Panasonic displays the 42,5mm and 150mm MFT lens prototypes at CP+
DC.watch (translation here) posted these pictures of the Panasonic lens masp with the two future lens included. There is no info about price and exact release date. Only little curiosity is that the 42,5mm f/1.2 actually got a 43mm mark on the lens. Yeah I know, nothing worth to be mentioned. I would be one of the potential buyers for the 42,5mm lens. But I hope Panasonic will not exaggerate with the price. It’s always difficult to compare lenses but the Canon 85mmf /1.2 has a 2000 Euro/Dollar price tag (eBay price here). I hope the price is somewhere between $1000 and $1200. If it’s higher I would go for the cheap Olympus 45mm f/1.8 instead.
JimD
4 months ago |Its not a road map. Its a history chart.
admin
4 months ago |right, it’s a lens map with two future lens included. Removed the word “roadmap” from the article.
Hard2Xplain
4 months ago |well, apparently, Pana called it “Lumix G lenses roadmap”
Es
4 months ago |As far as road maps go, looks like this is it
DTC
4 months ago |It says right there in Japanese “Lumix G lens roadmap”.
N Marg
4 months ago |Well, all road maps I’ve ever used show both where I’ve been, and where I’m going. So it makes sense to have both on the Pany lens chart. Cheers.
JimD
4 months ago |That silver 14-42 mk2 looks fantastic. Just got to really think about that one.
Anonymous
4 months ago |What are the dimensions of 43mm f/1.2?
Is somebody able to assess it?
jules
4 months ago |43mm aperture straight off the bat.
Is the front element relatively small on the prototype or is it a monstrous prime…? If I have to guess, I’d say about 1.5 x the size and weight of that of the Olympus 1.8/45
Yun
4 months ago |Thinking to sell my 2 great lenses , the 45mm & 25mm to finance this new 42.5 lens . What do you think ?
Among all the lenses I owed , is the Leica DG Summilux that I seldom use in my shooting .
oluv
4 months ago |25mm are definitely more versatile to shoot than 42mm. what are you shooting?
jules
4 months ago |Are you missing something with those two lenses?
Anonymous
4 months ago |I’d say keep the 25mm, sell the 45mm, especially if this new 42.5mm has O.I.S. It’s ultimately up to you.
jules
4 months ago |The Olympus 45 is well regarded and won’t become crap overnight.
If its not broken, its a matter of how much the extra is really worth it.
JimD
4 months ago |What gives with the .5 addition to lenses all of a sudden? Its not as if all lenses are what is written on them in the first place. Not many are what they are listed at including Leica. Many are complicated lens of contrived focal lengths, equivalents in name only to simple lenses. ( then there are changes with focus distance). So what is the sudden trend for adding .5 to focal lengths?
How equivalent is an equivalent lens and what is the limit of equivalence before it becomes unacceptable and the equivalence police need to look into it?
JHCCAZ
4 months ago |The “.5 additional” is a non-issue photographically, though it is correct from a technical point of view.
In engineering / science / math disciplines, numbers are supposed to be expressed to the meaningful number of “significant digits”, i.e. rounded off so that the last digit is meaningful. Expressing extra digits implies a level of precision that isn’t really there, since (in this case) the manufacturing control of focal length is likely about +/- 1mm or so.
Panasonic probably targeted the design at 42.5mm on the computer (hence the 42.5 description in the announcement literature), but in practice will not achieve control to the nearest tenth. So rounding off to “43mm” is the right thing to do technically, plus it is visually simpler. Beyond that it isn’t much worth worrying about.
EnPassant
4 months ago |I think it is because of the easy to understand and calculate 2x equivalence to full frame. People are used to the full frame focal lengths and it is therefore easier to market a 17.5mm lens that everybody know will be the same as the well known 35 mm for full frame (That it is not exactly the same because of the different aspect ratio of 4×3 with M4/3 and 3×2 for full frame is another matter!) just as 42.5mm is comparable to 85mm on full frame.
