UPDATED: Panasonic manager talks about the upcoming X lenses. Price around 1300 Euro?
UPDATE: Google translation tool made a mess because the questions were made in nrowegian and the answers are written in swedish (what the heck?). Thanks to all readers sending me the correct info!
We are receiving more and more bits about the upcoming Panasonic 12-35mm and 35-100mm X lenses. We know they will have a constant aperture (f/2.8 or faster), we know the lenses are weather sealed. The info get’s a backup by Mac Berggen, a Norwegian Panasonic product specialist He revealed at akam.no:
1) “The new lenses will definitely be the best thing we ever did“…”the best performance of all Pany lenses”
2) “The aperture will be great“.
3) “The price will be high“. UPDATE: The price will be lower than the 70-200mm f/2.8 zooms from the competition. Note: Canon (Click here to check that price on eBay) and Nikon (Click here to check that price on eBay). He susggests the price could be around 10.000 Norwegian Krone which is 1.300 Euro ($1700).
Thanks Davey for sending me this.
Duarte Bruno
2 years ago |So what’s new? The price is absolutely no surprise!
MJr
2 years ago |What’s new is that the price basically sets the max aperture, and €1300 should mean that it’s indeed F2. Otherwise €999 would’ve been maximum for F2.8.
Miroslav
2 years ago |I think the opposite. 2000 EUR would be the price for F2, 1300 is for F2.8. Although, I’d be very happy if they’re F2 and 1300 EUR. Time will tell…
Zonkie
2 years ago |We’ll have to wait, but I agree f2 is unlikely. Not just the price, but also the size. Just see how HUGE the 35-100 f2 from Olympus is. If Panasonic manages to make an equivalent lens in such “small” size as the pictures show while keeping the high optical quality, it will be quite an achievement.
Miroslav
2 years ago |Small(ish) F2 zoom is possible, but will they sell it for 1300 EUR? Not the best of analogies, but look:
Olympus FT 7-14mm F4 87 mm diameter, 120 mm length
Olympus FT 14-35mm F2 86 mm diameter, 123 mm length
Panasonic mFT 7-14mm F4 70 mm diameter, 83 mm length
Panasonic mFT 12-35mm F2 – around the size of 7-14mm, why not?
Sorry to repeat myself…
Martin
2 years ago |> Panasonic mFT 12-35mm F2 – around the size of 7-14mm, why not?
Because you compare apples to oranges, i.e. different optical designs… 12-35mm f/2 is something utterly different than 7-14mm f/4! It’s simply not that simple as the direct proportionality you seem to promote.
And btw, Olympus 7-14mm F4 is actually a f/2.8 lens that is artificially hobbled down: No wonder it is so huge…
Esa Tuunanen
2 years ago |Both of those were complicated by heavily retrofocus design in 4/3 so there’s still good hope of more than marginally smaller size.
Martin
2 years ago |I don’t say that the lens cannot be significantly smaller.. I just object against applying direct proportionality when comparing the size of FT and mFT lenses.
kesztió
2 years ago |As the MFT lenses can have strong geometric distorsions w/o compromising quality their size also can be significantly smaller than the FT counterparts.
Martin
2 years ago |‘Strong geometric distorsion’ actually IS a compromise in quality, but probably a good one (for many of us, anyway). But, we don’t exactly know how ‘big’ the size benefit is.. It’s just one of the factors that enable lens downsizing, another one being the shorter flange-back distance. So again, it’s not that easy..
Guest
2 years ago |Where did you hear that it was a f2.8 lens?
Miroslav
2 years ago |OK, how about closer focal lenths to 12-35:
Olympus FT 14-42 – 66 mm diameter, 61 mm length
Panasonic mFT 14-42 X – 61 mm diameter, 27 mm length
Both F3.5-F5.6. Now, put five years of R&D into shrinking 14-35 F2 and see what you’ll get. Of course it’s not direct proportion, but since the starting point – the sensor – is the same, you can estimate the size.
Martin
2 years ago |My ‘engineer’s feeling’ tells me that IF they came with a significantly smaller version of 14-35 f/2 (with a wider focal range on top of that), it would also be of significantly worse optical performance, especially wide open. The reason why the Zuiko lens is that good is its special (rather glass wasting) optical design that would be probably difficult to shrink.
But I have a proposal: Let’s wait & see what they’ll eventually come with and then let’s discuss it
Miroslav
2 years ago |‘engineer’s feeling’
Oh, a colleague
.
OK, we’ll continue the discussion when they announce the specs. Although, I don’t think any of the zooms will be F2 – that price is too low.
Scotch
2 years ago |>”We’ll have to wait, but I agree f2 is unlikely. Not just the price, but also the size. Just see how HUGE the 35-100 f2 from Olympus is. If Panasonic manages to make an equivalent lens in such “small” size as the pictures show while keeping the high optical quality, it will be quite an achievement.”
they can make it.. don’t forget all M43 lens are basically “fisheye” lens with software correction..
MJr
2 years ago |That’s not the opposite, but you could be right.
Kman
2 years ago |So, are you saying that the imperfection of these designs are corrected in the camera software? Software correction has always confused me. If correction is done by the camera, then this means that the long-term usability of all sw corrected lenses will be less than that of those that are not corrected, right?
How many of us use vintage lenses from other manufacturers on our 43 and m43 cameras? Just imagine if the manufacturers of old had compromised and used some kind of correction external to the lens (software, optical, etc). How would those lens anomalies appear in photos today, I wonder. And how will corrected lenses available today appear on the non-43/m43 cameras of the future?
