Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 X lens officially announced!


As you know DSLRmagazine (Click here) tonight posted the first review 12-35mm X lens review. This post where I will sum all links and test I can found on the web!

UPDATE: You can preorder the lens at Amazon (Click here)
The japanese shop Kitamura will ship the lens on June 21th.

Most interesting info:
It has Power OIS but no Powerzoom. Costs 1100 Euro or 999 pounds and be avilable in June. It’s almost half the price of a comparable FF lens like the Nikon 24-70mm (Click here). Dpreview writes: “This impression of a quality product is reinforced by the wonderfully-smooth zoom ring action, that rivals Canon and Nikon’s top-end lenses for its silkiness of operation.

Full review at Photographyblog.
Image samples at Dpreview.
Image samples at DCresource.
Review at ePhotozine: “Performance-wise, this lens delivers sharp, contrasty images with low CA and distortion, which should be expected of a pro-spec zoom.
Hands-on review at Dpreview.
Hands-on pics at (Rumania)

Press release
Photographyblog, Photoscala (German), Focus Numerique (french). A super presentation page at Panasonic.



Will you buy the lens?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
  • Beautiful!

  • Charlie


    Need some preorder links, Admin!

    • Bob B.

      What? It wasn’t in the box with your OM??????

  • Samuel Sihombing

    Looking forward for more image result…

  • Bimbo

    Excerpt from the DPReview preview, “The 12-35mm F2.8 is tiny for a fast constant aperture zoom, but it’s worth noting that this comes at the cost of depth of field control compared to similar lenses for larger formats. In terms of DOF and background blur, the lens behaves like a 16-45mm F3.5 lens for APS-C, or a 24-70mm F5.6 lens for full frame cameras. This isn’t a bad thing per se; it’s simply the compromise you make to gain the extra portability.”

    Should be added to all lens articles as a pre-emptive strike to end all DOF/equivalence arguments.

    • Gjim

      This lens is not good for those who want to occasionally achieve shallow dof, I mean f5.6 for a $1,200 lens? LOL! I remember people saying m43 was all about smaller and cheaper lenses. If you’re a m43 user and you’re interested in shallow dof you’d be happier sticking to the m43 primes. Or move on to another format.

      • Ok, off you go and leave us alone.

      • George H

        What you wrote doesn’t make any sense. You buy a kit based on the type of photography want to do. For those that only occasionally need shallow dof then m43 is fine because there are ways to achieve the same effect. For those that need shallow dof regularly then clearly m43 is not the right system for them. But of course they would have understood that before picking the system to begin with and it has nothing to do with this lens.

        I shoot with the 5D2 and recently just bought E-M5. I seem to be seeing a lot of chatter re: FF superiority over m43. While there are clearly advantages what people often fail to mention is that on FF most glass isn’t that sharp wide open. I have the 24/1.4L II and it’s passable at f/1.4 but you need to be at f/2. Having used the 50mm’s like 1.2LII and 1.4 they’re passable wide open but need to be stopped down. The PL has equivalency of f/2.8 but I wouldn’t hesitate to use it wide open. So f/2 vs f/2.8 is only one stop. I never liked the 24-70/2.8 L wide open. I’m sure that’s one of the reasons they replaced with the Mark II which BTWcost twice as much as this Panny. The 24-105mm was fine wide open but at wide angle the barrel distortion make it almost useless for video so that was a no-go though it was sharp for stills.

        Each system has its advantages. If Olympus / Panasonic continue to deliver glass that’s sharp wide open I don’t think the disadvantages are as great as many people think. The gap really is one gap depending on the glass.

        The combo I shoot with most is my 5D2 and Zuiko 50mm/1.2, usually at f/2.

      • Bob B.

        Hate to tell you Gjim ….in all formats the “zooms” ALWAYS have more depth of field than the format’s available fast primes.
        I will not be buying this new Panny lens, but it certainly does have a lot of pluses!

        • Gjim

          Bob, I agree with you. There is a definite need for this lens. But in one aspect, that of shallow dof, which is a tool a lot of people tend to enjoy having, this lens is relatively useless. It’s more like f5.6 on full frame. If the rumored full frame Nikon d600 really does come in at $1,500, you’ll be able to get and the image stabilized Tamron 24-70 f2.8 for not much more than the price of this and a GH3. And when you want 2.8 dof you’ll have it. There are advantages to m43, it’s a great system, but for someone like me who enjoys having the option of being able to use shallow dof, it’s best to stick with the primes. You could get the 14mm 2.5 ($165), 25mm 1.4 ($500), and 45mm 1.8 ($375) for less than the price of this lens. And to me, that makes a lot more sense. You have far more flexibility in terms of dof. But for those with the money and who need the weather sealing and better build quality, I guess this lens is a good option. But for me, I think the fast primes are the way to go. Or, step up to full frame.

          • Steve

            This sounds like something from one of the sensor nuts. It’s a 2.8 lens. Most people aren’t using that all that often specifically to get shallow DOF, they are using the wide aperture for faster shutter speeds, more light gathering capability. DOF is usually lower on the list of reasons why someone would want a fast lens.

            I’m not sure why a Tamron lens is even mentioned in the course of this discussion. Sight unseen I can tell you this lens is of a much, much higher quality than anything Tamron produces.