JimD
4 months ago |Why? Some lenses called standard today were strange focal lengths not so long ago. Do we have a rule that says if its not a XXmm or YYmm its not a valid lens. (though it was stated here about 6 months ago)
As for the x2 factor, if that’s what they are trying to do that’s utterly stupid. As I noted above very few lenses are what they claim to be. So saying the 0.5 counts is really rubbish as it may or may not be there. As for making it easier, again total rubbish. The addition of another layer of stupidity that is not required.
Hands up m43 users who pick a lens by saying to themselves ‘I need a 55mm lens here so I must use a 27.5mm. Oh! I don’t have one, Oh dear, what will I do, I only have a 28mm’.
Hands up those who look at the shot and say ‘I think the 28mm will do here’.
Hands up those who just zoom to the shot they want and press the button and go for a coffee.
EnPassant
4 months ago |Well, I was just offering a possible explanation. I don’t know what the marketing people at Cosina are thinking!
Considering the price of the VC-lenses I think most buyers are familiar with the 35mm, full frame, lenses and their field of view! Cosina also make full frame lenses under both the Voigtländer and Zeiss brand and therefore are themselves used to thinking in the old 35 mm terms.
It is quite well known that lenses are not exacly what mm is written on them. The most known exemple is Sigma’s 50/1.4 which is definitely at least a couple of mm wider than 50mm. Focal lengths can even be different between same kind of lenses because of different production toleranses. Leica on some lenses actually write the exact decimal with two figures! Konica was not that exact but did produce 57mm (58mm was the common standard lens in early 60′s from other producers), 52mm(!) and 50mm standard lenses.
The reason producers not print the exact focal length is propably to avoid confusing buyers as we could get 50 mm lenses named 49.73 and 50.46 and so on.
JimD
4 months ago |Admin, Why don’t you like me? everything I write over 15 words goes to moderation.
Salty
4 months ago |It’s a shame the size advantage of the MFT system starts to disapear, the 150mm 2.8 doesn’t look any smaller than the Canon 135mm F2 L for example (which is a very nice lens…)
Damn you physics!!
Rasmus
4 months ago |I disagree. Yep, a fast 150 or 300 for MFT will probably not be that small, but if you have a bunch of lenses for various purposes, the total lens collection will take up much less place than with a larger sensor.
fan_guo_lai_xiang_xiang
4 months ago |I think it’s hard to tell if you haven’t got a, let’s say banana, for scale.
Mr. Reeee
4 months ago |How does the size advantage disappear? A 135mm and 150mm will give similar fields of view on a M4/3 camera. We’re talking about 270mm and 300mm equivalent.
I have an old Olympus OM 135mm f2.8 and it looks to be about the same size. Although it’s tough to tell from such a crappy photo.
Does anyone know the filter size the Panny 150mm will take?
Tron
4 months ago |Looks like either a 58 or 62.
JF
4 months ago |Definitely not 58 mm this is 12-35 and 35-100 and this one looks really wider. Ibet on >62 mm
Esa Tuunanen
4 months ago |With max aperture size being ~54mm and front element basically needing to be slightly larger than that 58mm would be awfully restrictive.
Chez Wimpy
4 months ago |The Canon 85/1.2 has 72mm threads… right up against the front element (which has to be at least 70mm)
avds
4 months ago |Why, the size advantage of this versus a similarly fast full-frame ~300mm or apsc ~200mm will hold perfectly, won’t it?
Salty
4 months ago |Because despite the sensor being smaller than full frame you can’t make the lenses much smaller once you get to longer focal lengths.
bro
4 months ago |While true, this is irrelevant because you would never compare a 150mm M43 lens to a 150mm FF lens. You would compare a 150mm M43 lens to a 300mm FF lens, and the M43 lens when looking at equivalent focal length will always have a huge size advantage.
With that size/weight advantage, you also get wider DOF, this is the basic advantage and compromise of the system.
Now, if you also compare equivalent focal length AND DOF, and watched a match for say the Canon 135/2 you would need a 67.5/F1 lens, which likely wouldn’t be much smaller than the 135 EF lens. But again, if you’re shooting M43 you’ve probably come to terms with the DOF differences so this is basically moot as well.
avds
4 months ago |You doubted that the m43 lens size advantage still holds. But here it is: you still get nominally 2x size smaller lenses for the same hardware f.o.v./speed than full frame equivalents. That’s it. Was here, is here and will be here.