Andrew Howes
2 years ago |It doesn’t really matter. The future usability is already compromised by being focus-by-wire and not having aperture rings. Any potential adaptation to future camera systems will require dealing with these issues, the software correction will be small potatoes.
The m43 system is already pretty well developed, I see no reason why it should die out any time soon. When they stop making m/43 cameras, though, I don’t think we’ll see the lenses adapted to another system.
But it’s not really a big deal. Just sell the lenses if you switch to a new system; if you do so while the system is still pretty fresh, they’ll still hold a reasonable value.
Kman
2 years ago |I guess you’re right. Sad, though. Ive been taking pictures for 35 years, and I can use lenses from every camera system that ive owned on the current 43 and m43 lines. It’s a shame that the era of newly manufactured, reusable lenses is over. It might not matter to some, but it makes me a little less anxious to keep investing in new glass. Oh well…
But, these panasonic lenses might be just what m43rds needs to boost confidence to those of us who might be a little apprehensive about possibility of a pro-grade future of the m43rd system.
mpgxsvcd
2 years ago |12-35mm F2.5 and 35-100mm F2.8
Now we are talking! I will take one of each.
Scotch
2 years ago |the price is crazy! I am going back to Nikon (not 1)
mahler
2 years ago |Good bye, nobody cares.
Jim
2 years ago |I’m going to rob jessops
Rich
2 years ago |No sale!
nanastasiou
2 years ago |If this gets bundled with the GH3, I can’t imagine what the price will be…
Renato S.
2 years ago |around $2000 I guess
Boot
2 years ago |If they are that expensive, I’d rather go with Nikon unless Pana also comes out with a superb body to mount these lenses on.
Is a new body also on the way?
Pete
2 years ago |is there any superb nikon body???
Kylberg
2 years ago |They have several excellent bodies from D5100 and upwards. Some may be heavy to carry, but in use you do not notice weight, you enjoy far better ergonomy and usability than anything m4/3 can offer.
YouDidntDidYou
2 years ago |@Kyleberg
you are funny…
twoomy
2 years ago |“Some may be heavy to carry, but in use you do not notice weight”
Ha ha, very funny! First off, I’m a Nikon and m43 shooter; I’ve carried the likes of the D2X, D80, and D300 around with me on long backpacking trips. The cameras are very ergonomic, but you most certainly notice the size and weight! That’s why I switched to m43. If you don’t realize the size and weight difference between the GH2 and a D5100, well then, I need you to be my sherpa on my next hike.
Kylberg
2 years ago |Pls read what I wrote!:-) Heavy and tirering to carry, but excellent to use. About sherpa – how much would you pay?
YouDidntDidYou
2 years ago |@Kyleburg
You also wrote: Nikon D5000 upward “you enjoy far better ergonomy and usability than anything m4/3 can offer”
…hilarious!
Esa Tuunanen
2 years ago |While still lacking from good controls D5100 is ergonomically clearly better than GH2.
Simply dropping away bulk of mirror chamber, stuff needed for PDAF sensor and optical viewfinder in favor of mirrorless EVF design would no doubt shrink weight difference to something nearing insignificant.
And by shrinking marketroid size LCD you could fit full high end controls and ergonomy with only little bigger grip (housing also 1500mAh battery) with only small weight increase achieving fully DSLR replacing body.
But your so darn maniacally obsessed with shrinking and throwing out the baby with the bath water to even allow anything else than pocket camera’s lack of ergonomy and controls.
twinkle
2 years ago |Kylberg that business about not noticing the weight of big nik cameras is just a load of crXp.. sorry! Not everyone is a bodybuilder nor wants to be one you know? Why do you think m4/3 is such a fast growing segment in the camera market?
Andrew Howes
2 years ago |No good cams for video as of yet, though. D7000 is okay, but too many issues.
Ton
2 years ago |Hopefully the olympus version 12-60??? will be affordable to the most of us even if its not constant aperture. Maybe priced same as 4/3 version or even lower than $800
Nelson
2 years ago |12-60 is probably what most of us could afford, unless Panasonic is also making non IS version like Canon do which is much more affordable
gary
2 years ago |Awesome news – this means they are in fact 2.0 lenses !!!
Come on it’ll be the same price as canon’s but a stop faster and a fourth the weight / size
Pete
2 years ago |and next year olympus will build a MFT E-6 with new sensor!! i wish
dumbo
2 years ago |i´m gonna start saving, if they are f2 i´ll preorder as soon as they are available.
finally the fast zooms everyone´s been wanting, why be scared of the price when these will be the most ´pocketable´ serious digital system.
BS Artiste
2 years ago |In my opinion the high price and weather-sealing of the new lens is good news. That foreshadows a likely new (more expensive) camera with higher build quality and higher end features to correspond to the higher price lenses.
BS Artiste
2 years ago |The build quality, ergonomics, and processsing performance (i.e., frame rates, focusing speed, etc.) has kept me from considering a m43 camera as a migration path from my E-30. A higher end m43 camera likely would have to address some of these concerns.
Atle
2 years ago |Admin, the translation of his name is not right, his name is “Mac Berggren”. stillte is just a word, not a part of the name. (It can also be noted that he is actually swedish, although he understands norwegian, and the webpage is norwegian)
houdini
2 years ago |This is not the fact that it will be the best lenses in the world))
waiting for release,and the first tests and reviews… but I’m waiting for them, I want fast, versatile zooms the video work!
Atle
2 years ago |More light on the translations “Priset kommer vara högt för dessa premiumoptik men ser du på våra priser så är våra dyraste produkter fortfarande kring 10.000kr och långt ifrån ett standard t.ex. 70-200 f2,8.
Denna prisvärdhet hoppas vi kunna behålla.
