skip to Main Content

ePhotozine Panasonic 3D lens review. Is the 3D hype over?


ePhotozine (Click here) posted the full 3D lens review: “The view through the lens gives a cropped view equivalent to around 60mm in 35mm terms, which isn’t ideal for some and the low resolution is a little disappointing, however its higher resolution than Full HD TV so should be more than adequate for viewing at home and 3D results can be impressive.

That said have you noticed how the 3D hype deflated recently? For years we heard about 3D here and 3D there. But the marketing machine wasn’t able to wash our brains :)  The Panasonic 3D lens now sells for $66 at Amazon (Click here). At that price Panasonic will be able to cover the costs but make zero profit.

One word for ePhotozine. With the 3D lens review they finally achieved the goal to review ALL(!) Panasonic lenses. You can see the full list here. Good Job guys! P.S.: They even tested the 12-35mm X lens which luckily is now back for preorder at Amazon US (Click here).

Reminder: New Oly/Pana Lens Preorders in Europe, USA and Asia:
Olympus 75mm lens at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, Amazon Germany and Amazon UK.
Panasonic 12-35mm X lens at Amazon, BHphoto, Adorama, Amazon Germany, Amazon UK, Amazon Japan and Digitalrev.

  • Lars

    3D is nonsense….

    • Guest

      I know someone who uses micro four thirds to shoot 3d… he buys multiple GH1 cameras, hacks them, and puts them on a special rig.

      This lens is stupid and underperforming. There is no market for it. However, if I could get it here in Sydney for $50, I’d probably buy it just for my collection.

    • caver3d

      These are the typical crap comments from those of you that do not normally shoot 3D nor have an appreciation for it. In addition to conventional 2D photography, I have done stereo 3D photography for many years with Realist film cameras, the Fuji W3 with Cyclopital adapters, and even this Pany m43 3D lens. It is not a poor lens if you understand how to use it., unfortunately many of you have no clue. A lot of work goes into 3D photography and 3D presentations (with both film and digital 3D slide projection). If you do not understand it, then it is better for you not to provide such ludicrous comments about it. Of course, that has never stopped some of you.

      • One does not need to understand it. One looks at the results. Understanding it is like having DOX charts on the wall instead of photos.

        Also, if it is not understood then
        – the images are not good enough to create interest, blame the taker.
        – the whole thing is not promoted properly, blame the taker and his/her supplier.
        – its dead and gone in digital format as being to much trouble for the return.

        Just ask 100 people who have 3d tv last time they watched 3d, or do they know where the glasses are in their house.

  • Jipper

    3d is here to stay… Trust me, it’s my profession and the next wave of films to hit will blow you away.

    • Esh

      Of course anyone who makes a living out of some profession will claim he is there to stay. Gladly films like Avatar, Hugo and Prometheus have already shown us how far you can go with 3D and it’s simply not worth the effort and resources. It is a marketing gimmick after all. Better take that 3D budget and spend it more wisely on any other element of movie making.

    • Stu5

      So why are ticket sales at the box office down then for 3D?

      People keep on saying the next wave of 3D films will blow you away and it does not happen. The industry has invested a lot of money into the industry and can’t afford it to fail. They keep on telling us it is the future. But we have heard this all before since the birth of cinema every few decades. Every time in the end it fails and it is failing yet again just as many predicted. Does not matter how well done it is, in the end it still looks fake. You cannot wrap up a poor script, filming and acting and production in 3D and hope that the 3D will save it. It won’t. And the great films are not great because they are in 3D. They are great because of the strength of the script, great acting and directing. People are just not prepared to payout extra money to see a film in 3D when it adds so little and in the vast majority takes away from the film and ruins it.

  • Jipper

    3d is here to stay… Trust me, it’s my profession and the next wave of films to hit will blow you away. The problem
    Is companies like Panasonic releasing crap 3d cameras like the a3d1 and this joke of a lens. You can only film 3d with two cameras and two lenses no exception.

  • Ben

    You need two sensors to have 3D; not two lenses.
    Once that rolls around we might see 3D come back.

    • CB

      How is 3d done with one lens?

  • jevfp

    This lens is came with high expectation from panasonic ,.but turn out to be failure,.you can not using it for video which is more preferable but only for still image,.there’s no point there,.but its quite cheap for that price now,..hope panny learn their lesson

  • Traciatim

    Everyone looked at 3d and realized it’s just a cheezy gimmick still. Until we figure out how to make a display that doesn’t need accessories and doesn’t rely on incredibly tight viewing angles then I don’t think anyone will jump on board.