OTOH, there was never a promise of size reduction for lenses of the same physical focal length. In fact, for most physical focal lengths all mirrorless lenses are actually at some disadvantage size-wise because their optical paths do not get extended by a big camera body due to much shorter register distances.
bart
4 months ago |A 150/2.8 is still going to be smaller then a 300/5.6. It will require the same diameter for its aperture, but the 150mm focal length can be done with a shorter barrel then 300mm while retaining the same level of quality.
Narretz
4 months ago |If the GF5 is now coming in a kit with the new 14-42, could that mean there is no GF-7 coming in the foreseeable future?
admin
4 months ago |GF7 or GF6 is coming for sure. Don’t worry.
Vitor S
4 months ago |This “43mm” shouldn’t be compared to the canon 85 1.2. This is a 42.5 and not a 85.. it just gives a fov comparable to an 85… it’s more than time to forget about crop factor. It doesn’t have the same compression or distortion of an 85. TWO COMPLETE DIFFERENT BEASTS.
A lens on this range should always be compared to other lens on the same range, and a way better comparison is the canon 50mm 1.2. That goes for a lot less than the 85 1.2
YanT
4 months ago |Vitor ! A f1.2 still a f1.2 in light gatering , and for a lot of people think that light gatering is more important than a extra super razor thin bla bla bla ! Who cares at that point ! For sure the Pana 43mm f1.2 will have a usable sharp wide aperture with sufficiant enough creamy thin, bokeh cause the oly 45mm at 1.8 does deliver the great DOF already . Like all good primes from micro 4\3 are ! So please FF user STOP saying that a 43mm f1.2 is like a 85mm f2.4 FF cause is HALF way not true ! Canon 85mm f1.2 and 85mm 1.8 are not even usable wide open cause way too soft . So yes i wish panasonic 43mm f1.2 will be price around 1000 $ cause i want a better quality lens than my old canon 85mm f1.8 ! And yes it does have the same compression or distortion of an 85 mm in FF , 4\3 is made that way, it is not the same physics as a FF 50mm lens on a APS-C sensor.
chris
4 months ago |In terms of FOV and DOF it is true. Its pretty easy to see when you actually take a photo. For some reason people endlessly point out that a 1.2 is a 1.2 regardless of format, but that only applies to exposure. If I take my EM5 with the 45/1.8 wide open, the DOF is not as shallow as my 5d3 with a 85/1.8 and the FOV is almost identical. DOF is shallower with the 5d3/85 at 2.8 as well. To pay $1000+ for this lens compared to the 45/1.8 is lunacy since it’ll likely be soft at 1.2 and need to be stopped down. I’d rather add that goofy Speedbooster and a f/1.4 EF lens – which would give you similar DOF and likely a sharper image wide open.
bart
4 months ago |@Chris, yes, that applies ‘only’ to exposure…
I know this is a portrait lens, so DOF control is actually quite relevant here, but, the many portraits, especially professionally, are made with artificial lighting, being it studio lights or strobes. When dealing with multiple studio lights or multiple strobes, a flash meter is a very very good thing to use. Lights, flash meters and all are really about exposure, hence the effect on exposure is way important, in many cases at least as important as the effect on DOF.
Besides, some people totally insist on always pointing out ‘but DOF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!’ whenever talking about aperture and exposure, so now don’t be surprised that the opposite also happens, people pointing out how it works out for exposure in response to someone talking about DOF only.
Not to mention, ’35mm equivalent’ really only refers to field of view in general parlance, no matter if you or I think this is technically wrong, it is what it means, deal with it.
YanT
4 months ago |I don’t think this lens will be soft at f1.2 ! The Oly 12mm f2.0, 75mm f1.8 and the the pana leica 25mm f1.4 the are really sharp wide open. For sure the 43mm will be sharp wide open , cause the physics of the lens beeing so close to the sensor ( no space cause no miroir ) helps to get sharpness at wide aperture. That’s why people from FF SLR cannot understand that ! That’s what leica rangefinder M is all about . putting the lens close to the film to make it sharper , SLR always struggle on that. I use to have FF ( 5D mk II ) and i never could use the wide aperture on any of my primes, cause first they are soft and 2nd too much shallow DOF . But when i wanted to have deep DOF i could not cause diffraction at f16 and F22 , So now with my OM-D , GH3 and primes lens i have more control over my DOF , cause i use wide open until F11. So glad to have move to M43 and i’m doiing my living with it !
avds
4 months ago |All that would be pretty much correct if this were not a dedicated portrait lens, which it is at 85mm f.o.v., and that should turn many of your points upside down, I believe.
