? After all Pany already talking of the new more effective Power OIS which will be utilized? Maybe this is the key to how Pany hopefully has been able to keep the size down to a minimum. I am a bit surprised about this buz about power OIS isn’t that that Pany claimed to be using on their latest compact P&Ss?

    Hints that there will also be one or two other lenses coming is also very good news. Obviously the above two will not be cheap and are their premier product destined for pro and high end m4/3 models yet to come?
    I think Pany is also bound to come with a much smaller 2x kit zoom for the compact GF series also designed with Power OIS to keep very small yet fast like a 16-32/2.8-4? Also why should both Oly and Pany compete with each other with a 12mm lens as a fast one not necessary for wa and would be bigger and costlier not necessarily better?

    Kudos to Pany for these high end lenses for m4/3. I think the 12-50mm zoom lens for m4/3 with this speed size and capability will begin to have a much greater impact on the DSLR crowd with their larger lenses.

    • I think Electronic IS works for video because the resolution is so much lower than for stills. Even 1080p is only about 2 megapixels. So there are plenty of extra pixels the processor can analyze for movement, then discard.

      Not sure how well it would work for photos. I do agree Panasonic needs to come up with something soon, though. I’ll be switching teams to Olympus if not… I’ve got too many manual focus lenses!

      • safaridon

        Reportedly there have been a lot of improvements made in electronic IS but as you say was primarily formerly used primarily for video at lower resoluton. However there are a number of small P&S compacts up to 12mp which also rely on EIS I believe with some success even if not as good as OIS or sensor IS. Frankly the key to me is simply to use a faster shutter speed as IS is not a cure all while use of higher shutter speed is if your camera has capable high ISO capacity which many do.

        • That’s good to know – thanks. Makes me a little more hopeful if Panasonic has even more options. :)

    • Michael

      if you consider that this is only a 50mm f2.8 in full frame terms it is ridiculously big and overpriced ^^
      look what tiny amount of glass the nx 30mm needs and how small and cheap it is (it is a 45mm f2.8 in full frame terms)

      whats the point of m4/3 if its lenses are way bigger and more expensive than the apc mirrorless cameras.
      big fail

      • Dirk

        …..if you consider that this is only a 50mm f2.8 in full frame terms it is ridiculously big and overpriced…..
        No, it is a 1,4/25 mm. Attached on a FT camera its having an angle like a 50 mm lens in 35mm cameras. But it is still f1.4

        • Aperture doesnt change even if focal length changes due to crop factor of the sensor. So f1.4 m4/3 is f1.4 FF

        • lander240

          Michael means 50mm f2.8 “DOF” eq., come on.

          • Zonkie

            Yes, he probably meant the DOF, but aperture is not only about DOF. It’s used more often than not for light gathering. And there it is still f/1.4.

            More important, when someone declares that this lens is ridiculously big and overpriced when the lens size and price are completely unknown, who can know what he really meant.

          • pdc

            It’s amazing how many people get confused about focal length, angle of view, and aperture, especially when mixing up lenses with film/sensor sizes they were not designed for. Andrew Reid of EOSHD has recently made some really practical suggestions to uncloud the sensor/pixel size/sensitivity parameters. Has anyone got similar suggestions for lenses? Focal length is focal length, registration distance is registration distance, maximum aperture is maximum aperture, maximum angle of view is maximum angle of view – nothing changes regardless of the camera the lens is mounted on. What affects the end result is how much of the image circle cast on the film/sensor plane that is being utilized by the camera – and crop factor doesn’t always do it, because it is in reference to some standard (like 35 mm film). We need some other/additional ratio measures that will be independent of the design film/sensor size and the application film/sensor size.

          • Chris

            After getting back a roll of slides (taken with a Pentax 67 and the 105mm f/2.4) and finding a shot of my girlfriend with her eyes barely in focus, I’ll say I’d welcome the larger DoF relative to aperture opening. Depth of field at f/2.8 on a 50mm lens is plenty shallow.

