(FT3) Ho Ho Ho! Panasonic announcement on May 21 ???


The Italian blog Lucidistorte had a meeting in Milan with Mr.Uematsu from Panasonic. In that meeting Mr. Uemtasu unveiled that the new 12-35mm f/2.8 X lens will be announced on may 21th! Apparently Uematsu told them to not officially publish that news but the Italian blog wrote the news anyway :)
Uematsu also said that the 12-35mm f/2.8 is produced in the Panasonic Yamagata Plant in Japan and matches the quality of the Leica lenses! It has nano surface coating, power OIS. powerzoom.

As you know also the Panasonic G5 will be announced so I guess there is a fair chance that the rumor is real! Stay tuned on 43rumors! And don’t forget to follow us on facebook too (Click here)!


P.S: Panasonic soruces told me the lens has not a f/2.0 paerture like the Olympus 14-35mm f/2.0 (Click here to see them on eBay) becuase a) it would make the lens a lot bigger 2) lot more expensive.

Rumors classification explained (FT= FourThirds):
FT1=1-20% chance the rumor is correct
FT2=21-40% chance the rumor is correct
FT3=41-60% chance the rumor is correct
FT4=61-80% chance the rumor is correct
FT5=81-99% chance the rumor is correct

  • Gabriel

    Hopefully under $1,000… #fingerscrossed

    • Mr X

      @ admin: schon irgendwelche Infos bzgl des Preises?

      • admin

        Um die 1.200 euro

        • E-1

          What a service! Multi lingual questions! Klasse :-)

          • admin

            Klar mach ich das für Euch ;)

            • E-1


            • TGIF


              can I ask something in japanese :) sorry just kidding.

              @ admin: can we have any info about weights of these lenses?

        • Am anfang war mir das Preis des Kitlens fast zuviel. Aber das war damals : im letzte April habe ich Panaleica 25mm eingefauft.
          Ich bin sicher, dass im Zukunft wird es mir normal sein, $1200 für Optik zu bezahlen. Thanks goodness für mein Budget, noch nicht!

        • Bob B.

          No 1200 euro….. If your “Ho Ho Ho” reference is to Santa Claus, then you have to give some away…to US!!!!!! LOL!

        • Mr X

          Danke :)

  • Jesper

    Great news! Next week then, many of my m43 friends are waiting for the G5, because of the relatively high price of E-M5.

    • CuriousBenjamin

      What makes you think the G5 will be reasonably priced?

      • fan_guo_lai_xiang_xiang

        Maybe the modest and very fair pricing of its predecessor, the G3?

      • Jesper

        Since all G cameras have been reasonably prices, especially G3.

  • Guest

    “matches the quality of Leica lenses”?

    To match the quality of a Leica lens, it would have to be completely optically perfect. Most Panasonic lenses rely on in-body adjustments to correct for barrel distortion, etc.

    Leica lenses are designed to produce the same image, using extra glass elements to compensate for distortion.

    Panasonic’s software correction is not a bad thing. It saves you weight, and size. And if the result is the same, then there is no need to have an “optically perfect” lens like the Leica ones. (Note that some Panasonic lenses ARE optically perfect, hence the Leica branding)

    I’m willing to bet $1000 that the 12-35mm will use in-body distortion correction.

    I’m not saying that it’s any worse a lens for this. I’m just saying that it is highly unlikely for Panasonic to have wasted glass on making an optically perfect lens, when current technology allows us to compensate for distortion in a more efficient way than the old fashioned Leica way.

    • spam

      Leica lens don’t mean optically or mechanically perfect. The LX5, FZ150, TZ30 and other compacts have Leica branded lenses. The 25mm F1.4 just tested below 20mm F1.7 in Mtf50. Saying the 12-35 match the Leica lenses don’t say anything at all.

      But there is no reason to believe that the 12-35 wil be bad, with a 3x zoom range and (probably) a high price it should be quite good. But a company representative’s claims are usually best ignored.

      • spam, realy!
        “Saying the 12-35 match the Leica lenses don’t say anything at all”.

        The Leica lenses are world renowned for their optical quality and colour rendering. They are the photographers lens of choice in many fields.
        I think that Panasonic aspiring to produce lenses of Leica quality is admirable. Their ability to do it at a reasonable price is the moot point, not Leica having nothing, for Panasonic to live up to.

    • Franky S

      “I’m willing to bet $1000 that the 12-35mm will use in-body distortion correction.”

      That’s a reasonably safe assumption when considering the other PanaLeica lenses do so.

    • Fan

      The language means, “matches the quality of the M43 Pana/Leica lenses”.

    • Esa Tuunanen

      > Leica lenses are designed to produce the same image, using extra glass elements to compensate for distortion.
      Actually far from it, you can have more elements but those don’t do any good if designers are consumer electronics engineers instead of optical engineers.