            “Or, step up to full frame.”

            Unless it’s Leica, it’s a step down for what I want to do with my photography. I like the ‘crop factor’ when I shoot sports, I like the very lightweight kit I can tote around. There isn’t a FF camera that can do both of those things at all.

            • Gjim

              This will be a nice lens no doubt. But based on early reports I think the Tamron will be it’s equal. And yes, photography is all about compromises. So quit getting upset when people point out a hard truth about this new lens- it’s equivalent to f5.6 in 35mm terms when it comes to dof. For most people, that’s not good.

              • uiti

                For me, Shutter speed is more important than DOF. Equivalent to f5.6 in 35mm terms is OK. I know that M4/3 is just M4/3.

                Just I hate boring loops.
                Some say This is equivalent to f5.6 in 35mm terms, bra bra,
                Some say you can go full frame against equivalent to f5.6.

                This argument is no worthy, because you can’t change 4/3 size as system. Please say to Olympus to make F1.4 constant zoom.
                F1.4 zoom make you happy!!!

              • Gjim,
                “For most people, that’s not good”.
                I don’t think you realise how few care about having a DOF that you can shave with. Just look at the ugliness of some test shots taken by reviewers to show DOF. They are not photos they are exercises.
                As George H pointed out most 35mm lenses have to be stopped down to get sharpness and are weak at the edges. Oly and pany lenses are pretty good wide open. The alternative for 35mm is lots and lots of $$$.

        • Bob B.

          You can’t have it all. If I want ultimate DOF I use my 5D Mark II with an 85mm f/1.2L. It’s a monster. I certainly will not use a f/2.8 zoom even on my full-frame, the results are incredible, but the thing is a beast!!! When I want to travel light I use my MFT equipment. For low DOF I use a prime…f/1.8, f/1.4, Hell…you can get all the way down to a f/.095 with the Voigtlander. And with some skillful approach to your subject matter, you can get some damn nice low DOF out of a MFT camera. No DOUBT! I NEVER reach for ANY zoom for low DOF. NEVER. In any format. Photography is a compromise, ALWAYS.
          As far as I am concerned the MFT format has brought a lot to image making if you consider it from a broad range (all formats) outlook. MFT give us an incredible, small lightweight system. Incredible. But a zoom lens that does EVERYTHING is a pipe dream. Will never happen. Its just physics. Oh…and then they want it for $300.
          I think Pany has a real winner here and this lens DEFINITELY pushes MFT in a VERY forward direction!!!!!

          • Joe

            This is exactly how I see it as well. Up till now, I don’t see myself shooting with m43, cause even though the primes are nice, the equ. DOF is not what I want. I have been waiting for this zoom and its brother, the 35-100, for a while. Zoom is for the convenience sake. The whole m43 system is for the convenience sake as well. With the recent fast AF and decent IQ (mostly DR, I don’t care too much about the noise performance), these two upcoming zoom lenses really entice me. I’m planning my purchase, waiting to see what Pana is going to offer.

            • Bob B.

              I look at MFT as a system to “compliment” my FF system. It is an awesome complement, AND its getting to the point with the improvement of lenses and sensors…that every once in a while I look at the image from my MFT and think…Whoa…this is going to bump-off my full frame! The system is getting quite meaty….

              • mooboy

                Agree – I keep looking at my Nikon FF system now and wonder what arguments are for keeping it. It’s getting less and less.

      • tooning

        What a joke ! 1100 euros for this kind of zoom … at f2.8 on m43 byebye shallow dof … Finally the aps-c sensors always wins in compromise of ratio quality/size/price between m43 and FF systems .

        Like the 800USD for the m.zuiko 75 1.8 to co:pare to the 500USD for an amazing Nikon 85 1.8 G…

        M43 is a strange compromise , we have to pay so much more for a little gain in portability/weight and a significant loss in term of image quality (control of DOF , dynamic range (blown highlights) , high iso etc…

        • Steve

          DOF, that’s it? When did DOF become so important to everyone? Most of the time when people talk DOF control they want MORE DOF. But in the last few years it’s all about ‘bokeh’ and super shallow DOF.

          Lenses with fast apertures and thus more light gathering ability + not having to compromise with razor thin DOF = win/win.

          • Will

            Steve I agree, but it takes a few years of doing photography to realise this, I went through the thin DoF stage, now I am slightly jealous when my friend sends me a picture taken by their P&S and eeeeeverything is in focus.

            Razor thin DoF has it’s place, artistically, but it’s way overdone, it’s like street photography, 95% of it is crap, but 5% is great.

            Anyway, he’s a troll.

          • Mr. Reeee

            DoF is about the only argument that’s left for pooh-poohing M4/3.

            As has been repeated over and over…
            If I want shallow DoF, I’m NOT going to grab a zoom. I’ll use a fast prime. Definitely NOT a zoom.

            • tooning

              So you can buy a P&S like your friends , or maybe just close your aperture for get all in focus and learn how work the hyperfocal distance for exemple …

              • tooning

                “Mr. Reeee
                4 hours ago | Reply.
                DoF is about the only argument that’s left for pooh-poohing M4/3.
                As has been repeated over and over…
                If I want shallow DoF, I’m NOT going to grab a zoom. I’ll use a fast prime. Definitely NOT a zoom.”

