(FT5) Product image of the new Panasonic 35-100mm lens!


Digicaminfo now also posted the image of the final 35-100mm X product version of the lens (we saw many prototype pics before). Specs didn’t change. Constant f/2.8 aperture, 0,85m minimum focusing distance and 58mm filter diameter.

  • Mara

    Just lol.

  • Andrew

    How do they make it as such a reasonable size, it looks smaller than the 45-200! Hopefully its $1000 but probably wishful thinking and more like $1500

    • Daemonius

      How? Well, they used a loads of FW tweaks as in case of 12-35mm f2.8. Making small lens when you can fix vignetting, CA and especially distortion in lens FW, is much much easier than if it needs to be done just by glass itself.


      Here its pretty much how it works. 12-35mm f2.8 is something like 50:50 glass vs software (well, lens firmware :D).

    • Riki

      Well the
      12-35 is 1300
      Nikon 24-70 is 1900 (600 discount)
      Canon 24-70 is 2300 (1000 discount)

      Canon 70-200 is 2200
      nikon 70-200 is 2400

      so expect between 1200 and 1800

      • Sqweezy

        …Average that out and you’ve got $1,500.

        Awfully expensive for my budget, but hopefully the quality is there! It would make a great combo to have both the 12-35 and 35-100.

        Looks like I better start saving up…

      • rer

        The 12-35 gives the same DOF as an F5.6 lens on FF the real competition of the 12-35 are APS lenses like the Canon 17-55 $1060.

        And again the 35-100F2.8 gives the same DOF as an F.6 FF lens such
        Canon 70-200F4 { still has better DOF control than the 35-100 priced at $1100.In fact if you can live without IS { as I shoot living moving subjects I could care less about IS]the canon 70-200F4 can be had for under $700

        You mFT guys need a reality check mFT is a great little system if you dont want to get the very best results. And a major boon for the geriatric and disabled girlie boy market lol


        • Ah, I didn’t knew…

        • Bart

          135 format isn’t going to get you the ‘best results’ either, larger formats exist for a reason.

          People who think it is about best results are just fooling themselves, it is about good enough results, and what is ‘good enough’ is different based on the person you ask, and the application you are looking at.

          When you are targeting a 10x15cm print made from some picture made in decent light, there is hardly any improvement in quality possible above what a good small-sensor compact can offer, and a 135 format DSLR or a decent compact will both offer good enough quality.

          When you are targeting a 4×3 meter ‘print’, things are rather different, and if it can be looked at from nearby, that 135 format full-frame camera won’t be able to provide good enough quality, but, if people can only look at it from a distance, this changes again, and that 135 format camera may well do the job, as might a m4/3 camera.

          All those different formats are a compromise,have a significant amount of overlap, and most resulting compromises have their own niches in which they excel.

          Saying that whichever smaller format can never get the quality of whichever larger format is technically true often, but often totally irrelevant. The same kind of argument was used for many decades to justify calling 135 format ‘non professional’ (yes, that is what some now call full frame).

          • Jankoff

            I really don’t understand concepts like “targeting a 10x15cm print”.
            I am 58 and for serious observation of camera images I use my Panasonic 50-inch G20 plasma. I NEVER use prints, whatever size. My reasonable-quality 26-inch and 24-inch PC screens do not meet my expectations. The only people I know who watch pictures in the “10x15cm print” format are my mother and my my mother-in-law – they are both 78. :-)

            • Bart

              The point is, whatever size a picture is presented with, as well as the viewing distance, are relevant factors for depth of field, as is the amount of magnification needed to achieve that size.

              Smaller presentation size (smaller screen in your case) and same viewing distance will cause more of the picture to look ‘in focus’, and hence give larger perceived DOF.

              Same presentation size but viewed from further away will also cause more of the picture to look ‘in focus’ and hence gives larger perceived DOF.

              And where did the 10×15 prints come into the story? Almost every ‘simple’ DOF calculator uses those as the target presentation size, and if you happen to be presenting the picture with a different size then that, or use a different viewing distance then assumed by such calculators, they will give wrong results.

          • efef

            @Bart The reality is that for many applications FF does give the best results. There are no ultra wide MF lenses so A Nikon D800 with 14-24mm will give you far more range, nor are there any long telephoto lenses so FF wins again. Beyond base ISO the performance of MF cameras is pretty poor compared to FF. Zoom lenses are in short supply and typically very slow losing any advantage they had in the first place, with regard to “fast” lenses beyond a standard lens { 80-100mm } range there are no fast lenses at all .

            The sensors in MF digital are not as large as their film equivalent, for example the sensor size in the Hasselblad H5D has a sensor area only twice that of a 35mm frame { or aprox 1 stop} as opposed to the four times difference between the area of a mFT sensor and FF. Obviously within a niche of controlled lighting { studio } or low ISO tripod bases landscape work they deliver stunning results but considering the price of entry this niche is very small.