      4/3 Leica D 14-150mm F3.5-5.6 has just 15 elements while Lumix G 14-140 F4-5.8 has 17 but is optically way worser and has geometric distortion and vignetting which would make Sigma and Tamron apologize and cancel release of such faulty lenses in DSLR world.
      Size difference isn’t big and weight difference between 535g and 460g is small considering Lumix has metal only in mount.

      And result isn’t same with software corrections.
      Correcting those off the charts geometric distortions in software eats resolution outside center because pixels get stretched and vignetting causes pixels in areas affected by it to be basically underexposed increasing noise and lowering DR when it’s covered up.

      • pdc

        I had a really pristine Summilux 50mm which I used with m43, but I sold it after I started using my Nokton 25mm/0.95. I think the Voigtlander is a better investment – performs as well as the Leica, has very close focusing, and is built as well as any Leica lens I’ve handled. Far too much irrational snobbery associated with the Leica brand.

    • Given that it’s a small zoom range, it is possible that it may be optically correct. That may be why the small range was chosen, when we know that going to 50 or 60 is nearer the market at the moment.

  • Miroslav

    Will G5 be announced on the same date?

    One other thing – Lucidistorte says that “lens is motorized” which probably means it has power zoom after all.

    • I think he was referring to the Pan-Leica lenses like the 45 and 25.

  • The wrong lens for me. What I desperately am waiting for is the 35-100.

  • 12-35/2.8 is really equivalent of 24-70/f5.6,
    does a f5.6 zoom really gets you going?

    • admin

      Wrong. It’s equivalent of 24-70mm f/2.8!!!! The aperture remains the same!!! What’s different is the depth of field that corrisponds to f/5.6.

      • napalm

        Agee. It has been widely discussed that f2.8 is f2.8. It’s only the DOF that will be different because that is dependent on the sensor size

        • Anonymous

          DOF is NOT primarily dependent on the sensor size!

          It depends on the focal length, aperture and focus distance. The influence of the sensor size is that you need to use a shorter focal length to achieve the same field of view.

          So, at equivalent focal lengths, the DOF of the 12-35mm is wider because it 12-35mm instead of 24-70mm. This is what people mean with DOF equivalent of FF.

          If you set both lenses to 35mm and f/2.8, you should get exactly the same DOF. But of course in that case the FF shot will have a much wider field of view than the m4/3 shot.

          There is one (minor) influence of the sensor size on the DOF of the printed output, which relates to the ‘circle of confusion’. Going from the image capture size to the final output, you need to magnify a m4/3 capture more than a FF capture. This means that sharp edges become blurred more easily, which reduces the DOF in the final output (print). So in this case, the smaller sensor means LESS DOF.

          • deleted

          • napalm

            yes of course. but we are commenting on what he said that it will become a 24-70mm f5.6 lens on m4/3. so the primary difference is sensor size based on his computation. you are arguing out of context and I do not disagree with your statement, but it is answering a different question…

          • Olympius

            Wrong. DoF is increased. A 12mm micro 4/3 lens at f/2 will always have more DoF than a 24mm full-frame lens at f/2, given the subject is an equal distance away from both camera/lenes, even though the angle of view is the same.

            Only two things are variables, the focal length of the lens(12mm vs 24mm), and the sensor size (4/3 vs full-frame). In order to get a same angle of view from a 24mm lens on a micro 4/3 body, you have to use a 12mm focal length, which results in greater DoF. But you are only using a 12mm lens to begin with BECAUSE THE SENSOR SIZE IS SMALLER.

            So, in fact, sensor size does play a role in DoF, just not the role you think it does. :-)

            – Olympius

          • Yes agree, I have commented further down.

        • DOF is a lens property not a sensor property. A 135 50mm lens shot has the same DOF when used on a 135 camera or a m43 camera. The FOV of the m43 is half that of the 135 so only the centre portion of the shot is captured but the DOF is the same. The COC is different, the M43 being half of the 135 thus giving an image an illusion of depth that is different. This is mostly not relevant as the images are downsized and seen on a screen.

      • Meier

        Wrong again… or at least not being precise: 12-35/f 2.8 has the same angle of view as a 24-70 on full frame, but – in absolute terms – only captures the same amount of light as a full frame 24-70/f5.6, meaning that the smaller sensor will always have less photons per pixel as the bigger one.
        Therefore will produce more noise at the same iso level, will allow only a lower usable maximum iso and/or the maximum possible resolution for the sensor will always be lower. Same sensor technology and lp/mm for the glass assumed, of course.

        With the same angle of view, the following is correct. In terms of:
        – shutter time: 12-35/f2.8 is equivalent to 24-70/f2.8
        – depth of field: 12-35/f2.8 is equivalent to 24-70/f5.6
        – max resolution: 12-35/f2.8 is equivalent to 24-70/f5.6
        – max usable iso: 12-35/f2.8 is equivalent to 24-70/f5.6

        So if you are into available light photography f2.8 on mft is equivalent to f5.6 on full frame. And if you are into landscape photography f2.8 is equivalent to f5.6.

