Really? Panasonic X zooms may not be f/2.8?

Share

Valentin Sama (Click here) which has a good track of rumors just wrote that a Panasonic source said that it’s not sure the lens will have a f/2.8 aperture. The aperture will be fast and constant but it may not be f/2.8! I would be tremendously surprised to see that Panasonic did “fool” us. Although I would be happy if they do it in exchange of a constant f/2.5 or f/2.0 aperture 🙂

Anyway, as usual take this statements with a grain of salt. But Valentin already good some crazy rumors right in the past and let’s see if he is right that time too!

Reminder: The lenses are weather sealed, coming in by end of June, rumored price around $1,000-$1,300 which is the half of the Olympus 14-35mm f/2.0 and the 35-100mm f/2.0 Zuiko lenses.

 

Share
  • Ernest.orf

    Nooooooooooooooooo

    • Yeeeeees!!!! 😀

      • Ernest.orf

        Noooooooooooooo
        Ooooo
        Ooooooooooooooo!!!

        • YESSSSSSSSS@!

          2.8 is a HUGE waste of TIME.
          it is equivalent to f5.6 of ff!!!
          would you pay 2000$ for a 28-70 f5.6? i dont think so…

          • blohum

            not another equivalence argument… yawn…

            • pdc

              Oh Lordy, Lordy, where do these dumb comments come from?
              f2.8 is f2.8, period! For a focal length of 100mm, f2.8 means an objective diameter of 35.7mm. It doesn’t make one bit of a difference how large an image circle is projected out of the back end (the crop factor issue) or what the angle of view is at the front end.

              • Vitous

                2.8 m43 dof =5.6 ff dof

                • pdc

                  Really, the DOF discussion is very tiresome. Greater DOF is an advantage of smaller formats. Just because old portraiture has shallow DOF due to large negative size, doesn’t mean that it is better imagery. We don’t need fast lenses because we want shallow DOF. We need them to make pictures when the available light is weak.

                  • See my note below re illusion about 1/3 down the page

                  • dumbo

                    @ frosti etc.

                    dude, buy a medium format camera.

                    not everyone wants shallow depth of field and those that do buy the right tools for the job.

                    this argument is sooooo tired!

                • Vitous.
                  No that’s wrong.
                  DOF is the same for any given lens on different formats.
                  See comments by Allan Wolf and myself about 1/3 down the page about 12 hours ago.
                  Then try the A4 print test yourself.

          • Jesper

            @Frosti7

            Here we go again, try to make a affordable 12-35 F0.95 for M43. It is good to dream for fun, but be realistic! If you really want a fast lens that’s FF-equivalent, why the heck would you hang around here? We all know M43 and FF have huge physical differences, therefore it is meaningless to try making everything exactly the same!

            • It does not need to be that hard for a zoom. 12-50 f/2 would be like Canon´s 24-105 f/4 IS L… That would suit me fine.

              • ljmac

                And it would be just as big and heavy. Then why not get FF if it’s the same size and weight? The advantage of 4/3rds is smaller size, so if you don’t get that, why bother? Olympus already made that mistake with their SHG lenses.

                • ProShooter

                  It would not be that big or that heavy. And even if, it would be nice to have that option and *not* be stuck with slow glass, and yes, everything above f/2 is slooooooow.

                  • Jesper

                    Of course i would also want a fast lens within a useful focal length range, say 10-60 F2.0

                    I can’t say how large and heavy the lens will actually be, but bigger and heavier is clear. But most important is the price will be very high.

                    First people complains about there are no fast zoom lenses. When the first price speculation for these two X lenses was leaked people started to complaining about them being to expensive. Dafaq?

                  • Andrew

                    Seriously, F2.8 has never been slow, and low-light capability is dramatically better than it once was, making speed somewhat less important. An F2 zoom would be silly for this format. The only cam where it would have a place is the AF100 and its replacements.

                    • Sarek

                      Agree!

          • ljmac

            Will you equivalence trolls get it through your thick skulls? F2.8 is ALWAYS F2.8 in terms of exposure (light intensity), which is all that matters to most people. And on smaller formats, it comes with the BONUS of greater DoF (which most people want most of the time). It is ONLY equivalent to F5.6 on FF in terms of DoF, which as I said most people want more of anyway (I know I do). And if you do happen to be one of those people who wants wafer thin DoF, get the hell out of this forum and buy yourself an FF camera.

            • Bobby

              +1

            • Jesper

              Exactly, and trolls that complaining everything about F2 being so slooooow, but in the end can’t afford a really fast but expensive lens and starts to complaining about the price can also GTFO.

            • in case you didn’t know, thin dof is still possible on 43 sensor, so no need to bark at the 43people who shoot in that style.