Jordan S.
4 months ago |While I agree completely it’s time to forget about crop factor, as there’s no need to constantly reference a format you’re not using (do you see FF shooters constantly converting their lenses into ‘medium format equivalents?’)
However, your statement that this lens on m4/3 will not have the same compression as an 85mm on full frame is wrong. They will have exactly the same compression characteristics, and the same light gathering capabilities. The 85mm will have more background blur and shallower depth of field due to the longer focal length at the same focus distance, but the ‘compression’ from a telephoto lens has only to do with your distance from your subject and the resultant captured field of view. Since the FOV will be the same between a 42.5mm on m4/3 and an 85mm on full frame, and you’ll be shooting from the exact same position, the final image will be identical in terms of telephoto compression and perspective.
Anonymous
4 months ago |Sorry, but compression is a characteristic of the focal length, and they will have different background compression even if you have different lengths from camera to subject to compensate the crop factor.
Vitor S.
4 months ago |Ok, an update to my comment – > Compression does change but is negligible most of the times.
Here is a very good test about compression in crop vs full-frame: http://gallery.bedemccarthy.com/blog/2012/2/compression-sickness–full-frame-versus-crop-sensor-cameras
Michael Devitt
4 months ago |The compression is only related to perspective, focal length by itself doesn’t change it. You can get exactly the same compression if you crop your wide angle shot to match the telephoto one, shot from the very same point. The DOF will be different of course. If this wouldn’t work you will get only distorted photos from a P&S due to the short focal lengths.
Anentropic
4 months ago |Although the author claims it, this blog post seems to disprove the compression argument, I don’t think there’s any difference in compression?
Jordan S.
4 months ago |That’s simply not true. If that were true, wide angle photographs on large format would show telephoto compression. If two lenses have the same angle of view on their respective formats, the compression that comes from perspective change will be functionally identical. Now, the way depth of field is affected is quite different due to the different focal lengths, but compression is not dependent on focal length only, but field of view and distance. Look at the backgrounds in the link Vitor posted in response to your comment…everything is exactly the same positioning. Depth of field is different since they used the same aperture, but that’s it.
true homer
4 months ago |Simple, jordan is right. Optics is what I do for a living so im 100% sure. Compression/distortion is not solely lens based, the fov of the crop defines it. Think about this: tiny sensor compacts can start as low as 3mm in focal lenght, if it were solely lens based it would have massive uncontrollable distortion at the wide end! Or you could add a 6x front teleconverter to a 50mm lens and still have 50mm dof on a 300mm focal lenght!
Esa Tuunanen
4 months ago |Perspective/its “distortion” depends only on distance to target and other objects in image and not focal length!
Wide angle lens would take similar perspective portrait than normal portrait focal length lens if you kept distance same, only difference would be in less tight framing and bigger DOF.
Again long focal length tele lens would give same perspective with only narrower framing.
http://www.australianlight.com.au/blog/post/myth_busting_focal_length_and_perspective/
bro
4 months ago |Perspective is completely depend on distance to subject, not focal length, so you are 100% incorrect on the perspective distortion/compression point.
With a 42.5/85mm equivalent lens, you will stand at the same distance to your subject to get the same framing, thus you will have the same perspective. Go actually try it and come back here.
I own a FF system, APS-C and M43 system, and my Minolta 85/1.4 AF on FF, Sigma 50/1.4 on APS-C and Olympus 45/1.8 all provide roughly the same perspective(though the Sigma at 75mm equiv is a little shorter).
So yeah, try actually taking some photos with these combos before spouting your “theories”.
Miroslav
4 months ago |New Panasonic 14-42mm is made of metal! Has anyone noticed that? Look at the pictures at DC.watch.
Farrukh
4 months ago |That 150mm looks a tad big, still, nowhere near as big as others
I hope it’s priced in an affordable range!