        Btw, if you are stating that f2.8 is always f2.8, you will have to admit, that 12-35 is always 12-35. The focal length doesn’t change with the camera mounted either ;)

        • admin

          no no Meier! Too easy! The lens is f/2.8 and captures an amount of light that corrisponds to f/2.8! The sensor is another story! Even on the m43 sensor the pixel could be bigger than on a full frame camera. Example. Sony A77 APS-C sensor has 24 Megapixel while the E-P1 has 12 Megapixels. E-Pl1 has bigger pixels …ditto captures more photons :)

          • Zonkie

            Leaving technicalities about photons aside, in practical terms it’s more correct to say that 12-35 f/2.8 in 4/3 is equivalent to 24-70 f/5.6 in Full Frame.

            Usually when taking a picture you care about shutter speed and DoF. So for example, if you’re taking an indoor shot of people sitting at some table, you might use something like:

            – in 4/3: 1/160th, f/4, ISO 800
            – in FF: 1/160th, f/8, ISO 3200

            The shutter speed will help you avoid motion blur to an acceptable degree (let’s say people are not posing for the picture, just talking, eating, drinking…), the DoF has to be large enough to get all in focus to an acceptable degree, while ISO should be not too high to spoil the shot. So you end up with the above settings, which on both systems will give an equivalent image regarding motion blur, DoF and noise.

            f/2.8 is f/2.8, but in one hand DoF does count when taking a picture, and on the other hand noise also counts when shooting in low light, so ISO performance is also a limiting factor. In FF you can shoot f/2.8 ISO 12800 and get a usable picture. In 4/3 you can’t. You’d need f/1.4 ISO 3200 to get a usable one.

            • E-1

              Or in other words, there is NO advantage of an FF sensor if you use a faster lens (prime) compared to a FF user with a kit zoom? You only get the FF noise advantage compared to a 25/1.4 user if you also use a 50/1.4? As soon as you shoot 2.8 zooms the FF sensor has no advantage over m43 with the 25/1.4?

              An APS-C sensor has NO advantage over a m43 sensor with a 2.0 zoom when using a 2.8 zoom on the APS-C sensor?

              Never saw the equivalence argument that way, that FF and APS-C have no sensor advantage, but it makes sense!

              But thinking about it, you get me confused: If the E-M5 has better noise performance than e.g. a Canon 7D, say 1 stop, then the 7D kit lens with 3,5-5,6, lens would be a 4 – 8 equivalence lens? (or 4 – 6.7 for 1/2 stop)

              Assuming the M5 has better noise performance of 1 stop over a 5DI, a fast Canon 2.8 lens would be REALLY be a /4 constant lens on the 5DI body compared to m43?

              Frankly, to me this makes no sense.

              • Chez Wimpy

                >As soon as you shoot 2.8 zooms the FF sensor has no advantage over m43 with the 25/1.4?

                The only advantage is that the FF camera can “zoom,” which might be a slight advantage in some circumstances ;)

            • hojk

              You might add:

              800 g are in FF 3.200 g

            • All the best if a $3000 body with super high grade glass, sitting on a sturdy carbon fiber tripod out performs m43 at 2 extra stop of ISO.
              I don’t have that kind of budget to spare on photography, unfortunately.

              But this is being full frame centric to the core. :p

              Seriously, f2.8 is f2.8, 50mm is 50mm.

            • +1 to Zonkie

              In practical world, a modern FF sensor like D800 is at least 2 stops better then modern sensor of OM-D, so when you factor in the sensor difference then 24-70/F5.6 on a FF is as useable as 25\1.4 on OM-D, both on DOF and light gathering ability of sensor+lens

              Hence, if you want to talk about Equivalence to FF, then you have to take into account that both the DOF and the light gathering ability of the large sensor

              To me your paying 1200 euro for a 24-70/5.6 lens

              • cybervand

                -2…look up t-stop…that oughtta stop your stupidity…


            If they don’t get it by now, then I think they may never understand.

            f number or f-stop has always been about exposure – always. Hence the word “stop”. Unless people have forgotten why shutter speed/aperture/sensor or film speed are standardized in convenient base 2 logarithmic scale?!!!

            Back before > ASA/ISO 400 speed film was common place and adequately sharp people required fast lenses! The drive to produce fast lenses was not in search of bokeh! In fact, the excessively shallow DOF can cause more problems for the photographer than it solves!

            If you want shallow DOF, what APS-C sensor camera and zoom combo would be superior to an E-M5 with 12-35 f/2.8 or 35-100 f/2.8?

            and by that I mean 24-70mm in 35mm terms.

            I think the mistake people make is assuming that a large proportion of m43 users don’t also have or have had a full frame dslr and we choose m43 because of it’s portability.

            • tomas

              “If you want shallow DOF, what APS-C sensor camera and zoom combo would be superior to an E-M5 with 12-35 f/2.8 or 35-100 f/2.8?”