      • Let’s declare this as a fail, QUICK! Before the price is even announced!


      • Godot

        What information do you have on the size and price of the 25/1.4? Please share, the rest of us want to know…

      • Jules

        “whats the point of m4/3 if its lenses are way bigger and more expensive than the apc mirrorless cameras.
        big fail”

        So far I can tell, they are not bigger. Certainly not while comparing equivalent to equivalent from Sony NEX.
        As for price, we will have to wait for the APS-C mirrorless to gain maturity in their lens line-up before we can truly compare.

        Big sweeping statement…

      • Archer

        -1 Troll

      • Michael Devitt

        50mm primes for 135 format camera are always pretty small and cheap, there is no question. But that’s it, fast wides and teles for FF are huge, heavy and expensive. And for that DOF argument: not so many 50mm primes have pleasant bokeh as you may think, when used wide open – you have to stopped down to improve this anyway :D.

        • Chris

          Exactly. This is true of almost any camera system out there.

          Rangefinder systems, however, like the Leica M, Mamiya 7 and Bronica RF645, all tend to have small lenses across the board. One difference is that they are generally slow… the brighter M-mount lenses are still large.

    • tgutgu

      No idea, why the people always want to have lenses with the design goal to keep it at a minimum size? We already have enough “pancakes” and their handling isn’t always better due to the small size (see too tiny rear lens cap, which is also delivered with the 100-300mm lens).

      No, I want a lens that fits to GH2-like body. It does not need to be very small or pancake design. Instead I would prefer a wider focus ring with a distance scale.

      Nevertheless, paramount is image quality! Please no compromise on that just because the small is king faction wants another pancake!

      • Ryo81

        I would rather want more portability with this system (m43), and that would mean smaller lenses. From my viewpoint, if top image quality is paramount and video doesn’t matter, the Olympus E-5/other choices are always there.
        For G/GH series users, they would of course welcome “large lenses”, but if there is no small lenses for GF/PEN series, I wonder if the system would be sustainable?

        • tgutgu

          You already have three pancakes, a quite small macro lens, the smallest fisheye, and some small kit zooms. The 100-300mm represents the currently smallest 600mm equivalent. And the 7-14mm is not very big either. m4/3 is already by far the smallest large sensor camera system, if you want to have a focal range from ultra wide to long tele.

          m4/3 is not about pocketability, which gets often confused with portability. m4/3 is in its current state already very portable. No need to drive that further.

          Nobody wants the 1.4/25mm to be large and heavy, but it does not need to be a pancake, if image quality would profit from a slightly larger size.

          • Michael Devitt

            I agree, MFT is over-pancaked currently ;). Pancakes are ok, but not every lens has to be like that. OM sized 50mm F1.4 would be a decent size (with AF included) for this one.

          • Ryo81

            I also agree that m43 lenses do not need to be made all pancakes, so that they can provide better quality (I’m not sure about handling, cuz I don’t have a G/GH body). All I want is smaller, more portable lenses compared to APS-C lens equivelants.

    • Godot

      “I think Pany is also bound to come with a much smaller 2x kit zoom for the compact GF series also designed with Power OIS to keep very small yet fast like a 16-32/2.8-4?”

      I find the 14-45 a nice match for the GF1; good proportions and ergonomics. The 14-42 is slightly smaller and should be a comparable match for the GF2.

      Somehow I doubt a fast 2x would be much smaller, or have more consumer appeal than a slow 3x. After all, kit lenses are usually consumer-grade glass (the 20/1.7 is maybe “prosumer”), so a fast 2x zoom might be of interest to some of us, but I don’t see it having much marketing “sizzle” for the average consumer, who is usually going to see 3x as more desirable than 2x, period. Many will never even think about f numbers until they’ve started asking why it’s so hard to take a good picture indoors.