            • Jesper.
              Never mention FF, it is totally wrong, as FF depends where one comes from. Just refer to 35mm. If every one refereed to 35mm, the FF freaks would get lost. After all we are 43 or M43, they should be 35mm not FF.

              • I don’t share the same worry. Its now part of the language, FF means 35mm and it doesn’t confuse anyone.

              • Jesper

                @JimD I get your point, but since we are dealing with digital photography here, I don’t think there will be any confusment.

            • Moreover, the SAME lens on FF has BIGGER DoF than if it would been used on MFT (via adapter).

            • Coby

              Hah! “Equivalence troll” is a useful term to use from now on!

            • Redkite

              Message in wrong place, wanted to delete it within the edit time but that doesn’t seem to be possible.

            • Atto

              +3

          • frosti7.
            2.8 is still 2.8 wherever 2.8 may be seen it’s 2.8. It may be 5.6 in DOF in 35mm terms but its still a 2.8 lens. If you want 35mm talk you’re in the wrong field.

          • James

            We want f2.8 for the light not the depth of field.

            • for me its the reverse situation. These days,if you want a fast lens only for low light situations , its cheaper solution to turn up the ISO instead of spending the extra cash on such lens. If you need it for the isolation effect, you could choose to create background blur with dedicated software(but thats out of the question for me as its intensive manipulating a photo), but genuine bokeh is much preferred.

              • swested

                Sure, if you’re a big fan of unnecessary noise, then I suppose that is a great solution.

                • for the 1 stop in lens speed you lose, one iso stop up surely is acceptable, or do you want to shoot in darkness? With the money you are saving, you can buy nice things for your gf (if you hve one….)

          • Liitle Jerk Kid

            Dolt.

          • BLI

            Ditto: yawn… m43 is NOT equivalent to 5.6 at FF! When it comes to letting in light, it is equivalent to … 2.8. Why do you (frosti7) look only at DOF and claim that equivalence in this parameter is the only thing that matters? DOF is interesting, but isn’t it narrow minded to forget the (arguably) more important property?

          • Rutrem

            …so my SMC Takumar 55mm f1.8 on my GH2 is basically 110mm f0,8 🙂
            taking in consideration ur logic… my Cosinon 50mm f1.4 should be f-1.0? 😀

            • Alan Wolf

              No, based on his (correct) logic, the absolute aperture values do not change. The lens remains a 55mm(focal length) f 1.8 (aperture) lens. Because of the crop factor, this is the equivalent of a 110 mm lens on a 35 mm sensor. The aperture does not change—if you took that lens, and shot on a sunny day with tri X, on your old pentax H1a, say at 1/500 sec at f/16, and then put that same lens on your m43 camera, the exposure would still be 1/500 at f16 (assuming you set the ISO to 400, just like the tri X). The EV numbers remain the same.

              What can be confusing is that the depth of field remains the same—so rather than having the shorter depth of field of a 110mm focal length lens, it stays the longer depth of a 55 mm lens at any given aperture. The fact that you have moved the lens from one format to another does not change the laws of optics.

              • So. If I have our 55mm lens at f2 on the 35mm and a DOF of 5cm (2.85-3.35 meters) at 3 meters and, then put the lens on the m43 and the DOF remains the same. (All figures used for illustration purposes only)

                However, when viewing the resulting shots, I may have an illusion the DOF has changed because only the centre of the image is seen. But the recorded image on the M43 is identical and can be superimposed over the 35mm as an optical match.

                Really what we are doing is taking a 35mm picture, printing it to A4 size then, we draw a 4×3 rectangle in the middle of it at m43 scale. Then what we see is exactly what the M43 camera takes (all things being perfect)

                • Alan Wolf

                  yes! Thank you for explaining it this way.

                  This is a concept that really isn’t as difficult as people want to make it. The lens, and the way it manipulates light, stays the exact same. Aperture doesn’t change, even if thought of as “effective” aperture. The lens still throws an image (at infinity) when its optical center is whatever the focal length is. We are basically cropping a part of that image, which results in an “enlargement.”

          • Darko

            No, Frosti, it is always 2,8 !

          • Kerwood

            Frosti7,
            You should refrain from displaying your ignorance.
            As far as light measurement is concerned, f2.8 is f2.8, whatever the sensor size.
            f2.8 for 4/3 is equivalent to f5.6 for depth of field only!
            Can you make that distinction?

          • Who said it’s going to be $2000? Looks to be more like $1000-$1200
            And honestly, please stop looking to m4/3 if you want such little DoF. I get enough nice blur with the 45mm side of my 14-45 at f5.6 so f2.8 or f2.5 or whatever should be excellent with the 35-100.

    • mpgxsvcd

      Remeber the 14mm F2.5 was originally F2.8. The 35-100mm F2.5 is sounding better and better.