            • McBob


              The point of MFT isn’t to get the shallowest DOF possible in a picture; it’s to get the most camera on your person to where it needs to be quicker. Toting a body and 3 lenses of equivalent length and speed is a far, far easier proposition on MFT than FF. Wielding a MFT camera with a long lens is not nearly as godawful intrusive to, say, a surrounding crowd. If you get where the shot is, you’re going to take a far, far better photo than the guy that’s still huffing and puffing his FF kit up the trail.

              Exposure is still exactly the same on MFT and FF at a given ISO and f-stop, and you can get a useable depth without having to revert to tiny, dark little apertures. Consider something like the 17.5/0.95 which is dismissed as “only as shallow as a FF 35/1.8” or whatever… but consider that lens is still f0.95 speed, and you’re getting a USEABLE 35/1.8 equivalent depth. This is not a negative, IMO.

              MFT has UWA lenses… good UWA lenses. MFT has long lenses (everybody else’s medium lenses). MFT has REALLY long lenses (everybody else’s long lenses). MFT has RIDICULOUSLY long lenses (everybody else’s really long lenses). When was the last time anyone priced a 160-400/2.8 lens for full frame, much less one that was easily totable?

              Sure, FF is better for some things, but it’s not better for everything. See any tool for what it can do, not what other tools can do.

            • Bart

              Selection of lenses for medium format is less then for some 135 format systems indeed, and they are also expensive.

              But financial barrier to entry isn’t the big issue with medium format, and to understand this, you just have to look back a bit in time.

              A 120 format film camera costs what?
              An equivalent 135 format film camera costs what?

              Which of the 2 is more practical in everyday use?
              Which of the 2 is more likely to find its way in your bag everyday?
              Which of the 2 is more economic to use on the long term?

              The only remaining question is if the smaller format can provide the required quality, in all other relevant aspects it always wins. This has been known by keen photographers for the last 50+ years, but it took another few decades before conservative ‘pros’ finally started to understand this. Theoretical advantages are totally irrelevant until you can turn them into a practical, real-world advantage.

              The lack of a substantial range of affordable lenses and other accessories for such systems is a consequence of its impracticality, and not the cause of it. In the days that medium format was still very popular, affordable accessories were readily available.

              But but but DOF control!

              The obsession with too shallow DOF has everything to do with ‘film look’. Back in the days the cause was simply that film wasn’t fast enough, and that often leaves you with a choice between motion blur or too shallow DOF. The later is usually preferable over the first, but neither options result in a picture that is as good as it could have been.

              DOF control is absolutely useful, but if you are doing portraits for example (one of the prime uses for shallow DOF) and you don’t have enough DOF to at least get the face from tip of the nose to tip of the ears in reasonable focus, the result isn’t very good usually. A 4/3″ system with something like a 45/2.0 lens already provides enough DOF control for that, and at a very nice field of view. That a 135 format camera with a 85/1.8 would provide more DOF control and a similar field of view is totally correct, but for the very large majority of applications it is also totally irrelevant and doesn’t result in better pictures.

              135 format will go the way of 120 format, a niche format that is very desirable for certain applications, and doesn’t provide much of an advantage outside its niche. That is a simple continuation of how medium sizes and cameras have been developing since the very first photograph.

        • Mike H

          “Best” and “worst” are inherently subjective terms, depending entirely on a set of criteria that might not be the same for every person. If by “best” results, your only apparent set of criteria is getting the shallowest depth of field possible, it takes quite a bit of arrogance to assume that that is the only criteria that should matter for everyone else on the planet.

          I’m an AF100 user, and chose m4/3 because it offers a little more flexibility in getting the results I want than Super35, and definitely more than FF. I cringe at trying to do a lot of what I do on a FF camera… I don’t need or want every shot to have 1/4th of an inch depth of field.

        • Daemonius

          Actually that DOF comparsion is close, but not entirely true. Its used as “looks like” but in reality, DOF isnt always same as f-stop or focal length would say.

          If someone ever used for example old 35-100mm f2 from Olympus (4/3) then they probably know that DOF isnt like 70-200mm f4, but more like 70-200mm f2.8 (f3-ish max).

          And otherwise in case of wide-angle lens its actually advantage. If you have 12mm lens, you need just to stop to f5.6 or f8 and you have sharp pretty much everything, where you would need f11 or f16 at FF. And obviously tripod.

          For DOF junkies there are f0.95 lens aswell as for example 50mm f0.95 or 50mm f1.1, which really have only tiny bit of DOF.

          Only thing in which m4/3 doesnt shine is “look” (small sensor is still small) and DR/SNR (but thats improved a lot lately with GX1 and OM-D).

          • efef

            f someone ever used for example old 35-100mm f2 from Olympus (4/3) then they probably know that DOF isnt like 70-200mm f4, but more like 70-200mm f2.8 (f3-ish max).”

            The DOF of an F2 lens on mFT is exactly the same as an F4 lens on FF this is simple physics

            • Bob

              It may be “simple physics”, but in fact it’s wrong, and not really that simple. DOF is a subjective effect, not an absolute, based on CoC, image magnification, viewing distance, as well as sensor size, resolution (because it affects final magnification, and physical aperture size (not f-stop). Image magnification is the key in this case. You need to enlarge an image from an m43 sensor more than one from a FF sensor, which reduces DOF. So in photographs, an m43 shot at f 2.8 will have less DOF than an equivalent FF shot at f 5.6. Really. It’s been tested and proven. There’s a thread, with photos, somewhere on DPR, but you’ll probably never be able to find it.