      • safaridon

        The reason for a small faster zoom is because Olys collapsible zoom lens is much smaller than Panys 14-42 kit lens when collapsed and in transport. More importantly the new Pany zoom lens while good optically and reach is a very poor seller compared to the smaller compact but faster 20/1.7

        The reason for a more restrictive zoom range as others with more lens design knowledge say that would result in by far the smallest size and quite possible the lens speed could be increased quite a bit. With the extended 1.3X intelligent zoom and for video ETC 4.3X increase in focal length suddenly makes this very fast lens much more practical. Who wouldn’t prefer a faster zoom lens at the expense of some focal length range when 1.3X cropping and ETC for video readily available? Most hate the kit zoom primarily because they find them too slow.

        • Godot

          I agree with absolutely everything you say when the target buyer is the enthusiast.

          But when it comes to “regular” consumers, I’m pretty well convinced that 3x is much more desirable than 2x, and max aperture is not a major factor in the buying decision (though that may be largely because almost all kit zooms start at or around f3.5).

          Many times I’ve handed my G1 w/ 20/1.7 to a friend and the first thing they ask is: “where’s the zoom?” The concept of a non-zoom lens is quickly becoming foreign to many people, and Panasonic is already swimming against the tide by using the 20/1.7 and 14/2.5 as kit lenses… so I’m just not convinced there’s enough money to be made by offering a fast 2x kit zoom. My sense is they’ll stick with tiny primes for their compact bodies, and also offer a 14-42 option for those who want a zoom.

  • The 12-50 deciding factor would be its size, and the not-leica branded 25 would be cheaper – yet pana can deliver on the quality basis same as 20mm.
    bottom line – e-p3 dream lens.

    • mambastik

      I’d still wait for Oly m4/3 version of their 12-60; taking out the OIS in lens means overall size would be smaller, and hopefully cheaper priced. Definitely a big advantage for having IBIS.

      • tgutgu

        OIS does not contribute much to the size as shown by the 14-45mm lenses of Panasonic and the Leica 455mm macro elmarit.

        In any case, I would not so much worry about the size. If it fits to a GH2 body, let it be relatively big and heavy. IQ is more important. A bit larger and heavier even helps in handling.

      • safaridon

        Big advantage for having IBIS? How sure are you of this? Reviews including even DPR comment I think report only a 1 to 1.5 stop in improvement. The problem maybe are assuming the claimed 4 steps of improvement not actual and at the most commonly use focal length of 14mm that is good without IS even to 1/15 sec anyway and for the telephoto end is used primarily for pictures of moving people or animals where IS is useless anyway? Yes I do like IBIS and have in all my DSLRs but its lack is not a killer issue for me especially with the much better high ISO capabilities of cameras these days which allows you to set a higher shutter speed. Higher shutter speed trumps IS anyday and often IBIS results in fact poorer if used at faster speeds.

    • safaridon

      Maybe zooms are the most popular sellers with the DSLR style m4/3 products as well as for the PENs but Pany has been doing very well selling the GF1 with only the 20mm prime far outselling the kit zoom. Likewise the GF2 with 14mm is doing very well in Japan but I note there the two lens combo prime + zoom is even more popular.

      The use of small legacy primes with manual focus on these small m4/3 models is bringing back a lot of interest from anyone using them because of the lower cost and fun using them like the SLRs of old.

  • shep

    I’d rather have image stabilization and an f2.8 lens. That provides similar low-light capability to this f1.4 which does not have IS. There is no point in all the expense and size of an f1.4 without IS.

    This lens will be of more use on an Olympus Pen (body IS). It will provide better out-of-focus backgrounds.

    • depends on ur shooting style, the DOF is much more important for me then low light

      • cL

        Then maybe FF is better for you. I think m4/3 has its purpose and has excellent photo quality, but (shallower) DOF unfortunately isn’t one of them (it’s the crop factor thing, can’t be changed). Each format has its own advantage, obviously. f1.4 is enough for me. Actually nowadays I think f2 is more than enough for my purpose….