    The moment a TV comes out that gives you 3D to everyone in a TV room no matter where they are sitting you will see a new 3D explosion.

  • MikeH

    There isn’t anything wrong with 3D as a goal, especially if glasses can be simplified/eliminated. This lens, however, is not worth $66. Let me know when it is $19.99 and I’ll think about it. When they purposely crippled the video abilities of this lens, they doomed it to failure, though that isn’t the only fault of the lens.

  • Trendsurfer

    Best recent 3D Pic:

    :) crossviewing

  • Duarte Bruno

    Not enough stereo separation, cropped resolution, no video, not enough speed, no focus, no RAW…

    They might as well be offering it for free… I wouldn’t take it!

  • God I hope 3D is done being a thing. I thought for two seconds about getting the lens at $66 just because it’s so cheap but then thought I’d rather buy a really good steak.

    I’m with MikeH, I’ll think about it at $19.99.

  • samshootsall

    bought this lens for $50, doesnt work with my Olympus PENs…Send it back?

    • caver3d

      You should have checked before you bought it. It should work with the E-M5, not the earlier Pens.

  • Being blind in one eye kinda makes me wonder what’s so special about 3D ANYTHING ;o)

  • Blinkered

    Yes you can use it for video, it works fine – you just need to cover the lens contacts and you can record 3D video which works fine with most 3D TVs… why Panasonic chose to disable the support for video is an unknown but maybe to protect their consumer video camcorders.

    It’s a shame that ePhotozine didn’t do their homework as they could have shown how 3D video with the lens works.

  • Ed

    The lens works okay on video – just put thin plastic tape over the electrical contacts on the lens and the Lumix cameras think its a generic lens. Then, set the option to use the camera without a lens which you do for using adapters on other non m43 lenses.

    The main problem is that the lens produces two (roughly) 960 x 1080 images. To edit this in 3D requires some way to translate this into either a proper 1920×1080 image or a squished side-by-side image. About all you can do is to resize the 960×1080 to 1920×2160 and crop out the part you need. But that causes a loss of resolution.

    I normally shoot 3D using two Lumix cameras or two Kodak Playsport cameras (about 3″ interaxial) for closer in subjects. I edit using Magix Movie Edit – and the results have been quite good. After shooting 3DD for six+ months, 2D looks, well, flat to me :)

  • David

    In 20 years, if m43 is still around, some hipster is going to buy one of these used and think they are really cool

  • Viktor

    3D has always been something that never came to be more than a gemmick. You need the final imagination from 2D to understand and interpret the reproduction of the real.

  • Mr. Reeee

    I’d rather buy a Holga lens than this.
    Look ma, no art filters! :-P

  • When an image is projected into a photo sensitive gas, (bio degradable of course) in something like a fish tank (front half only open) and it shows proper depth and shape using unadorned eyes, then, maybe, I will go 3d.
    To date, 3D TV is a joke.

  • Anonymous

    3d timelapse

  • Jleo

    Josephine derobe who was a stereographer on Wim Wenders PINA, has mentioned there is no actual thing as 3D film, only 2 1/2D.

  • Jim H.

    Traciatim said “Everyone looked at 3d and realized it’s just a cheezy gimmick still.” It’s more accurate to say that when 3D is done poorly, then it’s cheezy. In fact, photographers who strive for a 3D effect usually end up with cheezy. When done well, however, it doesn’t so much look 3D as it looks so real it’s almost like you’re standing where the camera was when the shutter was snapped. It can be truly amazing. it’s so realistic you don’t notice the 3D part any more than you do looking through your own two eyes. Equipment wise, what’s always been lacking isn’t a decent lens or camera (there’s been plenty of those since the 50s) but a decent viewer. Viewing methods and gadgets have always been either poor quality or clumsy beyond practical use. 3D TVs are not the answer because the audience can’t immerse themselves in a television image (though IMAX comes close) which is what’s needed to feel like you’re standing where the camera was. If Panasonic wants to call me I’ll tell them exactly what’s needed for serious photographers to consider stereo photography, though I doubt it will ever be popular in the way the marketers hope.

  • The 3D hype has flattened due to the mass of 3D productions and products in poor quality. The Panny 3D lens is junk as well and that’s the reason why it has to be sold at loss now.

    Anyway: If 3D is produced in high quality and watched on screens that are able to deliver without ghosting, it is a teriffic experience and I am sure that it will become accepted during the net years.

Back To Top

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,, 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:
Google Analytics Cookie Usage on Websites: Addthis cookies:
Disqus cookies:
Vimeo cookies:
Youtube cookies:

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.