Bob B.
4 months ago |These are both exciting lenses!…can’t wait to see how we’ll they perform!
Tron
4 months ago |I hope they make a 2x teleconverter with an integral tripod mount for the 150.
Mr. Reeee
4 months ago |+100!
A native M4/3 2x teleconverter is long overdue!
I use my old Nikon TC-201 teleconverter with my Nikon lenses when the light is good, since it loses 2 stops, but it really adds some flexibility. It makes my Nikon 300mm f4.5 EDIF a 1200mm equivalent. It’s pretty nice for birding, if the little bastards sit still long enough for me to find them with it.
Bob B.
4 months ago |It is interesting that no one, (to MY knowledge) has produced a tele-converter or extension tube set for MFT not even a 3rd party company has taken either one of these items on.. Wondering if the short lens-to-sensor distance has something to do with that?
NtT
4 months ago |Kenko has a nice extension tube set with electronic contacts for m43
Partyender
4 months ago |+1 Would make a good positive impact for m43 system.
Rasmus
4 months ago |On the other hand, a 2x teleconverter would turn the 150/2.8 into a 300/5.6. Which is already available.
Ken
4 months ago |I am glad the 150mm is on the map about time too.
So it wont be small but 150mm/f2.8 but I still want it.
Lets hope it is not cheapskate made, I want good quality optics and weather sealed.
So that will make it exspensive, but you tend to get what you pay for.
DOF, YES the more the better, one of my favourite advantages of M43 for me.
What I need next is 120mm/F4 macro weather sealed.
Its all good news for me.
Es
4 months ago |A 120mm f/4 macro would be fantastic. Most macro lenses are too short, and there is no need for fast apertures in macro as you’re likely to stop down anyway.
Yun
4 months ago |@Oluv
I’m more on portraits & street shooting sometime .
The most I need the summilux is for low night shooting where the F1.4 is truely shine & food photos .
I believe the new 42.5 able to replace all of these since I have the 45mm that I a lot & the lovely 75mm .
Matthias
4 months ago |More Pana lenses with mediocre optical quality so that they need a lot of software correction sold for the price of premium lenses?
tanngrisnir3
4 months ago |LOL! The ironic thing is, you wouldn’t know in any case.
Results are what matter, Einstein.
Matthias
4 months ago |If a lens that needs software correction is as expensive as a comparable lens that is optical correct then it’s a rip off.
avds
4 months ago |But if a lens provides resolution sufficient for applying further software correction with the end result comparable to that of “optically premium” lenses then this means this lens must be *super-premium* in terms of resolution – which justifies its price as a true “optically premium” lens in its own right, doesn’t it?
Tron
4 months ago |No, actually it’s smart for companies to make a profit, as it keeps them in business and allows the format to survive. As long as the results are good the consumer wins.
JimD
4 months ago |That’s why there are Photoshop plugins for Canon and Nikon lenses available that get rid of faults,aberrations, fringing and whatever. For a fee. If your mooning eyes even see the problem and your washed brain then admits it.
Oly includes it as part of “the system” so you don’t have to worry about it.
Kobe
4 months ago |It looks like the typeface on the 42.5mm is the same as used on Leica/Pana lenses. Doesn’t give much hope for a good price.
fan_guo_lai_xiang_xiang
4 months ago |What’s the typical application for a bright 300mm equivalent? does it have enough reach for wildlife?
avds
4 months ago |Looking at this chart I couldn’t help backspacing to puzzled ruminations about the meaning of the “Lumix X” designation…
Anonymous
4 months ago |X stands for top-end Lumix Lenses:
http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/systemcamera/gms/lens/x_lens.html
all those lenses are HD labeled and feature Power O.I.S
avds
4 months ago |Thanks! That seems to provide some clarification.
AMVR
4 months ago |I wonder if the appearance of compact kit lenses (Sony, Fuji and now Pany) is an indication of things to come, I mean, If they are able to reduce kit lenses to this size AND improve IQ surely they could deliver a relatively compact fast zoom right ? I mean, Fuji already did this, their kit zoom is already 2.8 and its widest and that’s designed for a bigger sensor, that can only mean a m4/3 ought to be smaller, right ? so far, every so called forum ¨expert¨ has told me that a 12-60 for m4/3 would be just as big as the 4/3 version, some people have even told me it would be bigger (seriously).