”
This says, “price will be high for this premium optics, but if you observe the prices of our most expensive products, they are around 10 000 Kr (approx 1600 dollars, probably closer to 1000 dollars in the US), and far from a standard for instance 70-200 f2.8. We hope to be able to continue at theese price points (that is the 10 000 Kr he talks about).
So it seems that 2000 dollar is not what he is indicating. (sorry for the bad english, its a bit difficult to not change the original meaning too much, and still have more or less understandable english)
Nick Clark
2 years ago |So is he saying that they will be priced in line with the more expensive Panasonic lenses currently available (ie: 7-14/f4)?
Atle
2 years ago |That is the way i understand him, yes. He says it will be in line with the most expensive lenses they have at the moment (although the way he says it is a bit ambigious, it can also be understood as “we are trying to maintain the same value for money as in our most expensive lenses to date”).
gravityloss
2 years ago |Atle’s “price will be high…” translation is 100% exactly correct, Admin, you could put it directly into the blog post, eliminating a lot of confusion…
Kylberg
2 years ago |They should have asked which camera to put them on! Definately the GH2 and G3 are nowhere near the CaNikons that are used with he high endzooms.
I think positive and it means they will also bring a m4/3 flagship camera for those lenses. With the same positie thinking: It appears that m4/3 lenses can produce high quality at a far lower cost compared to lenses for FF. That is, they will be expensive, butnot in the same league as CaNikon.
I am also looking at NEX-7, depending on Sony new lens roadmap. During next year I will decide wether to stay in m4/3 or not.
Mike
2 years ago |For this price (about 2000€ ?)it’s cheaper to keep the Four Thirds System in parallel for High Quality and mFT for portability.
Mike
2 years ago |Just read it: 1300€ ? That’s a completly different story
admin
2 years ago |Yeah sorry. Google translation tool made a mess. A norwegian reader corrected me. Thanks!!!
houdini
2 years ago |good news) about the price.
GT
2 years ago |As I understood him was that the price should be at the same level as Panasonic 7-14, that is about 10.000 NOK. I think the price in other countries for the Panasonic 7-14 is lower.
Mistral75
2 years ago |In France the Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm f/4 is priced at 1,200 € (MRSP) / 1,000 € (street price).
Andrew Howes
2 years ago |That bodes well for the U.S. price of the lenses, then — the 7-14′s book price is $1100 and sells for $900.
Ken B
2 years ago |Well if they are that expensive then optical quality better be excellent at all focal lengths.
Otherwise theres no point to them.
But still F2, better start saving
Ken
observer
2 years ago |GH3 with the Global shutter and a super fast processor to handle 4K video wouldn’t come cheap either. After capturing the mass market, the strategy is to finesse them on to higher end products… and finally that time has come.
Gianluca
2 years ago |+1
Entrakt
2 years ago |1300$ ?? bye bye Panasonic !
All my hope is on the oly 12-60 now .
digifan
2 years ago |$1300 would even be very cheap for those lenses, but Admin wrote €1300. It’s what I would expect for such lenses. Apparently they are not for you.
In the Netherlands we say, “voor een dubbeltje op de eerste rang willen zitten”.
which means wanting to have a lot for almost nothing.
Although we dutch like cheap like the scottish, we DO live in the real world
Jorginho
2 years ago |Niet in Zeeland. Hier draait het om kwaliteit vooral. Het moet goed zijn. Is het niet goed, dan kun je het wel vergeten (in de regel). Zeeuwen zijn wel zuinig wellicht, maar erg gericht op kwaliteit.
Leendert
2 years ago |oans bin zunig
napalm
2 years ago |if that is really a constant f2.0, weather-sealed, zoom then it will be expensive, no doubt! what are some people here expecting?!
Christian
2 years ago |True, some people seem to think that high-end-products come at low-end-prices
MJr
2 years ago |Nice new rumor tidbits!
“he also smiled when asked if the aperture would be greater than f/2.8″
So it’s gonna be F/2.7 then
Miroslav
2 years ago |Aperture wise, those zooms may not be the same. Maybe they’ll be 12-35 F2 and 35-100 F2.8?
M
2 years ago |You always get what you pay for. And that is not a lot of money for such lenses, so quality will suffer. Therell be no comparison with 43 14-35 and 35-100. Different leagues.
observer
2 years ago |Don’t fret, panny can be more value for money than Oly ever will be because they don’t have to feed the Yakuza!
Martin
2 years ago |If you ask me, the 43 SHG zooms are too expensive (+ too large) for what they do. I think the majority of us actually want a compromise: significantly smaller bright enough lenses of a good enough quality.
I admit that I was expecting a slightly lower price. OTOH, if the lenses are brighter than f/2.8 (f/2.5, f/2.4 ?), than they would be probably worth it.
Brod1er
2 years ago |I doubt they will be different leagues. Probably the Oly glass will be a little better, but it won’t be a significant difference and possibly outweighed by the more compact size. The only remaining significant Oly advantages are likely to be PDAF tracking and battery life unless the new Panny body takes a leap forward in these areas.
Bob B.
2 years ago |I thinks we need a serious sensor improvement (and pro-spec body) to justify one of these lenses…no? It would be like putting Pirelli tires on a Yugo.
It is a step in the right direction and makes the MFT quiver that much bigger..which is all good!
Brod1er
2 years ago |We don’t need rumours of an improved top of the range camera. These lenses are 100% proof it is on the way soon. Nice! :-p
Bob B.