              Canon T3i with 17-55 f/2.8?
              Sony A65 with 16-50 f/2.8?
              Canon/Nikon with Sigma 50-150?

        • E-1

          Can we stop this? If you crop an image from a FF 38M sensor to 16M m43 size, then the lens changes after taking the photo? Exposure changes? The image gets darker?

          • Nice way of putting it.

        • slomo

          – max resolution: 12-35/f2.8 is equivalent to 24-70/f5.6
          – max usable iso: 12-35/f2.8 is equivalent to 24-70/f5.6

          You cannot generalize like this simply because while the definition of light of t/stop or f/stop is constant overtime, the definition of resolution and usable iso is ever changing because the sensor technology is ever changing.

          What this means is that an t/2.8 or any stop lens lighting a sensor is not going to get any more or less brighter today, 10 years ago, or 10 years in the future. No matter if that lens was produced 10 years ago or will be produced 10 years in the future, if it is the same t/2.8, it has to light the sensor with a specific amount of light.

          You cannot say the same for the sensor. To just show you what I mean, this is what a Full Frame sensor at ISO 640 looks like 10 years ago.


          Click the pic and zoom into the shadow at the base of the motorcycle.

          That is a dpreview sample that comes from an 11 megapixel Canon 1D in 2002. Would an EM-5 or a GH2 perform better in noise and resolution performance at ISO 6400? I would confidently say so. So does that mean m4/3 is 3X better than Full Frame in resolution and noise performance?

        • Meir a 2.8 is a 2.8 is a 2.8

        • Bob

          A good example of the maxim that “a little bit of knowledge is dangerous.”

        • I have no idea why these misconceptions about aperture and lens speed manage to stick around.

          A f/0.95 lens captures the same amount of light irregardless of the sensor that is stuck behind it. It’s only the depth of field that changes depending on sensor size. The amount of light doesn’t change.

      • Bob B.

        Who cares. Go take photos. Everybody… LOLO!

        • Mr. Reeee

          No shit!

          Equivalence argument’s are the Godwin’s Law (and the bane!!!) of Micro Four Thirds forums. Spare us and go gawk at some focus charts, ferchristsake!

          The real tragedy of this otherwise promising lens, is the power zoom. WTF!?!?!?!?!

          • Bob B.

            yeah…the whole PowerZoom thing. WTF? ah…its a zoom anyway…..
            I am waiting for the Oly 75mm f/1.8…er…I mean the 150mm f/3.6. LOL!

          • Gabb3r

            I think the powerzoom is primarily for videographers using the GH2 or the AF100 where crawling with the zoom becomes useful for some shots, like reframing very slowly. I personally welcome that addition if it works as advertised.

            I agree that it sucks paying for something you’ll never use but I guess Panasonic thought making 2 versions of each of these lenses would’ve hurt more than helped their sales. Time will tell if they were right.

            • Mr. Reeee

              For video zooming, I got a little Panasonic add-on handle thingie that works on my 14-140mm, , 7-14mm and 100-300mm. I guess power comes into play depending on the amount of alcohol or caffeine consumed by the operator. ;-)

            • Esa Tuunanen

              Electrically controlled zoom is sure easier for video but for stills button zoom is just either slow or inaccurate so instead of generating marketing li(n)es why they can’t make zoom system with zoom ring which in one position would engage direct mechanical linking but could be slided to different position leaving zoom mechanism connected to motor.

        • napalm

          haha you are right. for m4/3 users, all they know is having a 12-35 f2.8 lens is good! those who will be buying this lens knows what they’ll be using it for.

      • avds

        That’s right, the aperture area remains the same. Which means 12/2.8 = 24/5.6. Note the equal sign: its meaning is literal and it confirms your assertion that the aperture remains the same. And it also confirms that a 12-35/2.8 lens is equivalent to a 24-70/5.6 lens for total brightness.

        • Vlad

          What is “total brightness”? 12-35/2.8 and 24-70/5.6 may allow the same amount of total light to pass, but if you use the former on m43 and the latter on FF, at these apertures and at the same shutter speed, you won’t get the same exposure.

        • What a load of total rubbish. You start with a wrong assumption then end up with the old British word crap.

      • Stupig

        Whatever, hold on to your 2.8 is 2.8 belief. For most practical purposes, 12-35/2.8 @ ISO 200 on 4/3 is equivalent to 24-70/5.6 @ ISO 800 on 35mm.

        • Chez Wimpy

          The belief though has a defensive purpose: justifying high prices of f2.8 optics irrespective of camera format. If the 75/1.8 is a “150mm f1.8 lens”… then m43 users will have little cause to hesitate handing over $1000 for the privilege. Quite the bargain in fact. A Q system with a 50/1.8 prime suddenly becomes a “280mm f1.8 lens.” A new era of photographic possibilities! Compared to the legendary Nikkor MF-only 300/2.0, were Pentax to go and charge only a couple of grand, who could complain? The 50/1.8 is faster still. :p

          • Vlad

            For the purpose of getting the same exposure, 75/1.8 on M43 is exactly 150/1.8 on FF. So, the high price is actually justified, although, obviously, because less glass is used, it should be cheaper than the FF one.