      • Swejk

        …the 14-140 was originally 3,5…

        • Anentropic

          doh! 🙂

    • klos

      m43 is for poor and weak people anyway…

      oh i can´t carry around a big dslr.. oh i don´t have money to buy that fancy glas….

      so i think f4 will be good enough for you guys.

      • GreyOwl

        You’ve started something now! Suggest you take cover.

        • E-1

          • GreyOwl

            ?

        • lol

      • MikeH

        M43 is for people who can construct complete sentences and who can spell words correctly.

      • Geoff

        Another person who realy has no idea what he is talking about, there is nothing wrong with 4/3rds or u4/3rds, yes it is smaller, yes it is reliable, yes it makes great images. Yes I am a lifelong Olympus user, after moving from Nikon which provided me with the most unreliable camera I ever owned, it went back to nikon on three occasions with exposure problems, though they always returned it saying there was nothing wrong with the camera yet agreed there were issues with its exposure meter, basicaly a pile of garbage, which I eventualy dumped as I could not even sell it or find a dealer to take it on part exchange. Olympus never a problem with, apart from a switch on a C5060 which was replaced free of charge more than 3 years after purchase.

        So Klos, you can keep your big stuff, I want something I can rely on, go on tell me your a Canon user….

        • Perret cap Joe gear photo blogger

          Cool olympus still had stock Of those camedias 3 years after release? So the camera must be a true evergreen like the D700 right?

          • They sell out very quickly. So lots of people want them.

      • Yes klos, we are all clever and look after ourselves. We also are advanced and can see the trends.

      • Ernest.orf

        Buaaaa poor you missys Klos , like me , many photographer with a good 2000-8000€ equip are changing to mirrorless system ’cause its ergonomy , A phots camera is for taken everywhere, anytime , and make good pIcs, but sometimes u cant carry , a huge cam, or a bag , but u still want image quality, i dont need to buy an EOS Mark IV , if i cant carry the camera all the time ^^

      • BLI

        M43 is for people who don’t suffer from a tiny penis complex. :-).

        • Gone

          M43 IS for people who suffer from a tiny penis complex; that’s why we like the 2x crop on our focal length when shooting in-pants shots.

  • BLI

    Maybe they are not able to produce 2.8 lenses of sufficiently high quality and as small as they want to for a price people will pay…

    Or maybe they were able to produce faster lenses…

    Or maybe one of the lenses will be 2.8 and the other not…

    Or maybe it is just a false rumor…

    Or maybe…

  • Pim

    or it can be 3.5

  • If the rumor was true, the most plausible scenario would be that they just have figured that the lens is good enough even on F2.5.

    • KI

      Agree. Lets hope that’s true. … or even brighter. 🙂

  • “The aperture will be fast and constant but it may not be f/2.8!”
    As „fast lens” does mean F >= 1/2.8, it obviously cannot be slower than F2.8.

  • Mundstrøm

    if they go for even bigger apertures that would be really great. The four-thirds sensor’s biggest weakness is the small size and therefore the light gathering ability. Bigger apertures will be the best way to compensate for this, until they find ways to improve the sensor’s dynamic range and sensitivity, without needing higher ISO. That said, using a Higher ISO would be acceptable too *if* they could reduce sensor-noise drastically. Unfortunately I think we’re at least 2 years from the next generation of sensors.

    • Nikku

      But you’re forgetting IBIS. Being very conservative here, supposing that the new EM5 is clean up to ISO 1600, and the IBIS gives an effective 3 stops of shutter speed extra, that is like being able to shoot at a clean ISO 12800! I think that’s more than enough for all but the most demanding conditions currently.

    • marilyn

      for me the OMD-Em5 sensor gave us the solution already…

  • Leo

    In the last, he said:
    I saw a ring in front of goal contained: 12-35 mm f / 2!

  • burnardo

    3.5 :p

  • B2

    Too bad. I’m affraid it may be 3.5 or 4.

    • Steve

      They wouldn’t be able to get 1K for that.

  • bilgy_no1

    Did Panasonic ever officially announce the aperture to be f/2.8?

    • spam

      No

    • James

      Yes, it says f2.8 on the mockup.

  • BLI

    “We never said it was 2.8″… well, the mock-ups surely indicate this… Maybe Valentin had an encounter with the angel of death… :-).

    • Jesper

      Note that you and the rest of the world used mock-up and not the word “prototype”. The difference is mock-up is a non-functioncal model for showing the plausible apperance of the final product. While prototype is a functional non-mass produced product, often for verification and calibration. With that said, even if Panasonic did have a prototype lens with F2.8, there is still no gurantee that the final specification will end up to be F2.8

      • BLI

        Of course you are right. But by printing 2.8 on the mock-up or prototype, they send a certain message.

        • gl

          Yes, but the message may have been designed to manage expectations, knowing that they wouldn’t have it for sale for quite a while. It’s better to surprise everyone with a slightly better spec when it’s close to selling, creates a buzz to. Same happened with the 14mm pancake.