2 years ago |I was having that feeling myself!
tomas
2 years ago |I don’t know what you mean by ‘serious sensor improvement’. Given sensor size and pixel density, the best Panasonic sensors are not far from state of the art in terms of noise and DR performance. I would bet that they could get noise and DR performance from a 10 megapixel sensor that matches the best 16 MP APS-C sensors. I don’t know whether more people would prefer that or the higher pixel count.
Bob B.
2 years ago |I am not looking for higher pixel count. I am looking for the improvement in dynamic range (better ISO would be great but not as important). I want to see my high range stay intact and not be blown out. This is still a problem with MFT. I would be happy with the 12mp range if this could be improved.
Brod1er
2 years ago |$2000 for a high quality f2 compact zoom is unfortunately reasonable. definitely needs a top spec body too -GH3?
Brod1er
2 years ago |Correction. For $1300, they are much more likely to be f2.5(assuming the wink was right). Fits with the old rumours of f2.5-3.3. As said by others in previous posts, F2 does look ambitious for the size too.
Yun
2 years ago |If the price provided is correct , it should be a F2.0 lenses
Martin
2 years ago |How have you come to that conclusion?
DonTom
2 years ago |Well, it does look like Panny is going to fill the m4/3 niche that the E-1/3/5 owned in 4/3. Inevitable really, because OIS is better for longer focal lengths than IBIS. Olly probably realised this some time ago, which is why they have focused on high quality small primes and rangefinder-styled bodies.
Narretz
2 years ago |Like every year, next year will be very nice for m43. Let’s hope they make it count this time!
Brod1er
2 years ago |2010 has been a good year for mft. Eg
-GH2 arrives in shops
-G3 is excellent value all rounder
-Gf1 replacement
-Whole new Oly PEN range
-Great primes Oly 12, 45, Panny 25, SLRmagic 12, Samyang FE
-Radical pocketable X zoom
-Fast high quality zooms imminent
What have I missed?
George
2 years ago |you missed couple of things.
Disaster DR
Disaster JPEG engine
Very bad high ISO performance
digifan
2 years ago |You are kidding right!
Disaster JPEG enfgine you mean Panasonic I guess?
Disaster DR you mean all of m43rds or Olympus?
Very bad high ISO?????
How the … did we make money with 35mm film.
How the … do I make money with (m)43rds.
People must be very stupid to buy my work
Esa Tuunanen
2 years ago |GH1′s actually new design sensor had DR and SNR roughly similar to Canon’s 18MP sensor (surprisingly same pixel size) but in GH2 marketroids decreased size and performance of pixels and finally in G3 apparent high ISO only optimizations halved DR from GH1. (EV is non-linear measure)
So Pana either needs to improve their sensor design to catch their old sensor or increase SIZE of pixels for making them more sensitive.
> People must be very stupid to buy my work
Don’t worry:
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.
-Frank Zappa
YouDidntDidYou
2 years ago |@George
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn!
Mr. Reeee
2 years ago |All those things are from THIS year, 2011.
BTW, you forgot the Voigtländer Nokton f0.95!
Brod1er
2 years ago |Good spot! I meant 2011. Forgot to take my drugs this morning.
Miroslav
2 years ago |“What have I missed?”
GF3, which is with 14-42mm X lens a true P&S upgrader’s camera – save for the price
.
George
2 years ago |go go go milk cows pay more
you deserve this price
So if you look at price range these lenses should be much better then canon L series
Do you really believe that ?
Now we have 2 choices either we will be keep milking by pana and oly
or switch back to good old dslr days where at least we get the quality what we have paid for
Sorry guys but keeping with m4/3 is idiotic
Martin
2 years ago |> Do you really believe that ?
And do YOU know anything about the qualities of these lenses? I’ll save you the answer: No, you don’t. So no need for rhetorical questions here.
> Now we have 2 choices either we will be keep milking by pana and oly or switch back to good old dslr
You’ve probably missed the main argument for m43s, so I’ll remind you: good quality in smaller package.
And one more thing: development costs money, especially in case of new technologies. Where do you think more new technologies are applied – in DSLR’s or in mirrorless cameras?
> Sorry guys but keeping with m4/3 is idiotic
.. which is an idiotic remark in the first place.
YouDidntDidYou
2 years ago |@George
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn!
Yun
2 years ago |Finally got things to cheers from Panny !
Need to save $$$$ from today onwards for the 35-100mm lens .
Good job , Panny !
Ranger 9
2 years ago |Troll in the dungeon!
WT21
2 years ago |I am priced out of this lens. Oh well — stick to my primes.
Jim
2 years ago |me too – kinda thinking tho I might pass this one and just save for the roumered 12-60 F2.8 – F4 …. probably a better value and more versatile lens!
Vivek
2 years ago |The zooms and their prices do not bother me. As long as Panasonic makes at least one good camera (currently the GH2)……..
Tobias W.
2 years ago |The Zuiko 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 is 1200€ new and it can easily be picked up used for half if you search the market. It’s a huge heavy lens compared to micro four third plastic crap lenses of course, but compared to full frame equipment, it’s still compact and delivers excellent quality.
I own that lens and I’ll be very curious how the new Panasonic X lenses compare in terms of image quality across the focal range (based on the uncorrected RAW files). If they’re really more expensive than the Zuiko Pro lenses, they must be absolutely top notch in optical terms. Based on Panasonic’s previous philosophy that optical shortcomings can be corrected by software in the camera, I am a bit skeptical. We know Leica rejected putting the Leica label on the existing X lenses for that same reason, so I don’t expect it will be much different for the new lenses. But let’s wait and see what happens.
Nick
2 years ago |Why would it matter what the uncorrected RAW files looked like?