                Interesting , so the tele-zoom like all the 70-200 f2.8 can’t provide shallow DOF …

                ahah …

            • mahler

              It isn’t even an argument. It is an obsession for shallow DOF.

              Honestly, I have seen more images, which were bad, that did not have enough DOF, than images. which weren’t good because not enough shallow DOF.

      • Jay

        I have already seen this being mentioned on several sites. Yes, this f2.8 lens gathers just as much lights as an f2.8 lens for full frame cameras but in terms of depth of field, it works like an f5.6 lens.

        I think it is time we start recognizing m43 and APSC as legitimate formats and stop comparing them to full frame. When a new full frame f2.8 lens is announced, nobody says that this f2.8 lens is equivalent of f4 for a medium format camera. Same should apply to m43 and APSC lenses.

        The fact is, for most people, full frame DSLRs with their f2.8 zoom lenses are just too big and heavy for everyday use. As for the lack of really shallow depth of field, you really notice it only if you shot with both m43 and full frame side by side.

        • What’s a FF? Do you mean a 120, a 135, 8″ x 10″, a 4/3, a APSC, a whatever.
          If you mean to assign ‘FF’ to a format use the format name.

      • Gabriel

        You’re making it sound as if it genuinely had that aperture. It doesn’t. Its aperture is 2.8 — and that’s what you’re paying for (in addition to weather sealing, image stabilization, etc).

        It’s true that its depth of field is equivalent to what a f5.6 full-frame lens, but people buying this probably have an interest in wide angle pictures (where typically everything is in focus) and having a good low-light lens that they can carry everywhere. You’re right, primes like the 25mm 1.4 are better suited for low depth of field, but don’t make this come off like a ripoff because it doesn’t fulfill one specific purpose.

      • mahler

        It was never about cheaper lenses, just about smaller and lighter.

        There are many people, who wait for high quality in m4/3, which would also accept a price, which the competition has for an equivalent lens. Somif you don’t have the money, don’t argue against it, just get a lower quality zoom for a lower price. That’s it,it should be very easy.

    • So???
      If you want razor thin to shave with go to the supermarket. I personally don’t want to see half an acorn on a big indecipherable smudge as a photo. I want to see all the acorn on a big smudge that it is possible to see what it was.

      • Miroslav


        I don’t care about thin DOF. I care about low light performance. And with E-M5 this lens is equal to mighty 14-35 F2 on E-5.

        If one wants a thin DOF, put a fast prime or zoom a bit with this one, there’ll be plenty of it.

        • One aspect of the larger sensor cameras that many users gloss over: what if they want to get greater depth of field in low light? How is a “FF” sensor camera with an 85/F1.8 going to handle a candle lit party without losing all context? They have to use a flash…….which goes down really well at a candle lit party. Been to a few of those, it’s really funny to watch everyone try to avoid the hired gun with his big bag and blinding flash.

          • Simon

            Nonsense. Full frame cameras take cleaner shots at the same ISO values. They have the *option* of increasing the ISO by two stops (to get equal DoF) and retaining similar image quality to the 4/3 setup.

            For maximum quality and flexibility, full frame is simply better. However, 4/3 can be smaller, lighter and cheaper, which may make it a better choice for most.

            • Vlad

              If the m43 or APS-C shot for that matter is clean, what’s the advantage of the FF then? For many purposes there simply isn’t. Being smaller and lighter is part of the flexibility concept.

              • Simon

                I meant flexibility in a technical sense: the range of shooting situations and requirements that you can cover with the equipment.

                Certainly, if m4/3 is good enough for your purposes then the incremental quality and flexibility may not be worth the potential bulk and cost. I’m a m4/3 (4/3 before) user and it serves my purposes just fine. I don’t think I will own a full frame digital camera soon, or even ever.

            • Agent00soul

              A 5D mk II isn’t any cleaner than the E-M5 at THE SAME ISO, and much worse at two stops higher ISO. Just go check the samples at DPreview or The Imaging Resource.

              • Simon

                To see what a sensor can do, I tend to trust DxOmark (the graphs, not the final scores). Unfortunately, the E-M5 is not available yet, but you can compare the GX1 with the Canon 5Dmk3 and you’ll see that there’s approximately 2 stops difference across the board. See where I have included the Nikon D4 as a camera that does even better.

                From the samples, it seems that the E-M5 may do slightly better than the GX1, but I suspect it won’t step too far out of the usual pattern. Perhaps it’ll be 2 stops from the D4 – and that would be great news.

                • Agent00soul

                  Your attitude reminds me of the old military joke:
                  “If the map and the terrain don’t match, it’s the map that’s correct.”

                  • I like that. It’s in my one liner page now.

                • Will

                  Simon simon simon, that used to be true but now with m43 you have clean high ISO, getting ISO1600 and even 3200 clean from the EM5 means there’s not nearly as much advantage to the high ISO of FF.

                  FF is a much larger investment, people don’t just buy the next FF camera always, a lot of people will stick with the 5dmkii which has similar ISO sensitivities, and, the need to go to ISO 6400 and above is quite small anyway. It once was a big plus for the FF crowd but now with clean ISO 1600 and at a push 3200 it’s not the nail in the coffin like it used to be.