        • gl

          Yes, but the message may have been designed to manage expectations, knowing that they wouldn’t have it for sale for quite a while. It’s better to surprise everyone with a slightly better spec when it’s close to selling, creates a buzz to. Same happened with the 14mm pancake, so they’ll probably be f2.5 too.

  • Yun

    This is great , deliver it in F2 then I’ll definitely get it without doubt . The 35-100 mm F2 is my long anticipated lens , I’ll rate it higher than the incoming Zuiko 75mm F1.8 if it is in F2 .
    Kudos to Pana if they can make it in F2 .

  • Panasonic have either upped their game and gone for faster aperture or being more cautious and slowed the aperture down maybe because of focus tracking problems when lens is wide open.
    Hopefully they have raised the stakes and gone for a faster aperture 😀

    • spam

      Focus tracking don’t work anyway except for largish slow objects. CDAF is supposed to have the largest accuracy advantage over PDAF on large apertures (you can find a graph on one of the Panasonic GX1-pages).

      Personally I’d like to see something like F2.0-F2.8, fixed aperture waste speed except at the longest focal length.

      • gl

        Yes but fixed is better for video, these are clearly optimised for the GH3.

        • spam

          You get fixed aperture if you selct the largest one that’s available for the whole zoom range.

          • gl

            Good point. Then I agree, though maybe they want to avoid people leaving it wide open and then complaining it gets dark when they zoom.

            • gl

              … but does it actually work like that? Doesn’t a non-fixed design go dark as you zoom regardless of the aperture you set? (I have no zooms to test, all primes so far)

              • if you use a 3.5 to 5.6 zoom on 5.6 its 5.6 on the sensor centre all the way from one end to the other.

                • gl

                  Cool.

  • Nawaf

    Woooow! If this rumor turns out to be true then it would be an amazing travel lens. 12-35 f/2 O_O and weather sealed.

    I hope so 😀

    • A good travel zoom wouldn’t have such a limited zoom range. 3 lenses (not more) from 9mm to 200mm would be nice to travel.

      • Anonymous

        I have done it with a 24mm and 50mm only. So a zoom with a prime or two would do the trick.

    • twoomy

      The best travel lens would be an updated m43 version of the 12-60. Fairly large, but awesome corner-to-corner image quality and you won’t be switching lenses very often.

  • prob the zooms are already complete, but they are not sure yet what to print on the front ring, thanks to us.

    • burnardo

      lol

  • emde

    I do not care too much about the 12-35. But looking at the 35-100 mock-up, it is quite clear that it canNOT be faster than f/2.8. The front lens has a diameter of ~36mm (knowing the the filter thread is 58mm). At 100mm the entry pupil is max 36mm (can’t be larger than front lens diameter), i.e. max f/2.8. Either this lens will be f/3.5 or it will not have a constant aperture, e.g. f/2.8-3.5.
    Or the mockup is wrong and the include a larger front lens of lets say 46mm – then it could be up to (realistically) f/2.5.

    Just my 2ct

    • spam

      Or the front lens don’t have to be the largest.

      • emde

        How can you make the entry pupil larger than the front lens diameter? Thanks for an explanation…

        • Brod1er

          I don’t understand the physics here but I can make comparisons. The Leica 90mm f2 summicron has a 55mm filter thread so seems to indicate the 35-100 lense theoretically could be f2. True, the Leica front lens diameter looks bigger than the Panasonic, however the Leica has to let in 4x more light to give f2 over a FF sensor. On this basis f2 doesn’t seem impossible for a mft lens this size.

        • Trevor

          This is a common misunderstanding. The entrance pupil is not the same as the front element. The entrance pupil is the largest opening as viewed through the front of the lens – this is normally the opening at the aperture diaphragm, but it could even be the LAST element in the lens.

          Also, it is not the physical size of the entrance pupil that is measured, but the relative size based on the magnification of the lens elements in front of it (ie, MEASURED at the front element). This means that the size of the front element and focal length alone cannot tell f-number.

          That said, I don’t know of a way that the entrance pupil could be LARGER than the front element. However, this is not what I do for a living.

          If I had to put money on it, I would say these are going to come out as f/3.5 or f/4 lenses. I know that’s what no one here wants to hear, but I think that’s a realistic compromise of size, price, and quality. There really are great reasons that the Oly SHG 14-35 and 35-100 lenses are so large and expensive. Software correction and short flange distances correct some of that, but physics cannot be denied.

          • Chez Wimpy

            >If I had to put money on it, I would say these are going to come out as f/3.5 or f/4 lenses. I know that’s what no one here wants to hear, but I think that’s a realistic compromise of size, price, and quality.

            No money to put on it… having lost it all in foolish bets in the past? Makes about as much sense as forecasting that the lenses will be 18-26mm and 50-75mm all said and done.