JF
2 years ago |+1 What matters is sharpness after correction as correction should impact sharpness…
John
2 years ago |Because it matters to anyone who shots RAW. There is an old adage, well old for the digital age, ‘get it right in camera’ any fixing done in post is a trade off against image quality. Simply put if the data is not there a ‘fix’ is making up pixels pushing them around etc.
JF
2 years ago |I can’t wait to see the final specs, size, price, optical quality and reviews !!
Stupig
2 years ago |Why would they even mention 70-200/2.8 and the like… This kind of useless comparisons only lead to unfavorable conclusions – that even the mighty 35-100/2 on 4/3 was merely 70-200/4 on 35mm, and just look at the price and performance.
WT21
2 years ago |same thought.
digifan
2 years ago |You are just talking DOF ofcourse.
I guess the rest talks VOF and fast aperture for fast shutterspeeds.
Martin
2 years ago |It’s of course more than “just DOF”. It’s also about effective light gathering, which is equally important.
ha
2 years ago |Some people will never get it. F2 is F2 and ISO100 is ISO100…
Martin
2 years ago |And other people stay stubborn regardless physical evidences… a typical symptom of the inferiority complex of some of us with 4/3 (or smaller) sensors in their cameras.
Elmarjason
2 years ago |I had the same thought.
Just comparing any m43 lens with one of those sports photography monsters is really kinda like apples and oranges. Who would really considering shooting action sports with m43? That is one field where m43 really can’t shine.
christiangrevstad
2 years ago |I’m Norwegian. Usually 10,000 Norwegian kr. would mean something around 1000-1300 USD. Prices in NOrway are very high.
CobyB
2 years ago |@Stupig: obviously, they mention 70-200mm because that’s the effective equivalent focal range of 35-100mm used on m4/3. And you are wong, f2 isn’t the equivalent of ‘merely’ f4 on 35mm – it stays f2!
Martin
2 years ago |> it stays f2!
… the same way as it stays 35-100mm, not 70-200mm. So that’s actually you who is wrong here
JF
2 years ago |it stays f2 for exposure but becomes f4 for DOF…
Martin
2 years ago |Will exposure save us? No, it’s not Messiah!
Let’s see: 2 cameras of the same generation shooting:
FT camera+lens, 50mm, f/2, 1/100s, ISO 100
FF camera+lens, 100mm, f/4, 1/100s, ISO 400
Exposure is different, BUT… Same DOF, same shutterspeed, perfectly comparable outputs (including noise). So why should we care about exposure? Hello! Film days are gone..
Ryo81
2 years ago |i think you might have forgotten to mention that your comparison does not include pixel count, and you are assuming the same amount of pixels on both the FF and FT sensors.
Martin
2 years ago |@Ryo81: Pixel count does not make that much difference if you compare images at the same display size, i.e. if you make them comparable. But yeah, it’s safer to formulate it like that.
JF
2 years ago |@Martin: I must confess you are right, I just checked on DXO: GH1 vs 5DMark2 and GH1 ISO 100 has 5DMArk2 400 iso performances…So we can say in this case that f2 on 43 is equal to f4 on FF !
But I will never take a 5DMark2 to a backpacking trip or when I go climbing whereas I take my GH1…
Elf
2 years ago |@CobyB
You might want to ask yourself…… “What’s the 35mm focal equivilant of a 4/3 70-200″. Obviously not the same lens at all as a 35-100. Everything doubles…..remember?
Scott
2 years ago |I love this forum but dang if people on here are lost in space. They want the size of a point and shoot the quality of a ff nikon and the price of a toy. You cant have it all. People ask for faster glass and when they produce it everybody crys about the price. I dont think hobbyest are ready for good equipment.
jules
2 years ago |+1
I am also baffled by the chronic confusion between “not quite as good as quality APS-C” and “disastrous” DR, high ISO and IQ.
Even taking for granted significance of the difference, the compromise is well documented.
Sometimes I fail to tell if its a bad case of blaming gear for one’s failure or if its trolling.
Ben
2 years ago |I doubt if will be f/2
it will probably be f/2.5 or f/2.4 max if it is not f/2.8~~~~~
twinkls
2 years ago |and could you tell us exactly what your “doubts” are based on?
snowflake
2 years ago |O.K. I am excited.
F2!!!. with 12 –35 =24-70 fl, and a 35-100mm = 70-200.
This is too good to be true and I am going to try and contain myself so as to not be disappointed when reality sets in.
A large aperture on an wide angle lens is tough, Panasonics premium 7 14 lens, (which I love), has an impressive f4. but at 12 mm on m4/3 structure to have an f2 is amazing. If this is true then this is some impressive optical engineering benefiting from the closer flange to sensor distance that the m4/3 system is built on. The closer flange to sensor distance makes this feat a little easier than trying to achieve the same effect on a full frame sensor with a standard flange to sensor distance.
I am skeptical of the f2 for the 35-100 lens only because the pictures of the lens so far does not look bigger than the present Panasonic telephoto 100 300mm f 4 to 5.6 mm lens. It just seems that in order to reach f2 the lens should be bigger. I would be really impressed if it is an f2.8 to f4 lens and shocked if it was better than that.
I am asking for no presents this year, I just want my wife to not be upset when I buy these lenses for myself along with the to be announced weather proof camera.
Joey
2 years ago |Bring out weathersealed gh3, stat!
safaridon
2 years ago |Likely conclusions from the interview & translations the new lenses will be about $1000 cost in US and lens speed will likely be about F2.5.
Note there was nothing said in the interview about a F2 lens speed only hint it would be faster than F2.8. Many have previously commented from the pictures comparing lens mount with lens diameter that F2 could not be the case and F2.5 has always been in the previous projections only not necessarily constant aperature. In order to keep constant F2.5 aperature Pany had to reduce the original focal length of one lens from 12-50mm to only 12-35mm.