            • Stupig

              Rated ISO is not based on equivalent SNR, but of course, with E-M5, m4/3 actually has better SNR per unit sensor area than, say, 5D3.

        • George H

          Hi Stupig,

          FF lenses projects light onto an sensor area that is 4x that of m43. While the overall amount of light is more for FF the density per mm is still the same when talking about any given aperture. f/2.8 is f/2.8. Shutter speed is the same regardless sensor size and megapixels (pixel density).

          Let’s say a FF sensor is 20Megapixels. A Micro43 camera with 5MP would have roughly the same pixel density and roughly the same performance. So at 10 Megapixels Oly cameras had roughly 1/2 the light sensitivity of the 5D2. At 16 Megapixels it’s roughly 1/3 that of the 5D2 (21.1 Megapixels).

          As for equivalence, dof changes bases on the focal length. Wide angle has less dof than the equivalent telephoto lens. So while 25mm is cropped to 50mm it is still a 25mm and exhibit the larger depth of field that is consistent with a wide angle, which is why you dof that looks like f/5.6 rather than 2.8 but it’s not actually stopped down.

          So while the lens characteristics show more depth of field the real limitation is the 1/4 surface area of the sensor. Again, if the Olympus had only 5 Megapixels there is no reason it couldn’t deliver the same performance as the 5D Mark II. The limitation is the sensor not the lens.

          • Stupig

            We look at the print, not individual pixels.


            This writeup has been around for ages and everyone who still thinks F/2.8 is F/2.8 should read it and read it again.

            • bart

              Relative aperture as used by photographers is called focal ratio by opticians. It is defined as focal length divided by aperture diameter.

              It is an indication of brightness (intensity/area) and NOT of the total amount of light passed.

              Even if that writeup had been around forr milions of years, the conclusion it leads you to is still wrong.

              F number is a physical property of the lens and totally unaffected by sensor size. The author of that write-up and you should both go learn something about optics.

            • George H

              Hi Stupig. In the article he basically says a lot of the same of what I do. Using the same lens on the different bodies the results are the same if you account for the crop factor.

              Consider two cameras, one with a sensor twice the size (four times the area) as the other. If we were to shoot the same scene with each camera from the same position, using the same lens, focal length, f-ratio, and shutter speed, crop the middle 25% of the photo from the camera with the larger sensor, then the resulting photo would be equivalent to the photo taken with the smaller sensor camera when displayed at the same size. If the sensors had the same efficiency and pixel density, then the crop from the larger sensor system would look exactly the same as the photo from the smaller sensor camera.

              We do look at the print. That doesn’t disprove anything stated previously.

    • Thomas S

      Oh no, not this equivalence story again! If you claim that “12-35/2.8 is really equivalent of 24-70/f5.6” you also have to mention that your comparison is based on the assumption that both systems use a sensor of the same generation (= same efficiency per sensor area).

      Then the 12-35/2.8 on MFT is equivalent to a 24-70/f5.6 on FF, in terms of S/N ratio (image noise), angle of view, and depth of field.

      If, on the other hand, one claims (which you have not done in this post) that a FF sensor has a 2 stops advantage over MFT regarding S/N ratio, then the Pana lens on an MFT body is equivalent to a 24-70/5.6 ONLY in terms of depth of field, and not in terms of S/N ratio (one must not take into account the “2 stops advantage” of FF twice).

      • cybervand

        by their logic, if I take my (full frame) 50mm f/1.7 carl zeiss and attaching it to my gh2, I will be getting a 100mm f/0.5??? Wha..? Yes the focal length changed but not the T-stop of the lens(which is around 1.9)….geez wake up weirdos

        • avds

          No, if you attach a 50/1.7 lens to any mount and sensor, you will still end up with a 50/1.7 lens. But it will only capture much smaller area of light on a smaller sensor due to reduction of angle of view, and so much less total light. That amount of light will be equal, for the m43 sensor, to the amount of light captured within the same shutter time period with a 100/3.4 lens on full frame.

          • Vlad

            If you use the same shutter speed, you will end up with an underexposed shot on the FF in that case. In terms of exposure f1.7=f1.7, no matter the format.
            Your terms are very confusing, by the way. What is an “area of light” or “total brightness”, for example?

          • The light captured is the same. Where do you get this rubbish. the light falling on EACH square mm of sensor is the same for a 135 or a m43. So if you had 1 candle power of light per mm reaching the sensor with a 135 sensor the M43 would get the same 1 candle power per mm, with the same lens on the same settings.

            As E1 said above if you print a 135 photo taken at 2.8 and then cut out the m43 size, does the light change? does the DOF change.

    • Pooh_bear

      The focal length multiplier does does not apply to aperture, aperture is proportional to the square root of the light admitted.