    • Corey

      Isn’t the whole point of a mockup to be a non-functional general idea of what it may or may not look like to be used to promote a direction rather than a finished product? If they aren’t using the 2.8 they stamped on the front of it no reason to assume anything else will be the left the same either.

  • Mano

    No 2.8 or better no sale. I fear that 4.0 may be the unlucky number here…

    • maybe its a 28-70 f/4 with a 2x focal reducer 🙂

  • hinting

    So where is the panasonic weatherseal body? the next gh? Pany wouldn’t release a new lens for oly’body?!

  • May it’s realistic like this:

    12-35/f2.0

    35-100/2.0-2.8

    Because the size can be a Problem.

    I would buy it, if it starts by 2.0 or brighter and ends 2.8 or brighter (this includis also f2.0 constant aperture or 2.5-2.8 or something like that).

    If not, i will use the 14-140 on day, and 20/1.7 and 45/1.8 on night.

    I only will buy the 35-100 sowieso.

    • Anonymous

      I suspect that if the lenses aren’t f/2.8 they’ll be f/2.5, constant, simply for marketing reasons. I won’t be buying either anytime soon, but I like the idea.

  • Bob B.

    USE FAST PRIMES. We already have them. f/.95, f/1.4, f/1.8, f/2, f/2.5…who needs this lens?

    • Nawaf

      I love my primes, but these zooms negate the changing of the lens outdoors plus are weather sealed.

      Not everyone can afford to get primes for all their needs. One zoom can fulfill that for them.

      • Bob B.

        I know…I am just tired of all of the speculation about these…AGAIN. LOL! They could have their place, if they are f/4 is see no point to it, though.

    • BornBad

      people who prefer to carry 1 zoom instead of 3 primes. i’m shooting with primes too, but i’m not everybody.

      • ha

        The 45mm macro has OIS, IIRC

    • Casp

      You forget that none of the primes have IS. With an IS giving 2-3 stops a 2.8 lens would equal a 1.2 prime on pana bodies…(and that is not counting the DoF – if you are into handheld landsscape shooting the 1.2 prime would still have to be stepped down…)

    • Bob B.

      Primes…Primes….Primes! Sharper, faster, more bokeh, more better! LOL!

  • Vivek

    Since no one actually measures the light transmission on these flybywire m4/3rds lenses, most of the f numbers printed on the lenses are not close to the reality. I really don’t care if these are going to be called f/2.8 or f/2.5 or f/2.2 lenses. It is just a matter of labeling them right. 😉

    • spam

      Actually most serious tests would notice a big discrepancies. Of course you can’t use the f-numbers to determine exact exposure as they don’t take transmission into account (like T-numbers), but anything beyond 1/3 stop would be noticed.

      • Vivek

        Are there any? 😉

        “Most serious tests” that is.

        The 14/2.5 is a good example. With at least 2 stop loss from the center, what exactly is its aperture value?

        • spam

          Maybe not, but I believe several test sites use Imatest which will compute how much the exposure is off. That’s also influende by the camera/sensor of course, but Photozone use the same camera over and over with the same test setup and different lenses and know what to expect. I assume Slrgear do the same. I’m not sure what dpreview (if they still test lenses) and Lenstip do, it’s bound to be similar. The DxO test software also do something similar, they have T-stop measurements.

  • JF

    I doubt it will be f2 with the expected size. Maybe f2.5 ? That not a big difference compared to f2.8 (25% more light) but still welcome ! I really hope it is not slower than f2.8…I won’t pay 1200 or 1300 euro for an f3.5 or f4 zoom

    • Brod1er

      I always guessed they would go for f2.5 as it gives a small edge over the f2.8 and a marketing advantage. It will result in very similar DOF to APSC using f2.8 They also pulled the same trick for the 14mm pancake. If they can do f2, it makes the lens very interesting and a real alternative to the primes. Fast high quality primes are great, but the flexibility of zooms matters too.

    • Chez Wimpy

      >Maybe f2.5 ? That not a big difference compared to f2.8 (25% more light) but still welcome !

      Not 1/4 stop, but a 1/2 (between f2.0 and f2.8) so 50% more light. A not insignificant difference – 1/60s as opposed to 1/40s for the same ISO – if it comes to pass. Having the 20/1.7 at f1.7 rather than f2.0 also made a real difference for its marketing position.

  • physica

    compare with F stop …. I wounder if the weather seal ability…. Is it still good while using E-M5? Or is it still highly water resistance as E-M5 for the GH-3 or the weather seal model….

  • dau

    if theyre making weather sealed lenses logic dictates theyre also making a weather sealed body soon..

  • my name

    If f/2.0 I’m buying both.

  • ProShooter

    f/2 or better or no buy, its that easy.

    I have no more use for more slow mediocre glass, as there is far too much of that in m43 right now.