              So, instead of repeating dogma, actually take some shots with a m43 camera and a FF camera from the same location relative to the subject, with lenses that have the same effective FOV, and enlarge those images to the same final image size. You will be surprised to find that DOF is not identical when the m43 lens is open two stops more than the FF lens.

            • Bart

              No that is not simple physics, that is incomplete physics as it ignores many relevant aspects of what makes DOF.

              DOF is about what someone looking at a picture at the intended presentation size, and from the intended viewing distance, will regard to be ‘in focus’ and ‘not in focus’. Relevant factors in this are aperture size (diameter, not f-stop), subject distance, presentation size, viewing distance, and magnification required to arrive at that presentation size. Additionally, DOF is a matter of perception, and somewhat depends on the viewer. It also somewhat depends on the peak sharpness of the picture (look up ‘diffusion of focus’ for some nice historic confusion caused by the effect of reducing sharpness on perceived DOF).

          • FBB

            A 24mm lens on FF set at F8 gives you a DOF from under four feet to infinity. And as for needing a tripod that would only apply in low light

            The large heavy expensive 0.95 matches the DOF of a FF f1.9 lens f1.8 50mm lenses such as the Nikon 50mm F1.8g are both inexpensive and very good performers

            Yes the dof of an F2 mFT lens is exactly the same as an F4 FF lens simple physics

        • Bob

          I wish someone could create a filter than automatically deleted any post, in any forum, that wants to talk about “equivalence.”

          I tend to prefer more DOF over less for a lot of my shots, so being able to get a relatively fast f 2.8 aperture AND good DOF is a boon to me.

          Since razor thin DOF is your ne plus ultra, I assume you only shoot FF, since APS-C is terribly limited in that regard, too, compared to FF.

        • lol

          Just because of DOF it’s not the very best result? Sure sensor size plays a role but DOF isn’t everything in photography. What would you do with your DOF if you’re crappy at composition, eh?

          For what it’s worth, this lens has all the light gathering prowess of any 2.8 lens.

  • sickasaids

    can’t wait

  • Meedja

    I don’t know for how long this video stays online but it seems that Panasonic prematurely published GH3 promo video:


    I love that camera! :)

  • TempTag

    Sigh, I know I am being crazy but would love to see distance scale and aperature like my favorite 25mm 4/3 panny/Leica – so appreciate aperture control on lens and I believe some are willing to pay more for it. (I know I am)

    • That video is good at inspiring you to pick up the camera.

  • sight

    If the total length of this lens change under different focal length, I will be disappointed.

  • vincent

    i wish it is an internal zoom lens

  • Alex

    According to Photozone test, 12-35 is disappointing. It’s a good lens but not great as expected. The edge and corner is so poor.


    I hope that this 35-100/2.8 will be a stellar tele-zoom lens eventually.

    • Freddd

      Hi Alex , yes the lens is not as stellar as I had hoped, though I am pretty happy with it. I think the problem is that too many fanboys are making wild claims about some of the lenses that are simply not true especially if you peek at the non corrected results, the 12mm, and 25mm are good examples of this. As for the likes of the 75mm now that is a great lens but $1000 { if you want a hood } is pretty hefty the Nikon 85mm F1.8G on APS gives excellent results with a somewhat more portrait friendly 127mm FF equiv and it is less than half the price with a hood lol.

  • ColinH

    Hopefully there won’t be as long a wait from them announcing it to it being available as there was with the 12-35mm. I’ve a trip to China at the end of November and would really like to pick one up either in the UK or, preferably, in Hong Kong.

    I use my 70-200mm Canon a lot! Don’t want to take a FF body just for the 70-200.

    – Colin

    • Brian

      Me too.

      This 35-100 is my priority. If it’s really a nice lens (hopefully), then I will put my Nikon’s 70-200VR (which is awfully heavy) on Ebay!!!!

  • Douglas Grillo

    The rubber focus ring of my Lumix 14-140mm go loose, really bad quality for such expensive zoom lens, hope this never happen with this newer lenses.

  • stevep

    can anyone give me some advice on whether this lens and gh3 will be useful for sports photography? similar to a99 70-200 combo or similar efforts from canon and nikon? I see 6fps burst for raw stills is the same but ive read the cd autofocus isnt up to par for lower light autofocus needs like a nighttime high school football game or indoor basketball. also since it is 70-200 equiv does that mean its reach is as far as well? im well versed in video features and love the gh2 for them i just hope i can use gh3 for sports stills as well.

    • Bob

      No one who knows anything about the AF capability of the GH3 is allowed to speak about it. Anyone who speaks about it, really doesn’t know.

  • efef

    I cannot comment on the GH3 but the c-af and tracking on my GH2 are poor for sport compared to advanced SLR cameras

  • FBB


  • stevep

    thanks guys

  • mackie

    i think this will be more expensive than the 12-35

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.