                  Technology favours m43 over FF, not that it will ever outdo FF but the gap will get smaller and smaller.

                  • Simon

                    My point is that the ISO performance gap between current-generation cameras will not become smaller. In fact, as you approach the shot noise limit it will tend to become 2 stops exactly.

                    However, the *importance* of those two stops will decrease as m4/3 becomes good enough for an increasing number of people. That, and the fact that a m4/3 system will typically be smaller and cheaper. m4/3 is good enough for me, and probably many others as well. I think we agree on that last statement.

                • Simon, I have photos of people, places and things on my wall at home. Do you have DoX test charts in A3 and bigger format, displayed where everyone can see them or do you have small secretive prints of the tests that you take out an drool over?

  • Gjim

    This lens is gonna be pretty much the same price as the new Tamron 24-70 2.8, which is also image stabilized.

    • Yes, and the pany fits in a pocket. Which do you want round your neck for a day out.
      I use some old Tamron glass, its good but much is not carry around (the 70-210 ah19 is superb glass, but needs a half year of training to carry it around). I am looking forward to Tamron making m43 glass, as long as its not their 35mm with a m43 mount.

      • bidou

        It fits in your pocket if you remove the camera body at the end of it.

        • Ok. But I was talking about the lens.

  • Camaman

    DPRs comment is really fair. Now people will understand better and come to accept m43 even more

  • Floyd

    Rubberized zoom ring ? Not fan of that, it can get dirty very quickly.

    • It DOES get dirty, the 14-42 rubberized area is a magnet for dust. On the other hand, i’d rather have rubberized grip than no grip at all…

  • Mark

    I wouldn’t buy this lens, whilst I really like m43 there are some lenses that just make more sense on my 7D. The Canon 17-55 f2.8 was only £750, and a decent UWA can be bought for half of pannys 7-14. It almost works out cheaper to own 2 systems.

    • Thats common sense, It won’t fit a 7D?

    • George H

      The 17-55mm is around $1100 in the US.

      • George H

        Hit return too fast.

        My point was the 17-55mm started at $1900 but now goes for $1099. On the UK Amazon store it £1209.99 and now is £769.95. Comparing list price for a new lens vs current price for an old lens is kind of silly.

        Eventually the 12-35mm will drop in price. What is important is performance. I’m not saying the 12-35mm is cheap. I need to save in order to buy it but you should at least compare in context.

    • Vlad

      What is that “decent” UWA for APS-C that goes as wide as the 7-14 and costs half the price? And what is “decent”? Even the unimpressive Sigma 10-20 is not half the price. You can buy a “decent” Olympus 9-18 too, you know.

      • Brod1er

        The Panny 7-14 is way better than any Canon WA. It is one of the best WA lenses available.

  • Brian

    Any G5 news today?

    • admin

      no, but the G5 will arrive soon don’t worry!

      • Yes, we need info quickly, the E-m5 has taken up a quarter of a year and the cousin needs a run now.

  • Simon

    Looks like a very nice lens, but the RRP is a little steep at 1100 euro/1000 GBP. Then again, all of Panasonic’s premium products are (initially) priced high.

    Of course many will think the price is fair because full frame 24-70 f/2.8 lenses cost the same. Well, yes and no. The full frame lenses offer more flexibility (DoF, low noise in low light) and are likely more costly to produce (as they need to be larger). In fact, you could (theoretically) scale down a 24-70mm f/2.8 by a factor 2 in all directions and get a m4/3 12-35mm f/2.8 lens. On the other hand, this *is* a compact high-performance lens and you’re not likely to find a full frame 24-70 f/5.6 package at this size and quality.

    Personally, and based on early samples, I think it would be fairly priced at a retail price of 700 GBP/850 euros.

    • hught

      The Canon 17-55IS comes in at around £730 with built in IS and weather sealing along with very good results {without software correction}.

      The FF lenses mentioned are designed to cover a sensor four times larger than micro four thirds. I am not an optical designer but common sense would suggest that the smaller the sensor the easier it is to make a lens for it. Then combine that with the 4×3 ratio which effectively removes the extreme corners out of the equation ,if you don’t believe me take a look at a really poor quality lens {Sony Nex is a good source } and crop the image from 3×2 to 4×3 and see how much better it looks.

      So I would say the lens is a little bit overpriced at £1000 and I would have liked it to be nearer £800 . I will wait and get it as a kit with the GH3 as you can usually save a few bob that way.

      • Martin

        > I am not an optical designer but common sense would suggest that the smaller the sensor the easier it is to make a lens for it.

        Well yes and no. Generally it is easier to design (when comparing lenses of the same f-ratio, not equivalent lenses), BUT a lens designed for the smaller system must be made to tighter tolerances to rival the RELATIVE resolution of the bigger lens, which makes the production quite a bit more expensive. So the material savings are somewhat compensated by the more demanding production. To what extent, that is a question, however…

        > Then combine that with the 4×3 ratio which effectively removes the extreme corners out of the equation ,

        Yes, this certainly helps, among other things.

        > So I would say the lens is a little bit overpriced at £1000 and I would have liked it to be nearer £800 .