  • david

    I don’t care whether it’s f/2.8 or f/2.5 or whatever. Just release the !@#$ lenses already.

  • Ernest.orf

    Yeap release it damn it !!!!!

  • Anonymous

    The size is important. f/2 will be nice, but Zuiko 14-34 f/2 and 35-100 f/2 for 4/3 are TOO BIG for m43. M43 has to be smaller then 4/3 and then other systems. If there is possible to make small and optically good zoom f/2.5 for m43 (or f/2) – lets do it. But even the lens with size like Canon 70-200 f/4L is too big for m43.

    • Brod1er

      Agreed. There are precedents that indicate it may be possible (see my post sbove comparing to Leica 90mm summicron). Panny 7-14 is 3x smaller and lighter than the Oly 4/3 and is slightly better optically. The price is less too!

      • Pascal

        @ Brod1er
        “Panny 7-14 is 3x smaller and lighter than the Oly 4/3 and is slightly better optically”
        I have theses 2 lenses and don’t agree : About same level of sharpness and CA, but the Zuiko doesn’t need the software correction (distortion) so the field of view is slitly larger at 7mm (tested), the zuiko is tropicalized, the zuiko have a (small) distance scale, and the most important, the zuiko is less prone to flare (tested). So optically, the zuiko is better, even is the Panny is a very good lense.

        • Brod1er

          I don’t have the Oly but DPreview reviewed both and stated flare was a big issue on the Oly given its large front element. Your tests are obviously different. Personally i think both lenses are good but the physical differences are vast. This shows that Pannys zooms do not necessarily need to be as large as Oly 4/3 as many say.

  • Yun

    Only to release it in F2.0 guarantee Pana’s optic superiority , F2.8 not really appeal to current M4/3 sensor for exceptional imagings . If Pana release it in F2.8 means it have got a new sensor technology to support such slow ( for me ) aperature capable of decent imagings . The best is F2.0 lens + new sensor would be brilliant move !

    • Will

      f2.8 on a zoom has never ever been slow, where are all these crazy people expecting f2 zooms that cost $1300 coming from…

      A zoom is all about flexibility, you get exceptionally fast primes but a fast zoom is f2.8, which together with the amazing high ISO’s of today is orders of magnitude above what has been available in all of history.

      • Will

        f2.8 in a dingy hockey arena didn’t cut it for me——and instead I went with a 135 f2 on a 5DMKII @ ISO 800. The strategy was to use the sensor’s resolution as my zoom.

        f2.8 would be great for indoors using flash. But here I suspect even a constant f4 would do the trick.

        f2.8 for outdoor sports would be sufficient, but an f2 would provide greater subject isolation.

        • Will

          But with the 5dmkii just bump the ISO up to 1600 and use the zoom? I understand the want for as fast a zoom as possible, but Canon has their fast zooms at f2.8, who is expecting m43 to turn it around and offer extreme pro zoom options for a mere $1200… dimly lit sports arenas are made for pro DSLRs anyway.

      • Chez Wimpy

        >f2.8 on a zoom has never ever been slow, where are all these crazy people expecting f2 zooms that cost $1300 coming from…

        Slow on super 8mm, yes, compact P&S, or any other sub-FF formats. On the other hand f2.8 is in the realm of fantasy >f0.6 lenses if we are talking 8×10 cameras.

  • Anonymous

    It’s not f/2 and it’s not f/2.5 or any other shit. What you will get is f/2.8-3.5.

    • Brod1er

      WOW! Were you on the lens development team? Should your comment be FT5? Seems strange though as Panasonic have been clear from the start that these are constant aperture lenses……

  • Don’t forget that a lot of m43 users (like me) are using zooms for pro video work with an AF100. Fast zooms are really important for us in run-n-gun or live situations where we need flexibility. Changing a lens constantly while holding a shoulder rig simply isn’t practical. Yeah Olympus got the 14-35mm and 35-100 but these require adapters and are slow as hell to autofocus. If Panasonic wants us to continue buying into the m43 format for video they NEED to create fast zooms for m43.

    Oh, and I agree about that DoF conversion bull, more light is so much better than smaller DoF.

    • Brod1er

      Agreed. And the same applies even more for stills too. Panny need something revolutionary to challenge the Canikon SLR lockout whereas at least they are a big player in the video market already. Relatively compact f2 zooms would be an excellent start. Maybe they could then tackle reliable focus tracking before finally delivering global shutter! That should do the trick!!!!

    • swested

      It is incredibly hard to imagine the AF100 in a run-and-gun situation. …shudder…

      • Gabb3r

        Haha, well depends on how you define run-n-gun, but m43 with a good external EVF gives enough leeway with DoF to do run-n-gun under certain situations. Dial down aperture and crank up ISOs for greater DoF, or up and use the integrated ND filters if you want to do beauty shots ; it’s really surprising about how versatile the AF100 is compared to full frames. Even the GH2 with vari-nd filters and an EVF is a great tool for such work, although a little awkward and with more skew.