        I just hope taking off the Leica branding does not equal less optical quality. But in any case, as a 4/3 user, I’m more likely to get the big 4/3 version anyways. Making it smaller for m4/3 most likely equal a compromise in quality. But the 12-50mm sounds interesting as a travel gear.

        • Godot

          I think lack of Leica brand almost certainly means the lens will use digital geometric distortion correction.

          Not a deal-breaker for me — all I care about is how the photo looks post-correction, whether the correction is optical or digital is immaterial to me.

          But for many people the presence of digital correction automatically means the optical quality is compromised. I am not sure why these people stick to m43, given how few native lenses there are that don’t use digital correction…

          • cL

            I believe Olympus lenses don’t use digital corrections, hence my comments. For people who only care about end result looks okay, it’s economical. For people who do care the lens’s longevity then it is something. I mean, if some new camera standard came out, all those m4/3 lens with digital correction won’t able to be used, even with a mount adapter. Besides after the camera corrected the geometric shape, it would have to crop a portion of the photo out (I believe that’s why Panasonic cameras have oversized sensor). If you shoot RAW, you’d have to do a lot of post-processing unless you use Panasonic’s software….

            That’s why optically correct lenses are a lot more expensive to make and people are willing to get them…. If it’s end result that counts, honestly, even a P&S is okay for that. You buy an interchangeable lens system because you care about optical quality….

    • safaridon

      You seem to be missing the point that the faster f1.4 enables you to use a faster shutter speed in the first place and IS is not a cure all as subject must be static while faster shutter speed can be. The whole point of having a faster lens is faster more accurate AF, shallow DOF for those who want it and lessons the need for IS in the first place.

      A f2.8 lens two stops slower than a f1.4 and is no match for lowllight capability in my opinion.

    • MikeS

      “There is no point in all the expense and size of an f1.4 without IS.”

      Tell that to every single lens manufacturer. There aren’t that many f/1.4 lenses with IS.

  • Jeff

    I’d just be happy if oly or pana would come out with a 1.2~1.8 35mm, but the 25mm sounds pretty sweet, can’t wait for that.

  • John

    Wow – a 12-50 m43 lens!
    Now that would get me to finally buy into the m43 system. For me 14mm on m43 was not wide enough for a walk-around zoom. If true they may now have a new customer who now owns an Panny LX-3 and a Nikon D300. This is great news if true!
    The 12-50 coupled with the 7-14 would be an incredible vacation lens system. Add in a long-ish zoom and I’d be good to go. Hope the IQ at 12mm is good though.

  • Loren

    (1) A fast 12-50mm lens with a new IS system is obviously going to be $$$ and focused on -VIDEO-. The AF100 needs a professional quality zoom lens something fierce. Don’t count on this lens being small or cheap since it’ll end up being neither. Heck, the Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS and the EF 24-105 IS are both $1000+ and heavy.

    (2) yes, f1.4 on MFT only gives depth of field capabilities equivalent to an f2.8 lens on full frame
    =depth of field on MFT will always be limited, if you care buy a full frame camera or shoot film
    =even a $$$ 50mm f1.0 lens on MFT gives you less shallow depth of field than a $100 50mm f1.8 on full frame
    =most people just getting into 4/3 really don’t seem to understand the trade-off here

    (3) IS on a 25mm (50mm focal length equivalent) normal lens is an odd request, no one makes these
    =on 4/3 it could make more sense since you can’t get clean images at ISO 800, 1600, etc. like on new FF or APS-C

  • totally agree that there is no need for IS in an f1.4
    remember the film days (before IS)

    remember that IS was created for the telephoto lenses first, then as a ‘solution’ for the high ISO noise problems on early dSLRs. The number of lenses on APS/FX with IS is few and mainly consumer ‘standard lenses’ … the exception of course is for the Sony/Pentax solution to put the IS on the chip and then all your wide lenses are IS for free!