In the past Pany did get burned by the cost of some of its optimum 4/3 optics and likely to make these more affordable. These lenses will be a good match for the GX1 and the expected GX upscale model with EVF, swivel screen, and weatherproofed.
Scott
2 years ago |it is a 14-35 so the actually added a wider 2mm to it
Narretz
2 years ago |that is just wrong. the upcoming lens is a 12-35.
Björn Utpott
2 years ago |And an even better match for the GH3. I’m guessing that the GH3 will feature a completely redesigned body but essentially still with a DSLR form factor; an ideal form factor for handling larger lenses like the new X 35-100mm.
I agree that we’re likely to see a constant F2.5 aperture. It’s just slightly faster than similar lenses from competing systems. Not enough to compensate for smaller 4/3 sensor, but fast enough to look good on spec sheets.
The X 35-100 is actually one of the reasons why I cancelled my NEX-7 pre-order. I’ve needed a lens like this for a very long time and I don’t think Sony will be producing anything like it soon.
Martin
2 years ago |@safaridon: Exactly my thoughts about the f-number and the FL.
Renze
2 years ago |That’s almost as expensive as two E-P3 bodies! Who HAS that kind of money?
spanky
2 years ago |Give me high-quality, weather sealed optics and a weather sealed, pro large mirrorless body and I’ll pay the price.
spam
2 years ago |Fascinating discussion about nothing. The Panasonic guy answering the questions obviously had been told to disclose nothing new, and he didn’t. He gave very vague answers to questions about coming products and basically gave a comment that might be interpreted as around NOK 10000 for the 12-35.
Even if the 10000 was correct you have to factor in that Norway is a high cost country and using the exchange rate to find prices in the US usually give a too high price in $. Also, actual street prices are much lower than the reccommended price from a manufacturer.
Anyway, concluding that the 12-35 have to be F2.0 because of the price is one of the silliest comments I’ve seen on this site for a long time. Btw, the Olympus 14-35 F2.0 is about NOK 19000 in Norway – and weighs around two pounds, almost exactly what I wouldn’t want on a m4/3 camera.
jules
2 years ago |I hear you about the f2 zoom.
I am currently interested by the Olympus rumor (2.8-4/12-60). To me f2.8 constant for the Panasonic is fine perfectly marketable. I would still love to know how reduced an optically decent distortion-corrected m43 version would be. if anything, a R&D leak.
HENNIGArts
2 years ago |If I really want to compare, then a MFT 2/35-100 VR would be the same as a Canon 4/70-200 IS (full 35mm format). You can get this for 1000 EUR. This means if the new Panasonic X 35-100 is 2.0 and 1300 EUR the price is “ok”, if it’s 2.8 it’s to expensive.
Narretz
2 years ago |Can you please stop with that nonsense …
jules
2 years ago |So if everything compares to Canon, Schneider lenses for Mamiya mf must be too expensive, I guess…
Martin
2 years ago |That is a valid view. But another one is: Do you want quality in small package? Then you must pay for it..
Would you like to pay less? Just wait for the price drop!
Nate
2 years ago |For a price like that, I’d better be able to look through my viewfinder to use the lens…
oh wait…viewfinders aren’t in the publics interest, but somehow extremely expensive lenses are?! Nice work panasonic. :/
Vivek
2 years ago |Not only viewfinders, even flashes are of no interest to any m4/3rds users.
One positive aspect of these rumored lenses is that they do not need (yet) another new battery.
TysonRobichaud
2 years ago |While I think that this is a great step forward for the micro 4/3 system, I cannot see ever paying this much for lenses for a system using a sensor this small.
I think that those who have bought into the system for professional applications, video primarily, are going to be able to justify the cost, but I’m not one of those people. My money will go into investing in high quality optics for my higher quality full frame sensor cameras.
I have to say, I’m impressed though, and hope that the initial pricing rumors are wrong. I think that the m4/3 system should really be able to keep all optics at or below $1000 based on material cost alone. A $1700usd 70-200 f/2.8 (v.1) full frame canon lens is huge, uses tons of glass, coated elements, heavier gearing to move said glass, etc. Telling me that to decrease the size of the exotic glass elements, et al, in half should demand the same price to me just doesn’t make sense. I understand that a reduction of overall size should demand a certain premium, but not this much when you take into consideration the IQ drop that you lose by using a smaller sensor that just cannot compete with a full frame cmos sensor. Great part about it all though, we all get to choose how to spend our money.
Fants
2 years ago |Agreed, Tyson. I’m reluctant even to spend so much money on glass that will be used on an APS-C camera, let alone m4/3. The smaller sensors have their place, and work better for certain purposes, but for mine personally nothing compares to the detail attainable with a FF sensor. Though if they can produce a non-Bayer m4/3 sensor with no AA filter, you never know.
Scott
2 years ago |You wouldnt compare a m4/3rds to ff sensor. Its 2 totally different systems. There really isnt that much difference in the quality. The 4/3rds or m4/rds is already better than 3 year old ff sensors so when is enough enough. I have e3 images hanging in my studio blown up to 40″ x 60″ and they look amazing. Yes if you pixel peep you can barely see a difference but who has time for that? Most of my competitors us Canon 5dii and shoot jpgs. I use an e5 and shoot raw and my images look much better than theirs. Quality is no longer and issue with any system.
Fants
2 years ago |Well, you can’t really compare one camera shooting JPEG to another shooting RAW either. There might be 4/3 sensors approaching 3yr-old FF sensors in terms of high ISO performance, but they likely never will in terms of pixel-level detail. Obviously that’s not the most important factor to you (and loads of people agree), but for others it certainly is!