  • MikeH

    I’m hoping that rumor is correct. F2.5 or F2.0 zoom lenses would be choice.

    • Anentropic

      sweet as bro

  • Perret cap Joe gear photo blogger

    Rotflor

    Probably F3,2 (f6 equivalent)

  • Panny get 2 toilet roll inserts, paint them black and put Sapporo bottle ends in them. Then wait to see what people say.
    When they have read all the comments they will think about it and make what they like.

  • F0.95/12-180 or no buy, it’s that easy. 😀

    • Trevor

      Ha ha!

    • avds

      Don’t forget to make it a cheap weather sealed pancake and throw in some leica grade optics, and I’m with you.

    • Can I sell you a truck or a hot air balloon with lens gimbals for perfect balance.

  • The Master

    Panasonic 24-!@##$ and 35-$%%^&&* blah, blah, blah! Zooms are for sissies and posers and for those that can’t make up their mind or have no mind, stuttering and stammering in, continous non decision. Be deliberate, be a man or, be a woman, but be deliberate for Chistsake. Or, just buy a zoom, I don’t give a shit. 😉

    • OIS guy

      i want the ois for video too. panasonic doesn’t put OIS in their primes. if olympus had put a decent video mode in the em-5 i would of switched.
      if i’m going to get a zoom, might as well be a fast zoom.

  • Translator

    I speak spanish and the rumor tells abaut a fast and constant lens. BUT the the personal bet of Valentin Sama is about a 2.0 fast lens. So it is better than we thought….

  • at

    I don’t want something like f/2.0 or f/2.5 unless it is priced at about $1,000 (12-35mm).

  • Simon

    Hmm. My guess is they will give it an inconsequential bump to f/2.5 (1/3 stop) and then use the “faster than f/2.8!” marketing advantage to charge much more than they otherwise could.

    I’d love to be proven wrong, though.

  • Miroslav

    “The aperture will be fast and constant but it may not be f/2.8”

    The F2.8 aperture was not set in stone. On many trade shows where lens mockups were shown, the aperture was marked as “under consideration”.

  • Brod1er

    I don’t want any lenses that cost less than $5000……sorry, misposted, I thought I was on the Leica forum. $1500 seems reasonable if they are f2 and well made. Don’t forget each will replace 3 fast primes plus the convenience of not having to switch. If they at only f2.8 it is a tougher choice between these and the primes (45 and 75 f1.8)
    Not sure I want the 12-35 though as I love the dinky Panny 14 and 20 pancakes so much. They live on my GF3 and work brilliantly. The 35-100 will suit my ageing GH1 well though (hopefully soon a GH3 or OMD). Isn’t it weird that Oly announce a great weatherproof cam whilst Panny do the lenses!?

  • DagBO

    OM-D arrived 😀 don’t mind if the Pana lenses will take a while, need to save money now anyway 😉

    What a beauty! By size not far away from the Pentax ME-super I once had. Feels very solid except the rubber cover left hand side which shields the connectors. I see already my GH2 not being used anymore if the OM-D film mode is decent for my old eyes.

    Very balanced when the 12-50 is used. Setting the zoom modes is a little like using the 12mm. The E-zoom is very smooth and fast. The “manual” zoom is a bit jumpy and rough (scratchy?) IMHO and the AF is not catching up instantly (1/4 of a second or so).

    Menu holds a lot of settings – that will take a while to read through. Now I need to get used to it and and go out onto the streets.

    Have a great w/end
    Cheers
    Dag

  • Narretz

    Lenses won’t be 2.0. Never. 2.5 would be awesome already. And don’t forget they have to deliver sharpness across the whole frame and zoom range. This is getting even harder with 2.0.

  • BLI

    Maybe faster than 2.8, but needs to be stepped down to get good optical quality? Perhaps they are considering a balance between being fast and having zuiko-like quality wide open?

  • These two lenses are really different at least in terms of use or can be looked at as a single lens package from a marketing standpoint. How the final product turns out will be determined 100% by the marketing and finance departments.

    Obviously they are meant to retain existing MFT users who might be considering an upgrade to {insert brand name}. I’m sure what is holding up the design is cost engineering. Hopefully they are considering letting the two lenses have different minimum apertures. I’d prefer as fast possible and inconsistent between them.

    The real question is whether Panasonic is going to market these lenses as professional video lenses mated to the AF100 line or just a simple, albeit much needed addition to the general MFT offerings.

    I’d really be interested in the 35-100 since it covers a range where there is a significant lack of fast alternatives. I’d put my Oly 45/1.8 on ebay tomorrow if I was certain it’d be under $1000 and f/2.8 or faster. I have a GH1 and thus miss OIS dearly. For a narrow DoF an old manual f/1.4 performs as well or better.