        Exactly my thoughts. I hope that the price will go down in a year or two.

      • The 17-55 is not weathersealed as far as I know, as it is officially NOT an “L series” glass.

  • Atle

    A bit on the heavy side, and i would rather have a design where its not constant size while you zoom (and thus shorter at its shorter), but all in all, seems like a good lens so far.

    • > A bit on the heavy side […]

      305g lens is now heavy???

      • Mr. Reeee

        Not only will this lens break the bank, now we learn it’ll break your back as well. O, the humanity… ;-)

        305g, yeah, massive.
        The 7-14mm is 300g, but you hear cries of how huge and heavy it is. This may be members of the P&S convert and “pocketable” crowd crying out from the back seats of their Fiat 500s… ;-)

      • Atle

        It is pretty heavy for a mFT-lens, there are very few lenses for the system that are heavier.

  • DrThrash

    Why always the comparison to crop 1.0? The main rival for MFT is DX/APS-C. There you can get a stabilized 17-50/2.8 from ~350 EUR (Tamron) over ~570 EUR (Sigma) to ~850 EUR (Canon).

    “Cheaper lenses” is definitely NOT a good reason to buy MFT gear. It’s all about compactness. IMHO, MFT is rather expensive if you want high quality, more than Nikon or Canon. Even after the release of all rumored MFT lenses, a D7000 plus some quality lenses will still be a bit better and also quite a bit cheaper than a E-M5 plus similar quality lenses. You have to carry 50% more weight with the DSLR, though.

    • Martin

      > “Cheaper lenses” is definitely NOT a good reason to buy MFT gear. It’s all about compactness. IMHO, MFT is rather expensive if you want high quality, more than Nikon or Canon.

      Bingo! Unfortunatelly, we must pay for the niche character of our chosen system.. Want really small quality lenses? Then pay for them!
      Only more competition in the mirrorless market can lower the prices. It will certainly happen, the question is when.. BTW, looking forward to Canon coming with its new system. Hopefully they will bring fast zooms too.

      • Don’t forget that Oly and Pany kit lenses are generally better than the kit lenses in other brands, so from a start position the cost is not more expensive. There is also the fact that most, yes, most owners of m43 and apsc cameras don’t buy more than one additional lens, if that.

  • Mela

    you can get new nikkor 24-70/2.8 for under 1400 euro’s, “marvelous on FX”.

  • Louis

    when will panasonic G5 announce?

    • admin

      Within the next few weeks!

  • BLI

    Looks like a great lens! At 1/3 the weight of my 24-70/2.8 Nikon lens!! As the DSLR Magazine reviewer indicates: “The times, they are a-changing” :-). And in Spain, it comes with Tapas, Parasol, and Purse!

  • uke

    JimD always gets butthurt over the slightest m43 criticism.

    Here and over at s.huff. Its quite embarrassing.

    This lens looks solid. Well priced. Nice work panasonic!

    • I just don’t like people rubbishing perfectly good systems, that goes for all systems. I also don’t like the denigrating attitude of some posters. I also use 6 x 7 120 but don’t go on about all the other formats being inferior.

  • ne130dy

    delete. found my answer.

    • admin


  • ckwin

    ¥89,900 is around 1100 USD
    Ship on 6/21

    • io

      $1100 = 860€
      ¥89900 (販売価格) = 887€
      ¥124950 (定価) = 1233€

  • inis44

    It’s gonna be a nice replacement of my kit lens Pana 14-42. Just need to save money for a few months to buy it :(

  • Vlad

    “In terms of DOF and background blur, the lens behaves like a 16-45mm F3.5 lens for APS-C, or a 24-70mm F5.6 lens for full frame cameras. This isn’t a bad thing per se; it’s simply the compromise you make to gain the extra portability.”

    What if you want more DOF? How is that a compromise then? Different needs, different tools.

  • Gabi

    I am definitely tempted to buy this lens, however, I will wait at least until the first user reports of early adopters are published and I can be sure that there is no blur/doubling problem with the lens. I won’t take this risk for such a high price!

  • Ok, nice! But why is the M.Zuiko 12-50 that much bigger? It is not as fast and has no OIS!

    • If you buy the 12-50mm with the EM-5 you get it for £150. That’s why. :)

    • Agent00soul

      It goes to 50 instead of 35 and it doesn’t expand while zooming.

      • Ok, thanks!

        • The Olly 12-50 is 57mm dia x 83mm long, weighs 211g
          The Panny 12-35 is 68mm dia x 74mm long, weighs 305g (extends to 96mm)
          So the Panny is actually 50% or so bigger than the Olly.
          Of course, with this you get faster glass and OIS.
          The really great news is that Olympus will have to answer this. Their version will be at least as fast, but will have the size advantage of no OIS. I can wait.

          • bilgy_no1

            Add to that: the Olympus 12-50 also has a macro function.

            • Geoff

              Don’t forget the Oly is a weatherproof lens, the Panny appears to only have a weather sealed mount according to Dp Revue, quote “The 12-35mm is also Panasonic’s first lens with any kind of environmental sealing, although it’s unclear whether this extends beyond the slim rubber seal that encircles the lens mount”.

              • I’m bummed about that. I was expecting this lens to be a real weathersealed glass (a la Canon “L” or Oly HG), but it doesn’t seem to be the case.