    • Justin

      Same here. That’s the lens I am most looking forward to. I thought these lenses would both release at the same time. They’ve been teasing us with them for nearly 8 months. I can only imagine how long it will take Panasonic to get one delivered to my door…

      Aside from that lens, I am quite interested in the 12-35, but it will have to be an outstanding optic to get me to use it instead of my primes at wide to medium tele lengths. I think I will hold out for the 35-100.

    • Darko

      I’m sick and tired of idiots like you.
      F 2.8 equivalent is 2.8, 1.4 is 1.4 and so on.!!!!!!

      • avds

        That’s right, 2.8 = 2.8. And 12/2.8 = 24/5.6. Pure math, you know :)

        • If this is your math, then you just got yourself a nice ‘F’.

          Hint: f-number is a ratio.


          Or, being a member of church of equivalency, stop pretending that you know math ;)

          • hehe, nice one with the church,

            I have to give it to you guys, you win, the lens is in fact a 12-35/2.8!!!

            but IN CASE YOU WANT TO COMPARE IT TO A FULL FRAME EQUIVALENT then its a 24-70/5.6 :)

        • Avds, Failed.

  • Jakob

    Why does it have to be a powerzoom? If anything why can’t they make it power and manual zoom … i really hate the feel of the “powerfocus”-things and the fact that the not so long lasting battery on my EP2 will be shortened even more is pretty sad.

    • nicwalmsley

      I like the sound of this lens, except for this one feature. Why do they do it? To make it be more like a point and shoot?

      • Probably for video, since using powerzoom will be smoother than “humanzoom” when you’re taking video.

        • Gw

          Confused as to whether people are upset by focus by wire or the prospect of a zoom lever. Power zoom doesn’t mean that there is no zoom ring, just that it electronically not mechanically coupled, so the tactile response is not exactly the same. I can live with that as long as the IQ is excellent.

      • napalm

        is it powerzoom only? i hope it’s like the Oly 12-50mm wherein you can use both manual and powerzoom

  • This will be a good kit lens for the GH-3 and probably a bargain if you buy it as that :-)

    • BLI

      What does it take to be a “bargain”? Admin’s guesstimate of €1200 is probably right, considering previous signals from Panasonic and what e.g similar Nikon and Canon lenses cost. A possible kit price can hardly add less than €7-800 to the GH-3 body price.

      • I think a 40% discount is a bargain, but then again I don´t think the lenses will cost more than €700-800 and the GH-3 will follow the E-M5 price wise

        • IMHO you are rather optimistic regarding the price of those zooms. If they are indeed optically superior to other m4/3 zooms you should compare it to the Panasonic 7-14 (currently circa €1000) and add 20-25% for materials, stabilization and sealing. €1200 is a sound estimate, I’m afraid.

          • The 7-14 is much more glass and mainly for film. You could be right, but then they will be too excpencive to generate much sale. I will stay optimistic and hope the GH-3 with 12-35 will be less than €1500 :-)

            • spam

              7-14 mainly for film? More glass? It’s F4 and have a much shorter focal length. A 12-35 might need fewer lenses, but with longer focal lengths and F2.8 they need to be much larger. I certainly hope it will be cheaper than a 7-14, but it don’t seem likely.

            • Mr. Reeee

              Which 7-14mm do you think he means?

              As far as the native Micro Four Thirds 7-14mm f4 lens goes, that’s exactly the level of quality I hope the new 12-35mm and 35-100mm lenses adhere to. Let Sigma and Tokina churn out mediocrities.

  • physica

    THE 12-35 X LENS with Black E-M5……Sexy baby @@…..

    BTW , wonder 12-35 are weather seal or not , if yes , wonder the Weather seal ability is same on par with 12-50 or not…..

    • Jesper

      According to previous rumors, these two X lenses are supposed to be weather sealed. Very likely designed to pair with GH3, which also rumored to be weather sealed.

  • Viktor

    Hopefully it wont rattle om e-m5!

  • According to the rumored specs, the 12-35 should be a perfect match to the E-M5. Pity such a kit won’t be available.

    • even better would be an Olympus version without the superfluous OIS…

    • Olympius

      Don’t worry sneye, I’m sure there will be a weather-sealed GH3 to go with those wonderful lenses, that will almost be as good as an E-M5. :-)

      – Olympius

  • Alberta

    Great news for m43 users. m43 is close to be a mature system.
    The only thing missing for me is fast (f1.8-f2) 17mm. Current 17mm f2.8 is too slow imo. Another area of improvements is the flash system: Flash Value (FV) lock, radio trigger. When these are addressed, surely it will attract more prof photogs (esp wedding photogs like me).

    • Pooh_bear

      There is an 0.95 from Cosina which is 17mm. If you dont need AF tis a beatiful lens!

    • cybervand

      @alberta….Voigtländer makes a 17.5mm lens @ F/0.95…I dont think you can get it better then that!!!