    I see the 12-35 as being for an enthusiast who only wants to own and carry one lens. It’s going to come in at a price point that doesn’t justify a one or two stop difference from the kit lens at least not for a typical MFT user.

    For the world of MFT it’s all about the consumer and enthusiast market. Sure professionals may use a MFT camera exclusively but that’s an exception to the pros that own one as a camera enthusiast.

    2.8 is plenty fast. DoF preference is personal, not universal. But, someone who looks at a narrow DoF as the greatest measure of image quality isn’t best served by the MFT format.

    Cameras record the images that lenses cast. Both items are required to make any comparison. Comparing FF lenses to MFT lenses is like comparing motorcycle tires to car tires. I look at 35mm equivalents in terms of real world use. For example, my 25/1.4 at ISO400 is equivalent to a full frame 50/2.8 at ISO1600.

  • If these are faster than f/2.8, then great, if slower…not so good. Now I wouldn’t mind f/4 constant aperature 12-35 and 35-100mm zooms with the size/weight that seems to be mentioned, that are weather sealed and super high quality, but if that is going to be the case, there is no fuzzy chance in bunny heck that I’d pay in excess of $1,000 per lens for that. I might pay $500-700 for that privelage, but not over a grand each.

  • Thurin

    I’m getting sick of Pany playing us. If the delay is due to marketing reasons rather then technical problems with design, they shot themselves in their foot. Half a year ago, I would buy these lenses without questions. Hell, if they were released over a year ago, I’d be content with f3.2. Another couple of months and I will start waiting for the announcement of Carl Zeiss ‘High Performance Standard Zoom’ from the nex roadmap – maybe Sony will treat it’s customers more seriously . And of course Canon hasn’t said a word yet…

    • Thurin

      And of course there is the announced samsung nx 16-80mm f3.5-4.5 which should be around f4 at 70mm equivalent – similar DOF to f2.8 on 4/3. So quite soon every mirrorless system will have a fast-ish standard zoom and m43 will have little advantage over competition.

      • pdc

        I’d rather wait until Panasonic get’s it completely right.
        Hoping for the 12-35 to be f2, and the 35-100 to be f2.5 or f2.8 – any faster and these lenses will be too big, heavy and bulky, as space is needed for AF and OIS. Want these lenses primarily for travel. Already have both legacy and new MF fast primes, but they are heavy and I won’t be travelling with them.

  • Scott

    fstop is fstop dof is controlled by 3 things. focal length, distance to subject and fstop. You can achieve shallow dof easily with a longer focal length or getting closer to the subject. I want large aperture for light dof i cant get in other ways

  • or you can do just like i did, gettin the SHG 35-100 f/2 plus E-1.
    cheaper combo then a E-M5 plus Pana 35-100 f/?

    • Perret cap Joe gear photo blogger

      It is called gear purchasing justification, see you at fullframe joe

  • Scott

    true but not equal in quality or weight

    • the E-1 might be cleaner at base iso, and the shg 35-100 is superior to any other zoom or even the zd 50, thanks to its reducer principal, which gives the shg a true 70-200 2.8 dof characteristic. the price to pay is indeed its weight, the heaviest in its class.

      • Perret cap Joe gear photo blogger

        Nope, dof is F4 equivalent

        • check the many discussions about the 35-100 on DP, there you will find out that its actually a 70-200 2.8 design with a focal reducer lens group behind. This group scales the 70-200 image down to 35-100, this preserves the original lens characteristics(DOF is the same), except that image possible abberations /distortions are reduced due to the scaling, and the increased light intensity results in f/2.0. It should actually be f/1.4 but the FT mount limited the use of the full potential, and for some reason Olympus locked the aperture at f/2. It is claimed by DP member RRiley that pressing the unlock button should give you an extra 2/3 stop but i havent checked that yet. All this also expains why the 35-100 is huge and an excellent performer. This is all a public secret 🙂

          • Perret cap Joe gear photo blogger

            Funny i had this lens, but couldnt figure out this kind of magic fairytale. Also the 1.4 m close focusing was bothersome. Besides expensive and heavy, i was not interested in pressing release buttons on a 1.8 kg lens. I used it for some jobs though where it performed well. Esp pn the E1 it shines imo.

            • I will comment on that when i actually USED this combo, still waiting for my E-1 to arrive here.

              • Perret cap Joe gear photo blogger

                E1 is still magic at iso 100

  • sqweezy

    For the naysayers out there, who says it’s true that people won’t buy if these lenses drop to f/2.0? I know if they make it faster, I’d be much more willing to buy, just as I assume most others would. It’s all about versatility and the total package in one apparatus… I say these lenses sell way better as f/2.0s than as f/2.8s!

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

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

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

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

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

Close