Scott
2 years ago |Pixel Level detail is the same as FF unless you start cropping the image. There isnt a person on this forum that needs more than 12mp unless they are shooting commercial work. If all you are doing is shooting for fun I would never want anything more.
TysonRobichaud
2 years ago |Scott, I’ve gotta disagree.
There isn’t much difference in the quality? Really?
I’m a huge fan of the micro 4/3 system, but to say that it is as good as my full frame system is just an incorrect statement.
Is the micro 4/3 system a good system for many shooting scenarios? Yes. Is it “better” in any of those scenarios than my more established full frame system? No, except in the pocketability factor. That is the only area that the m4/3 system “beats” or even competes with a modern, full frame system in my opinion. I don’t want to take anything away from that though either, which is exactly why I invested in the micro 4/3 system. I wanted a higher performing compact/pocket camera to replace my LX3. In that it succeeded, although, when I invested in the system, it had little or no competition. Now we have better sensors at lower prices in smaller bodies. The only thing holding those competitors back are lens options which are coming on line now, so I think cost is going to be a huge factor for these systems moving forward. Is an f/2 or f/2.8 optic (which will perform ‘dof wise’ as an f/4 or f/5.6 optic would on a full frame) going to be able to justify a price tag of over $1000? Maybe for some, and time will tell, but I feel that as long as comparable optics are available for other systems at a far lower cost, then many may look at the size factor as being trumped by the cost and performance of a “larger” system.
Will saving a little on the overall size and weight be enough of a trade off for lower quality sensor performance? For me it is not, for others perhaps, but to say that pure sensor performance or IQ are near equal is incorrect. The micro 4/3 sensors do well for what they are, and have shown that they can really compete in terms of HD video, but still image quality is still (and in theory will always be) behind a full frame system which is fine, as long as expectations and prices realistically reflect that.
Vromopodarix
2 years ago |I don’t get Panasonic at all. Usually that expensive lens is used either by professionals or amateurs looking for highest image quality.
I paid 1000 euro for my 24-105 to be used with my 7D and that combo puts bread on my table.
But m43 is not for professional work, not that a GH2 or EP3 cannot produce high quality images but at these prices there are better alternatives for pro work.
So that leaves amateurs looking for lighter/smaller alternatives for everyday shooting and here lies the problem: the new 2.8 lens will be big and will need to be used with the GH2 to be comfortable to hold. But how smaller or cheaper (never mind image quality)that setup will be than say a 600D and a Tamron 17-50 f2.8
Personally for that much money I prefer to get a Leica f2.5 and an adaptor but each to his own.
Fan
2 years ago |Apparently some professionals want lighter gear too, outside the studio.
Nikku
2 years ago |Just because you can’t make money with m43rds doesn’t mean no one else can. Just ask Kirk Tuck.
Nelson
2 years ago |I see lot of professional works done by M43, you are just too blind to see it!
TysonRobichaud
2 years ago |While I agree with the above posters that “professional” is only in terms of the individual using whichever tools they see fit for the application, I will say that in any capable “professional’s” hands two different tools (cameras let’s say) used for the same shot will produce two different files. There are a multitude of factors from individual pixel performance, to color reproduction, light gathering photosites and resolution at varying sensitivities, the lighting being used and bit depth of a RAW file, optical formulation and optimization with a given format, yadda yadda yadda.
Everyone can shoot what they want to shoot, and I’d hope that PanOly have done their homework to research exactly what the threshold is for demand on a product like this. I most certainly do not personally fall into this demographic as I am not looking to this system for relatively large, certainly expensive zooms, but this is my point and shoot pocket camera, not my money making tool. Can or will I capture images with my GF1 that may make me money? Sure, I have already, but it’s not my go to camera when I’m quoting out a shoot, or project. Again, that is me, and to each their own, but if the price rumor on this lens is correct… damn, it better be one hell of a performer.
Scott
2 years ago |You will have to proove to me that ff is that much better. We shoot 5dmii and 7ds and e5′s we can not see that much difference. Color is better on Olympus and most of the time the images are sharper. dof yes you get shallow dof with ff but sometimes that is a negitive. Sometimes you need light and dof. If you read my post I said 3 year old sensors too.
TysonRobichaud
2 years ago |Well, if you’re talking 3yo tech, that would be the 5DII. Regarding sharpness or color from processed files, that is a combination of the firmware and conversion method which can also be manipulated to make any modern digital file look like another if needed. If for your application you see no discernible difference between a 21mp full frame and a 12mp 4/3 sensor, then that is great for you. I think for many applications, and many people that may be the case, but crop into files from both and you’ll see an immediate difference in resolution and pixel performance. Pixel peeping you say? Perhaps unless you’re needing to composite from crops, or extract data from individual files, which is a popular professional need.
Then, on the pixel level, you have roughly 225 square mm on a 4/3 sensor vs 864 on a FF. Dividing them up by 12,300,000 and 21,100,00 respectively you get a basic idea on how much physical space each pixel occupies less the pitch of course, but for illustrative purposes we’re talking nearly 3x the physical size per pixel while still near double the native resolution at full image size. Leaving aside the high ISO performance, which to my eye, the 3yo 5DII 14bit RAW files still best the 12bit RAW files of the E5, you’re talking two very different sets of IQ criteria. (12 bit files exibit 4096 levels per color channel (2^12), 14 bit files have 16,384 levels per channel (2^14) which allows for much smoother tonal transition and gradation in each R,G, and B channels). If you’re viewing them on a low resolution screen and printing at reasonable sizes, I’m sure you can get either file to look great, but you get a lot more out of a 21mp, 14bit RAW FF image file than you do with a 12mp, 12bit RAW 4/3 image file by any measurement, even with “3 year old” technology. Whether you need that or not is entirely a personal decision, and I think for most of us, larger pixels and deeper bit depth is somewhat gratuitous to need, but to say there isn’t any difference is just wrong.
