Really? Panasonic X zooms may not be f/2.8?
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-$1,300 which is the half of the Olympus 14-35mm f/2.0 and the 35-100mm f/2.0 Zuiko lenses.
Ernest.orf
2 years ago |Nooooooooooooooooo
kesztió
2 years ago |Yeeeeees!!!!
Ernest.orf
2 years ago |Noooooooooooooo
Ooooo
Ooooooooooooooo!!!
frosti7
2 years ago |YESSSSSSSSS@!
2.8 is a HUGE waste of TIME.
it is equivalent to f5.6 of ff!!!
would you pay 2000$ for a 28-70 f5.6? i dont think so…
blohum
2 years ago |not another equivalence argument… yawn…
pdc
2 years ago |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 years ago |2.8 m43 dof =5.6 ff dof
pdc
2 years ago |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.
JimD
2 years ago |See my note below re illusion about 1/3 down the page
dumbo
2 years ago |@ 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!
JimD
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |@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!
Mungo
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |Agree!
ljmac
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |+1
Ross
2 years ago |+2
Jesper
2 years ago |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.
Ulli
2 years ago |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.
JimD
2 years ago |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.
jules
2 years ago |I don’t share the same worry. Its now part of the language, FF means 35mm and it doesn’t confuse anyone.
Jesper
2 years ago |@JimD I get your point, but since we are dealing with digital photography here, I don’t think there will be any confusment.
kesztió
2 years ago |Moreover, the SAME lens on FF has BIGGER DoF than if it would been used on MFT (via adapter).
Coby
2 years ago |Hah! “Equivalence troll” is a useful term to use from now on!
Redkite
2 years ago |Message in wrong place, wanted to delete it within the edit time but that doesn’t seem to be possible.
Atto
2 years ago |+3
JimD
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |We want f2.8 for the light not the depth of field.
Ulli
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |Sure, if you’re a big fan of unnecessary noise, then I suppose that is a great solution.
Ulli
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |Dolt.
BLI
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |…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
2 years ago |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.
JimD
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |No, Frosti, it is always 2,8 !
Kerwood
2 years ago |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?
Jim Ramsey Khoury
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |Remeber the 14mm F2.5 was originally F2.8. The 35-100mm F2.5 is sounding better and better.
Swejk
2 years ago |…the 14-140 was originally 3,5…
Anentropic
2 years ago |doh!
klos
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |You’ve started something now! Suggest you take cover.
E-1
2 years ago |-
GreyOwl
2 years ago |?
Ulli
2 years ago |lol
MikeH
2 years ago |M43 is for people who can construct complete sentences and who can spell words correctly.
Geoff
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |Cool olympus still had stock Of those camedias 3 years after release? So the camera must be a true evergreen like the D700 right?
JimD
2 years ago |They sell out very quickly. So lots of people want them.
JimD
2 years ago |Yes klos, we are all clever and look after ourselves. We also are advanced and can see the trends.
Ernest.orf
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |M43 is for people who don’t suffer from a tiny penis complex.
.
Gone
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |or it can be 3.5
kesztió
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |Agree. Lets hope that’s true. … or even brighter.
kesztió
2 years ago |“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
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |for me the OMD-Em5 sensor gave us the solution already…
Leo
2 years ago |In the last, he said:
I saw a ring in front of goal contained: 12-35 mm f / 2!
burnardo
2 years ago |3.5 :p
B2
2 years ago |Too bad. I’m affraid it may be 3.5 or 4.
Steve
2 years ago |They wouldn’t be able to get 1K for that.
bilgy_no1
2 years ago |Did Panasonic ever officially announce the aperture to be f/2.8?
spam
2 years ago |No
James
2 years ago |Yes, it says f2.8 on the mockup.
BLI
2 years ago |“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
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |Of course you are right. But by printing 2.8 on the mock-up or prototype, they send a certain message.
gl
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |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 .
YouDidntDidYou
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |Yes but fixed is better for video, these are clearly optimised for the GH3.
spam
2 years ago |You get fixed aperture if you selct the largest one that’s available for the whole zoom range.
gl
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |… 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)
JimD
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |Cool.
Nawaf
2 years ago |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
Matthias
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |I have done it with a 24mm and 50mm only. So a zoom with a prime or two would do the trick.
twoomy
2 years ago |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.
Ulli
2 years ago |prob the zooms are already complete, but they are not sure yet what to print on the front ring, thanks to us.
burnardo
2 years ago |lol
emde
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |Or the front lens don’t have to be the largest.
emde
2 years ago |How can you make the entry pupil larger than the front lens diameter? Thanks for an explanation…
Brod1er
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |>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
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |No 2.8 or better no sale. I fear that 4.0 may be the unlucky number here…
Ulli
2 years ago |maybe its a 28-70 f/4 with a 2x focal reducer
hinting
2 years ago |So where is the panasonic weatherseal body? the next gh? Pany wouldn’t release a new lens for oly’body?!
Alexander Moshe
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |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.
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |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.
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |people who prefer to carry 1 zoom instead of 3 primes. i’m shooting with primes too, but i’m not everybody.
ha
2 years ago |The 45mm macro has OIS, IIRC
Casp
2 years ago |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.
2 years ago |Primes…Primes….Primes! Sharper, faster, more bokeh, more better! LOL!
Vivek
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |>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
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |if theyre making weather sealed lenses logic dictates theyre also making a weather sealed body soon..
my name
2 years ago |If f/2.0 I’m buying both.
ProShooter
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |I don’t care whether it’s f/2.8 or f/2.5 or whatever. Just release the !@#$ lenses already.
Ernest.orf
2 years ago |Yeap release it damn it !!!!!
Anonymous
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |@ 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
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |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.
Atlasman
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |>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
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |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……
Gabb3r
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |It is incredibly hard to imagine the AF100 in a run-and-gun situation. …shudder…
Gabb3r
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |I’m hoping that rumor is correct. F2.5 or F2.0 zoom lenses would be choice.
Anentropic
2 years ago |sweet as bro
Perret cap Joe gear photo blogger
2 years ago |Rotflor
Probably F3,2 (f6 equivalent)
JimD
2 years ago |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.
kesztió
2 years ago |F0.95/12-180 or no buy, it’s that easy.
Trevor
2 years ago |Ha ha!
avds
2 years ago |Don’t forget to make it a cheap weather sealed pancake and throw in some leica grade optics, and I’m with you.
JimD
2 years ago |Can I sell you a truck or a hot air balloon with lens gimbals for perfect balance.
The Master
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |I don’t want something like f/2.0 or f/2.5 unless it is priced at about $1,000 (12-35mm).
Simon
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |“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
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |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?
Robert de Buys
2 years ago |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.
Matt
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |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
Ulli
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |It is called gear purchasing justification, see you at fullframe joe
Scott
2 years ago |true but not equal in quality or weight
Ulli
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |Nope, dof is F4 equivalent
Ulli
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |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.
Ulli
2 years ago |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
2 years ago |E1 is still magic at iso 100
sqweezy
2 years ago |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!