              • Guest

                No, not just weather sealed mount.

                According to Panasonic’s LUMIX official website:

                It’s says:
                “•Capable of using under harsh conditions with its splash / dust proof design”

    • Bob B.

      The Olympus Zoom also has more Macro capability than most standard kit zooms. I think that additional function of the lens also increases the size of the Olympus, along with the factors mentioned in the other comments above.

  • Great lens and subsequently a high price! DOF question: A 12-35/1,4 would weight twice and cost twice. On top of that the optical performance would not be any better, problably slightly worse.
    If shallow DOF is essential, consider a larger sensor camera. (Or get primes with large aperture.)
    This new lens is great. It seems to outperform the 12mm and the 25mm – and covers what’s in between and up to 35mm as well. From that comparison, the high price is justified.

  • M

    funny how the FF crowd seem to believe they need to defend their beloved system on an FT site.

    “Quick FF Crusaders, we need to head to 43rumors site ASAP! There seems to be a threat looming there and we need to do whatever we can to stop it, or at the very least, point out some trivially obvious and equally moot point to illustrate it as somehow inferior!”

    I’m not sure how many people lurk on canon rumors and poo poo the site of their cameras. “pfft, whatever, 5D III is like, X% heavier and so much more expensive than the camera that pana/oly are rumored to be releasing in 6 months. And just try to get the same DOF for given aperture, and Tele at sporting events without getting pulled up by security for having to long a lens. whateverz”

    Each system has it’s strength and weaknesses. Deal with it.

    • Simon

      You may think that people like me who bring up ‘equivalence’ arguments are part of the ‘FF crowd’. In fact, I’m a m4/3 user (and 4/3 before that) and I fully subscribe to your statement that “each system has its strengths and weaknesses”.

      That’s exactly the reason why I take exception to the triumphalist statements from the admin and various posters that imply you can have your cake and eat it. This lens is *not* the same as a 24-70mm f/2.8 for full frame, so it’s not a privilege to be charged the same either. The 75mm f/1.8 is *not* a bargain when it’s cheaper than a 135mm f/2 for full frame. They are very different lenses. They collect less light (and consequently have deeper DoF) but you get a smaller lens in return.

      • Mr. Reeee

        Actually equivalence arguments are pointless, especially on a M4/3 rumor site where more knowledgable people hang out. I liken the phenomenon to a M4/3 equivalent of Godwin’s Law.

        Most M4/3 users have come from other camera systems and formats. Some use more than one system. Some seriously considered full-frame, APS-C and M4/3 systems; the drawbacks, the pros and cons of M4/3 vs. other systems. Choosing one system over the other, users tend to be aware of the compromises they made to choose one over the other.

        I worked in an architect’s office that used Vectorworks. At EVERY meeting there was this one guy who would complain that Vectorworks wasn’t doing something the same as AutoCAD. One time I asked him how long he’d worked there and been using Vectorworks. “4 or 5 years”, he said. “And you’re still complaining?”

        Rather than bewail what a tool cannot do, one adapts and learns to use the tools one has at hand. It’s like that with pretty much everything.

        • Amen.
          I could not care less what my m43 lenses are equivalent to in FF. I don’t use FF lenses, they are TOO HEAVY for me. Hell, my 4/3 lenses were too heavy. As long as my little lens gets the photo I want, I don’t care what number is or isn’t on its barrel.

        • Absolutely. I’m all for the dof rendering of 135 format equipment, but I know that i’m zero interested in lugging a full frame DSLR and accompaning big, heavy zoom while travelling, which is my main use for m43.

          So, its a thing of compromises – i’d rather have a “good enough” system with me all the time (so that there are no missed photo opportunities) than a full frame system that weights too much or is too much bulk to make it practical for carrying it every day in unknown locales. I’d rather have a portable, unconspicuous kit that doesn’t scream “PHOTOGRAPHER” and have a closer, kinder, more intimate relationship with my subjects.

          So, choose your tools wisely. One project may benefit (and even call for) the thin DOF or general “rendering” of 135 format equipment, while another might call for medium format and another one for m43 or even smaller.

          Just my 2 cents.

        • Simon

          Sure, within a 4/3 reference frame there is no need for any of this. I’m all for using the tools you have and make the most of them.

          However, this particular variation of Godwin’s law is a little skewed, as it’s invoked in the post itself by the admin’s statement “It’s almost half the price of a comparable FF lens like the Nikon 24-70mm”. That’s like you starting every meeting in the architect’s office by stating that AutoCAD is better than Vectorworks. Would you still be surprised if the guy would point out the ways in which AutoCAD isn’t better?

          On the other hand, a rumours site is probably more like a football club where you support your team first and foremost.

          • Mr. Reeee

            Focal length equivalent is a benchmark and not the issue. People trotting out DoF equivalent is the well beaten horse that M4/3 user don’t care about.

            As for my Vectorworks/AutoCAD anecdote, you missed the point. I said nothing about whether one was better than the other. The point was that there were differences in the way each worked and this one guy, even after it 5 years, just couldn’t adjust to the differences and complained constantly.