Prove it to you? I guess I could ask you the same question, but I feel that for our individual sets of criteria, we could both “prove ourselves right” as it were. I’m merely pointing out that there is in fact a very quantifiable difference in various aspects of “image quality” in favor of a larger pixel, higher resolution, full frame sensor in this case vs a 4/3 sensor. Of course, the 5DII still costs nearly twice what the E5 costs, so again, it is entirely subjective when talking about which is “better” so to speak because what is “better” for me and my needs may be entirely different to what is “better” for yours.
Choices, it’s the beauty of the current digital reality.
Scott
2 years ago |I agree with everything your saying. On paper the FF blows the 4/rds away but I am talking about real world where people print out the files. You cant see a difference. We have test and test and test. When the files are printed you cant see 2 cents different even at 30×40. Yes if you zoom in you can barely see a difference. If you are looking for detail the 12mp on a 43ds sensor has finer detail than a 24mp on a FF. do the test yourself. The difference is so small. My point is most people prob 95% dont need anything above 12mp but everybody on here is screaming for the gh2 sensor. You dont need it. save your money and buy good lenses.
Jim
2 years ago |As long as you’re able to print at like dpi resolutions you are correct. Funny thing is, a higher mp count allows for higher print resolution at all sizes based on pure pixel density. Sure it doesn’t require a higher res at smaller sizes as natively a 12mp file can still achieve 300dpi (or higher if necessary), but there is absolutely a benefit and difference print wise with a higher mp image file when printing large as it maintains the ability to retain a higher res natively. What you’ve left out is viewing distance. If viewing from 10 feet, a 30×40″ print may not seem much different, but decrease the viewing distance to say 3′ and you will see a difference, absolutely.
stop the peeping.com
2 years ago |I have a camera with every single sensor size imaginable, 4/3s Es, 4/3s GH2, APS C, APS H, and FF canons. I also rent out 2 medium formats. I have printed very detailed and virtually noise free 7.5 by 5.5 FEET photos using the GH2. Theres not one APS C canon I own that comes close to the GH2 with the 45mm in detail, even paired with L glass. Its very nice that you can speak technical, but in reality panasonic GH sensors are much more efficient than any APS C out there, and I DARE YOU to come to my studio and tell the difference between my 5D prints and my GH2 prints, all printed 3 by 2 feet, nobody has been able to so far. A good 65% of all my paid work this year was with the GH2, get over the phallic sensor size obsessions some of you have!
Jim
2 years ago |Good for you Scott! It has nothing to do with which sensor can make you more money, we are merely talking mathematical reality. In real world practice there may be very little visual difference for some, but it doesn’t change the facts. I too have printed very large commercial prints from various formats (from compact sensors to MF) and while they have all worked well, to say there isn’t a difference would be wrong. Could the average viewer tell a difference? Not if I exposed properly and was able to print at like resolution, but try to get micro detail in a print which exceeds the native size at 300 or even 180 dpi, and you start to see where a larger, higher resolution file will make a difference.
It has nothing to do with phallic obsession, but recognizing the benefits of certain tools. I dare you to take a valium and relax man.
Jim
2 years ago |another jim? …. doh
Andrew Howes
2 years ago |You’re forgetting about the value of the lens on the AF100, and as a video lens on the GH2.
Your price comparison to the 600D/17-50 is reasonable, but of course the 17-50 isn’t weather-sealed and doesn’t go as wide. If the new lens is comparable to the Oly 14-35, it’ll have better image quality, as well.
It’s peculiar to me that Canon still hasn’t put out a proper weather-sealed IS lens for the 7d. The 24-105′s range doesn’t suit it very well, and isn’t terribly speedy, either.
christiangrevstad
2 years ago |From this we can deduct that the Us price likely will be around $1000. I just checked and the 7-14mm is about 10,000 in Norway so yes, seems like this panasonic rep is saying they don’t want any of their equipment to go far beyond that price level, mirroring what some have said here. I think $1000 is a fair guess and a really good price. Eventually I will look to put this on my AF 101..
juansin
2 years ago |The main problem is that, as usually, 1700$ will be tagged as 1700€ not 1300€!! So… is a bit expensive!
aqasem
2 years ago |Sony DT 16-50mm lens with constant 2.8f costs around 700$!
Andrew Howes
2 years ago |Yeah, and it’s a really good deal! But the Canon 17-55mm F2.8′s retail price is $1900, and it isn’t even weather-sealed. Of course, no one pays that anymore, but the price will level off for this one, as well.
Nelson
2 years ago |yeah but no IS
Ageha
2 years ago |Wow, I want the 12-35mm F2 X!
Leendert
2 years ago |its F2.5!
Peter Bjorvand
2 years ago |Alright people let me clear up a few things:
1. the guy was speaking Swedish so something could have gotten screwed up…I read what he said and he said: ”The price will be high for these premium optics but do you see our prices, our most expensive products are still around 10.000kr and far from a standard example 70-200 f2, 8.
This value for money, we hope to keep.” the price he was talking about was the GH2 with the 14-140mm 11,oookr…. and the 7-14mm f4 lens more or less 10,oookr…
2. the price of buying electronics in norway have a 25% tax on them not including the salesman’s salary.