    • A 17mm summilux would be sweet

  • Henrik

    Would like you to always add for Pana lenses if they are stabilized or not. Am not a die-hard fanboy who knows that fact anyway. And even super wide angles would be much more attractive for me as a Pana body user if they were stabilized.

    • in this case the post says the 12-35 has “power OIS” which is Panasonic lingo for stabilized… which is great news because none of the other wide-ish Pany lenses are stabilized currently I think

  • Yun

    I’m more keen on 35-100mm , the lens I’m hoping for .
    G5 , thanks , no for me .

  • Any news on the Panasonic 35-100mm?

  • I just hope that the new Panasonic lenses do not exhibit the same double image/blurring problem as the other two X zooms… (crossing my fingers!)

  • It seems to take them ages to launch those lenses finally but I am really looking forward to it. I just they are weather sealed and the GH3, too.

  • N!co

    I’m kind of disappointed as I expected the lens to be faster from last rumors (2.5… remember the 14 2.5 was supposed to be 2.8). 1200€ for a F2.8 lens is too much for me, I will buy the wide angle adapter for my future 14mm (for 150€ it becomes a 11mm F2.5 lens). Anyway, it looks like a great weather-sealed lens.

  • WT21

    I really need a fast zoom, but it’s Panny X, soooo — power zoom :( IS issues :( not sharper than other kits :( and ships December 2013 :(

  • WoodWorks

    Matches the quality of the Leica lenses, eh? Yeah, and they also told us that the 14-42X and 45-175X lenses were “premium” lenses. Fool me once…

    My money stays in my wallet until this new lens has been thoroughly vetted by the early adopters. Good luck, fellas!


  • For the price, I’d rather have it faster even if it cost more. Already paying a chunk of change, make it more worth the money. You could get a bundle of primes with more speed for less money. Maybe if the pictures are great, but for available light video a faster f-stop is essential. This won’t cut it for the work I do. QQ :(

  • Z

    The Canon 24-70mm f2.8 L II USM: $2,300
    The Canon 24-70mm f2.8 L USM: $1,600
    The Nikon 24-70mm f2.8: $1,900
    The Sony 24-70mm f2.8: $2,000
    Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 (for nikon/canon): $824
    Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 (for nikon/canon): $1,300

    Now, the m4/3 version will be MUCH smaller and have smaller glass elements. That should really decrease the production cost compared to FF. However it is m4/3 and will be sold is smaller quantities, which will increase the cost.

    I really hope a price of $1,200, but I expect a price of at least $1,500.

    This will be the FIRST EVER professional zoom for any mirrorless camera. We’ll be able to quantify the price / size / quality advantages of m4/3 are real soon.

    And yeah, will need to wait for reviews for sure. Not to mention stock!

    • Jesper

      Unfortunately people tends to think smaller = cheaper. Like why buy a om-d while you can get k-5 for almost the same price etc…

      • Z

        In the case of lenses, smaller IS cheaper. A 77mm glass lens element is CONSIDERABLY more difficult (=expensive) to manufacture than a 52mm lens (just using example size). m4/3 sensor is half the size, and hence requires smaller lenses to achieve the same light intake. Of course lens elements size is just one of the factors that goes into the price equation, but it is likely a big one.

        • I would have thought that the larger the lens the easier to manage shaping and polishing. The smaller the more difficult.

          • Chez Wimpy

            If that were true, at these prices the Oly ZX-1 would be selling at a loss. m43 lenses require 1/4 the glass that an FF lens of the same aperture does. However, if you enlarge the m43 output prints to the same size as FF and expect to compete 1:1, the m43 gear will need a much higher MTF curve (higher cost relative to their material outlay).

    • Olympius

      By that logic the new Leica 50mm f/2 cron should be just $25, and not the $7,000+ it’s listed at. :-)

      – Olympius

    • No sir you..are wrong…the resolution in the smaller lens has to be higher to take into account a higher number of megapixels as the technology increases… manufacturing small glass is more complicated just like manufacturing a formula 1 car is more complex then manufacturing a mach truck

  • I do not have an DOF obsession and am relaxed about the 2.8 thing.
    About a reasonably priced G5 (like the G3 was): Just hope it has similar IQ as the Oly EM-5. Owning a G3, a GX2 with built-in EVF (better than G3) and EM-5 IQ is the camera that would make me stay in m43. Decission time for me: Photokina.