            I was a carpenter for years. When I worked with someone else’s tools I found ways to work with them, even when they were markedly different from my own or ones I was used to using. Technology is a bit different, since it’s not direct and physical and easy to adjust to, but the idea is the same. You find a way that works.

      • MichaelKJ

        @ Simon “This lens is *not* the same as a 24-70mm f/2.8 for full frame, so it’s not a privilege to be charged the same either.”

        So what? It represents a major advance for mFT and I would submit that you have no idea how much it costs Panasonic to make this lens.

      • Martin

        > This lens is *not* the same as a 24-70mm f/2.8 for full frame, so it’s not a privilege to be charged the same either. The 75mm f/1.8 is *not* a bargain when it’s cheaper than a 135mm f/2 for full frame.

        But too many people do not believe this and are willing to pay the premium prices, pacified by the “f/2.8=f/2.8=f/2.8!!!!” mantra :D. Okay, let the m43 companies earn some money that will be consequently used (also) for R&D. At least let’s hope so..
        Anyway, I am convinced that the lens prices WILL go down after this niche becomes a majority market (if it ever happens).

        • ssgreenley

          Exactly! It’s not like Panasonic or Olympus have been bragging to their shareholders about the record high profits from their m4/3 divisions, so I think we can believe they’re not making record profits, and the lenses are (at least somewhat) reasonably priced.

    • cybervand


      • M

        I am sure that 95% of visitors to this site are tiringly aware of the equivalence argument and what is and is not equal about respective lenses on each system.

        This is a 43 rumors site. I think the site admin is allowed to be a bit enthusiastic about what is definately pretty big news for mft. And I’m sure we can all allow him a bit of poetic licence, no? Save the hair splitting for Dpr.

  • Andrew

    Great looking lens. Looks like we’re gonna have to wait for Olympus to release their 75mm and 60mm before they (hopefully) release a 14-54 or 12-60 ish lens…without OIS for sure.

  • slave

    ephotozine and dslrmagazine shows different results for resolution. in one it reaches best resolution at 4.0 aperture, in another at 8.0. second thing in dslrmagazine the best resolution is in 35mm, while in ephotozine it is the worst in 35mm. how fair this results are?

    • Ways to measure can be different as well as equipment. As it is pre-production/early production, lenses may not be 1:1.
      Both sites do a good job I believe. I do not look much into detail, I go for the overall values + the written analyse.
      And in this case “worse” may still be “excellent”……….

    • Anonymous

      Wait for Optyczne/Lenstip to test the production version. That’s the only site on the internet that tests lenses properly.

  • Ben

    If you are talking about DoF; m43 will never win this battle

    m43 is about size and portability
    a 12-35 f/2.8 weather seal w/Power OIS lens which weight only 300g is the right thing to do for m43; and the price is right since it is same as 7-14 f/4:

    m43 is not going to replace FF; it complement FF
    FF for max low-light, fast PDAF and shallow DoF
    m43 is about max portability yet delivering reasonable performance

    Well done panasonic

  • SOOOO happy about no power zoom! YAY! This is a must have for me.

  • Yun

    The lens is beautiful , why not in F2.0 ?
    Will only consider it if I have additional $$$$ for it . The 75mm F1.8 is my priority right now .

  • st3v4nt

    A news like this what makes me enthusiast with 4/3 and m4/3 system both company work competitively together not against each other…tough my wallet still bleed after venturing with OM-D :-) I think I have to wait till next year to own this lens.

  • Pez

    Seems good but it’s so expensive! i’d rather buy a panny 14/2.5 and 20/1.7 for less money!

  • Gabriel

    Yes DOF wise 12-35mm f/2.8x = 24-70 f/5.6 on FF but — personally I am not willing to take a 900g camera (5d mark 3) and a 950g lens (24-70L) (and not to mention bigger) with me, at least I couldn’t took it out everyday…

    • cybervand

      personally I’m buying it for the image stabilized 12mm….I would love to get some shots in Oslo’s underground stations at 1/15sec..

    • Exactly, thats what people comparing m43 with FF miss: CONTEXT!!! There’s no one “absolute winner”, it all *depends* on your specific needs. Vision, needs, only then gear. Gear should be subjected to what you want to achieve on a photographic or personal level, and not the other way around…

  • MP Burke

    The 12-35 f2.8 could be a very useful lens for walking and landscapes as well as videos.
    I would not buy it unless the price comes down. However, I will be waiting to see if it becomes available at a lower cost as a bundle with the GH3.
    In the past when I was doing outdoor photography with my 35mm film gear, I often used to stop the lenses down to f5.6 or f8, both to get to optimum performance and to increase the depth of field. I don’t care a bit about getting wafer thin DOF. (If I did, I would choose the 45mm f1.8).
    The f2.8 zoom ought to give the benefit that high sharpness across the frame should be available at apertures a stop or two faster than the slower zooms. It should enable photographs to be taken at around f3.5 to f5.6 at which the resolution of the lens should be close to optimal and DOF is adequate for most situations.

  • Geoff

    This does look a good lens, as regards the cost I agree with some other entries (it is to expensive), they could slim the lens down and reduce cost but about $bucks by removing the OIS and in doing so make the lens more reliable, with the loss of floating elements.

  • The big question for us video-people is will it be PARFOCAL?