    Rule Olympus … in body IS + 50/1.4 means some very low light images are possible.

    disclaimer: IS cannot stop subjects from moving!

  • MikeS

    Leica branding: good riddance. Panasonic has shown themselves to be perfectly capable of designing lenses, with the added irony that one of the more questionable m4/3 lenses in terms of quality is the 45mm f/2.8.

    The decision to exclude IS is understandable, given that it’s absent from every f/1.4 lens I can think of, but IBIS may convince me to switch from Panny to Oly, if they release a good E-P2 successor. The E-PL2 is already quite tempting.

  • off topic; would liek to ask:

    1. Does GH2 have AF video tracking? (i read someone say it is disabled by panny after new fw released)

    2. GH2 is 43 sensnor size, any diff of the output picture look (i mean the picture dimension) like compare to APSC?

    (sorry if asking stupid questions…. i want to clarify as GH2 still in my consideration list) thx guys

    • safaridon

      I believe that is correct according to previous post on this and DPR forums. Maybe there was some problem but others speculate that maybe done to protect Panys new 4/3 camrecorder sales?

      The GH2 has a multi-aspect sensor or rather it is larger size to cover wider aspect ratios so there is little difference in resolution if you change from 4/3 to 3/2 or 16/9 aspect ratio but as a result GH2 uses only 14MP out of 16MP sensor. However with APSC you will take about a +/-20% reduction in resolution when using 16/9 aspect ratio because you have to crop so 18MP is closer to the 14MP rated for the GH2 I think. Thus either the GH1 or GH2 have a distinct advantage over the other m4/3 cameras without such a sensor if used in anything other than 4/3 aspect ratio.

      • thanks safaridon and Bjorn for the explanation. I an too new about photograpgh and still digest the information :D

        about the video AF tracking, after the news panny removed the AF video trcking, at the same time i saw some one posting the video that lego look toy train is moving around and record in GH2, can see the square box following the train, does this consider AF tracking in video? if true why it is still available…

  • The GH2 has an over-sized, approximately 18.3MP sensor. Its highest resolution is at 4:3 with an output of 15.9MP, followed by 3:2 at 15.1MP and 16:9 at 13.9MP. While there is a 13% decrease in resolution when you switch from 4:3 to 16:9 on the GH2, that is a lot less than switching between the same aspect ratios on a conventional four thirds sensor where you experience a 25% loss in resolution.

    Competing APS-C cameras, like the Sony A55, have a 16MP files at 3:2 which is cropped to 13.6MP at an aspect ratio of 16:9. That’s a reduction of only 15% since we’re cropping a 3:2 aspect ratio sensor down to 16:9 and not starting with a 4:3 aspect ratio sensor as is the case with Micro Four Thirds. The rumored 24MP APS-C sensor would therefore still deliver files with over 20MP when cropped down to 16:9.

    If you’re interested, I’ve created a diagram of the GH2’s multi-aspect sensor:

  • No IS in 1.4 lenses means they are mainly focused on photographers, not video.
    Lets see

    • come on, its a 25 mm, IS is not really a priority here, unless you can’t control your body movement ;-)

  • Panasonic provides announced the Lumix DMC-GF2 Mini 4 Thirds camera. Any simplified model with the corporation’s GF1, Panasonic GF2 inherits the same flat-body layout but with revised handle layout and touch-screen manage.
    You got a really useful blog I have been here reading for about an hour. I am a newbie and your success is very much an inspiration for me.

  • Uluru

    Advice needed.

    I´m about to get a Lumix G 20mm F1.7. Should i wait for the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 or buy the Lumix G 20mm F1.7 now?


    • If i were you, I would go for the 20mm, since both are close in FL & speed
      But the 1.7 is already available, proved to be a good performer,prob being smaller than the 1.4 and prob cheaper.

  • moonlev

    Is this fourthirds lens? or microfourthirds lens? answer please.

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.