It’s about time Oly releases a fast zoom, they’re good at replicating themselves so why not make another 12-50 ? no weather sealing, no macro, no video AF buttons, just a regular photographer’s still oriented 12-60 f2.5-4.0, as compact as possible (more wide in diameter but shorter).
true homer
4 months ago |Ummm… theres already q 12-35 f2.8. And i5s a dream in terms of sharpness and its very very small. Nowhere near the size if the zuikos
Anonymous
4 months ago |i believe panasonic will label the lens as;” NOCTILUX”,..
wow,…. MFT is more to have NOCT Glass than any other camera system
at least we already have 5 NOCT now,.3 fron VN,.1 from SLR magic and 1 from panny
avds
4 months ago |“Noctilux” is a specific Leica nomenclature for lens brightness which this lens is not going to fit, and AFAIK there’s much doubt it will be Leica branded at all.
J Shin
4 months ago |The first Noctilux was f/1.2.
http://www.cameraquest.com/LM5012Noct.htm
avds
4 months ago |Oh really! Thanks, I didn’t know this
J Shin
4 months ago |The first Noctilux was f/1.2.
J Shin
4 months ago |Love the 0.0m minimal focus distance on the 42.5mm. That means we can take pictures of the sensor!
And looks like the 150 2.8 has a glossy finish? Shiny…
kavat
4 months ago |Yeah I hate this finish, and way too much labels on the barrel (HD,MacroNanoMultiXshit coating,PowerMegaSuper OIS etc).
Panasonic have to look at the legendary zuiko 150 f2! Trully a Great looking Lens.
Chris K.
4 months ago |Curious that Voigtlander and Panasonic both debut a 42.5mm prime. Perhaps same optics inside; one with a metal manual focus/aperture body and the other with a plastic body and automatic aperture/focus (with focus-by-wire) and reduced optical performance due to …?
I will put down $5 that it’s the same optical design inside and possibly they’re working with the same glass supplier.
MarcoSartoriPhoto
4 months ago |Panasonic is f1.2 while Voigtländer is f0.95. Pana has AF while (obviously) Voigty has MF. Pana is coupled electronically with the camera, Voigtly is “just” a huge ampunt of glass attached to the camera. Same focal lenght.
true homer
4 months ago |Theres is no way, and I mean in hell, that what you say is true. You should do a little reading before posting something like that. The lenses dont even have the same aperture, and they both make their lenses in house, so they dont have the same “glass supplier”. Whatever that means…
fvanzela
4 months ago |They are different from what we are seeing up to now in m 4/3, the 150mm can be a wild life “must have”!!!
Pat
4 months ago |Looking forward to the 150, though i wish it were a 200 or 300, but oh well. The 42.5 looks nice too, but I already have enough time keeping my subjects in focus with the 35-100 @ f/2. What I could really use is a fast 35 equiv, or which there are a few to choose from.
fvanzela
4 months ago |From 150 to 300, considering the latest sensors on OMD EM5 and GH3, it is one crop away!!!
Rasmus
4 months ago |I often crop images taken at 300mm.
W. C.
4 months ago |How will these lenses will be priced? Based on Panasonic’s recent f/2.8 zooms, they would like to think their lenses are now good enough for semi-pro to pro level pricing. Panasonic could be targeting these users in a much needed effort to boost profit margins. They indicated this in an interview last year, saying there are greater margins to be found up market in the “pro” categories.
Could well be way off here, but just looking at “comparable” lenses from other makes in the FF equivalent format, I think both these lenses will be priced out of the budget of most m4/3 users. Looking at FF AF “equivalents”, Canon EF 85 f/1.2 L II USM is ~$2000. Canon has a 300 f/2.8 for ~$6800; Sony for ~$7000; Sigma has a more budget option for ~$3400. I don’t think we will have an accurate word on pricing until the official announcements. So we’ll have to keep guessing.
kesztió
4 months ago |Panasonic doesn’t even know the magnification for the 42.5/1.2 yet (0.0m/0.0ft – ∞).
LOL