  • cosinaphile

    just to help clarify in the above discussion concerning full frame apsc
    and m 43 it was stated that motion blur would be the same for full frame vs
    m43 at a given shutter speed . that simply isnt so

    a 90 mm contax g 2.8 lens used full frame gives reasonable sharpness at about 1\90 to perhaps 1\125 sec , but that same 90mm lens used on my em-5
    because of sensor cropping of the image circle give a fov similar to
    a 180mm 2.8…..1\90 sec is not an option even with the excellent oly ibis
    for subjects sith even a little movement the backround will be sharp but any figures will have less sharpness due to motion blur …
    this weekend 1\250 sec with the 90 was not fast enuf to freeze figures moving at a slow pace at a distance of about 20 meters

    the crop factor magnifies everything including hand tremors and subject movement the shutter speed at minimium for such a lens should be about 1\400 sec

    • avds

      That’s right. One needs a better f-number to use the same shutter speed on cropped sensors. That’s because the amount of light depends on shutter speed and aperture area, while aperture area depends on focal length and f-number. If shutter speed would remain the same, BOTH focal length and f-number would need to change, not just the focal length. The larger the focal length, the larger the f-number to compensate for it. Light-capturing ability of a 90/2.8 optical system is equal to that of a 180/1.4 optical system. Whether the focal length part of that system is determined by changing the lens itself, or by cropping the sensor is irrelevant; f-number would need to be adjusted in any case (or the shutter speed changed).

      • Esa Tuunanen

        > Light-capturing ability of a 90/2.8 optical system is equal to that of a 180/1.4 optical system.
        Get your shit straight.
        Focal ratio defines brightness of image projected by lens and every lens of same focal ratio projects equally bright image.
        F/1.4 lens projects four times as bright image (sensor getting 4x amount of light in same exposure time) as f/2.8 lens regardless of focal lengths.

        Shutter speed needed for avoiding blurring caused by either camera or target movement is different thing and depends on field of view equivalent focal length/size of target in frame.

      • avds, you are one against the world. You either have a new special understanding of light transmittion that no one else has discovered yet. Or, you have got it wrong. Now which will it be?

  • If this is released with a power zoom, I will be VERY disappointed.

    Did Panasonic even do any market research before they made this lens? Most videographers don’t want power zoom, because zooming while shooting is tacky anyway (and the only time it’s not, it’s done with a $40,000 cine zoom lens that has perfectly smooth manual zoom at any speed, including speeds faster than is achievable by any power zoom). Most enthusiast photographers don’t want power zoom. The only people who want power zoom are people used to shooting on compacts.

    • spam

      Have you done any market research?

    • Olympius

      I’m an enthusiast and I want power zoom….I’d love to have that and weather sealing on all the micro 4/3 zoom lenses.

      I don’t need it for still photography, but it’s fun for video use.

      – Olympius

    • quagga

      Aye, if they release these with Power Zoom then these are DOA to me. I can’t stand them and if that is the route Panasonic is taking in the future, well, there’s always Olympus.

  • safaridon

    Why are so many FF proponents camping out on this 43 rumors forum anytime discussion of any fast m4/3 zoom or prime lens is discussed and bring up the same old DOF arguments again and again? Are they afraid that their FF systems or lenses are somehow being threatened?

    The rumor said that the G5 would also be released May 21, 2012? I don’t recall any previous rumor giving a timetable for the G5? Although that is likely, why haven’t we heard any more about the G5 specs by now or how it will compare with the E-M5?

    • > Are they afraid that their FF systems or lenses are somehow being threatened?

      It seems owning FF stopped being cool. People are disoriented.

      > Although that is likely, why haven’t we heard any more about the G5 specs by now or how it will compare with the E-M5?

      +1. The silence is suspicious. But likewise, neither have we any FT5 GH3 rumors yet. Probably Panny is stricter now whom it give the prototypes to test and thus less/no leaks.

      But honestly I do not expect any miracle. G5 is likely to have the same, probably slightly tweaked sensor from G3.

      To me the main question is about the finer details – and those are generally overlooked and rarely leaked. I have to wait for official spec sheet anyway. :(

      • Dummy00001.
        What is FF? is it 120 is it 135 is it 4/3 is it 8″x10″?
        When SLRs were produced first they were 35mm not FF, the term did not exist.
        It has a current meaning to put down any sensor size that is less than 135 size.
        Just refer to it as 135.

        • Yeah, but the term exists now and when you say FF everybody knows what you mean, so why pretend they don’t? There will always be people who think FF is better and they will keep thinking it no matter what you call it. Personally, I’m happy for them to carry their bricks. Bricks take lovely pix. I’m very happy that I don’t have to lug one around though.

          • BrewHaHa

            In a way, you might say that 24x36mm was, in effect, anointed as “Full Frame” when the term “Half Frame” was coined for 18x24mm cameras.

  • Narretz

    power zoom? That is news to me. Well hopefully, they have both options included.

  • 12-60 would be better, and 50-200… :-)

    • Z

      Agreed, a 12-60mm f4 would be VERY welcome.
      Would possibly even be smaller and for sure cheaper than the 12-35mm f2.8.

      • Lez

        Agree! Telephoto with 50-200 optical quality would be very welcome!

    • I just want my 12-60 to work on the e-m5.

  • Pat

    please please PLEASE no powerzoom.

    • Perty

      The power zoom works great. Seriously if you want to zoom manually then don’t use it. Problem solved

      • uiti

        Some says they like linear zoom ring. Power zoom may not offer linear operation.

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.