    • io

      I’m a video guy, but I don’t like to zoom while shooting, so I don’t care.

      Anyway this lens is out of my budget; also it is too slow for my GH1, so I’ll keep working with fast fixed primes like the 20mm f1.7. My next targets are Oly 45 f1.8 and Pana 14mm f2.5

      • Mike H

        It’s more than just zooming while shooting. I try to avoid zooming whenever possible, but coming from 1/3″ and 2/3″ video cameras, I’m used to zooming in, getting focus, and then zooming out to frame the shot. While the red peeking on my AF100 is a nice touch, it’s still sometimes difficult to get proper focus with the flip out LCD on non-parfocal lenses.

  • inis44

    Dumb question. Why is this lens marked with X when it’s not X-zoom lens like 14-42 and 45-175? Or is it just a new Pana marketing thing to mark all current and future lenses with X though they are not X-zoom?

    • Esa Tuunanen

      You’ve got reason behind it wrong:
      Average consumers don’t buy product, they buy some kind of mental image and there that fancy X sells.
      Just look at recent “X-vasion” like Panasonic GX1, Canon Powershot G1X or Chinese e-bay junk optics sounding X-Pro 1 of Fuji which hits the bullseye in collecting marketing letters/terms.

    • Pedro del Río

      Why do you say it is not an X-zoom? Where do you get it from?

    • Pedro del Río

      Maybe you are confusing X-zoom with power zoom? If this is the case, it was said from the beginning that X-zooms may or may not be power zooms. The X zoom line has some kind of lens coating that the non-X zooms do not have.
      I agree with Esa Tuunanen on how annoying is the X-mania in product names.

      • inis44

        Yes, sorry, I meant Power zoom feature like on 45-175. I agree with both of you that it’s annoying. I thought that X is purely related to the Power zoom feature. I was wrong :(

  • Maybe I would buy it for 650, 700 Euros, not more ;-) But zoom range is to limited for me, I hope Olympus will bring out something similar, but 14-54 3.5-4.0 or something like that.

  • Panasonic: Where is the “very high end camera” you talked about on which this lens will sit nicely!?

  • JP

    Dpreview just posted 20 images, some on G3 and some on E-M5. Image quality is quite good.

    • fan_guo_lai_xiang_xiang

      Indeed! Clean wide-angle and also nice separation in the portrait shots… bokeh looks quite smooth and not noisy…
      I will definitely pass on the 12mm oly prime and save up for this one as travel/always-on lens.

  • Sarek

    As a filmmaker this lens is a relief!
    Been using the Zuiko 14-35/2 for a while – and even though the IQ is outstanding it is an awkward lens to use on my AF101. I will appreciate the wider angle as well.
    The price is what could be expected. For me it is acceptable considering this is my profession – but if photography was just my hobby I would hesitate…

  • Any word wether this is a parfocal design?

  • uiti

    Samples on DCresource doesn’t look good. Because of GF5?

  • The lens seems to be quite great.

    But il think, to be perfect, it should be :
    12-50mm 2.8 constant,
    or 12-35 2.0 constant

    and maybe a powerzoom as it is video orientated

    • It would help if you provide a more detailed overview of what you can see as an optimal lens with some estimation of it’s optical scheme, size and price. Meanwhile, I hope that the current 12-35 f/2.8 would suffice for now.
      Moving camera is preferable for video, unless you want to create a Zolly (a.k.a. Dolly Zoom, the Vertigo Effect, Telescoping, etc.) effect, which combines both the camera and zoom movements (

  • pdc

    Looking forward to Panasonic’s future weatherproofed camera offerings with this as the “kit” lens. This is an outstanding zoom, and further solidifies m43 as the most versatile and cost-effective photography platform now available to the enthusiast and semi-pro. Canon are going to be coming very late to this party.

  • Milo

    Hmm… 1.100? No, thanks.
    I want high image quality, fast lenses and a lens good for portraits, so: 12 f/2 (600 euro) + 20 f/1.7 (300 euro) + 45 f/1.8 (250 euro) -> all for 1.150 euro.

    • ssgreenley

      +1! The 35-100, on the other hand…

  • Leo Tam

    Okay, one has to understand, making fast lenses for smaller formats is not easier than making a fast lens for a larger format

    If it was, we’d all have F0.7 point and shoots…

    So to everyone who says this lens should have been F2 or faster, it’s not gonna happen. (well, F2 on the Olympus was already amazing, but too rich for many people’s blood)

  • Agent00soul

    SLRgear already have their test results up, with diagrams and all.
    And while the lens is very good, it DOES NOT quite match the Olympus 12/2.0 for sharpness at any aperture.

  • JP

    Some sites are reporting a $999 price! I’m buying day one.

  • MJr

    Hmm, the image quality doesn’t do it for me. Corners should be better in this class, especially on MFT, and the Bokeh is not pleasing.

  • Carl

    No mention of stepless aperture? This is very important for video, and disapointed if this is not possible on this lens. Or is this something Panasonic must implement on future cameras (read GH3) ?

    • pdc

      This is not a manual lens – aperture is set electronically, and it will not be stepless. For stepless I can really recommend the Nokton 17.5/0.95.

  • Price is waaaaay to high. It is really not justified

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.