It is offical. Panasonic 43mm F1.2 and 150mm F2.8 on lens roadmap.

Dpreview just posted this. I like these lenses, another good addictions to the Micro 4/3 system, Panasonic Lumix are doing well on the new cameras and lenses.

• See it here 

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit.
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
God is the tangential point between zero and infinity.
Aleo Photo Site

It's in the road map so let's see if it will be in production.  plan vs. real product the 150mm f2.8 will be great but looks big in the photo.  We'll wait

--
reygon
----------------------------------------------------------------
Take nothing but photos... Kill nothing but time... Leave nothing but footprints...

Thinking back to the f2.8 135s of yore, it would jhve to be a bit big by m43 standards but not too big in terms of absolute size in the hand.

Cheers, geoff

--
Geoffrey Heard
http://pngtimetraveller.blogspot.com/2011/10/return-to-karai-komana_31.html

43 f1.2, 85 f2.4 in FF terms, was very much needed.  Will be fine for portraits.

--
www.flickr.com/photos/acam http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

I already own a 45mm 1.8, but if the 43mm 1.2 can provide sharp images wide open, there is no question that I am getting it.

Yes, now is only wait, hope not too much.

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit.
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
God is the tangential point between zero and infinity.
Aleo Photo Site

True, it is a lens that I need, not only for portraits. Hope the price is right.

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit.
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
God is the tangential point between zero and infinity.
Aleo Photo Site

http://admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-matter/

\

have to agree with this article, your equivalency in FF terms is pretty much frivolous

--
-------------------------------
www.pixelsquish.com

I want both! ...now if I can only afford them...which is unlikely...

--
Hubert
My non-digital gear: Agfa Isolette, Fed 2, Konica Auto S2, K1000, Yashica Electro 35 GX, Recesky, Olympus 35 RD
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2034/2457111090_00eafbf8a4_m.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/peppermonkey/

I think there's a market for these lenses, but I doubt I would buy either one.  The 45/1.8 is plenty good for my needs in that FL (though IS would be nice), and I don't use the 150ish FL very much.  300mm f/4 prime, please.

If I could I guess I will buy half of the Micro 4/3 lenses. It is the best investment.

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit.
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
God is the tangential point between zero and infinity.
Aleo Photo Site

Yes, but with no limits on the money I will buy them, these lenses are a strategy to attract more pros and enthusiasts to Micro 4/3. Hope Olympus and Panasonic Lumix continue to make better and better lenses of any kind.

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit.
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
God is the tangential point between zero and infinity.
Aleo Photo Site

Louis used to shoot full frame, so an equivalence statement like the one he made is useful to him and can be to others in the same boat.

Very good article you linked to, by the way. Should be default reading on this forum, going by some of the recent rants!

Michael

42mm f1.2 sounds cool, but you know it's really only equivalent to a 145mm f4 on Hasselblad, right?  

The article is fine until it gets to the the aperture equivalence fallacy (as he calls it), at which point he seems to forget diffraction.  Or to put it another way, his summary of the "equivalence" argument is excellent, his attempted demolition confused, if not plain wrong.
Anyway, my generation grew up with 35mm SLRs, I carried on thinking in 35mm equivalents when I moved to film medium format, I carried on doing so when I moved to FT and then FF and then MFT, and I'm going to carry on now.
An MFT 43mm f1.2 would enable me to do the same job as an 85mm f2.4, a lens and setting I can immediately relate to from personal experience.  I've just ordered a 75mm f1.8 (150 f3.6) though, and since I don't do a lot of portraits any more I can't justify both.

--
www.flickr.com/photos/acam http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

All good.

The high ISO ability of these cameras is not (yet) a match for the bigger sensors, so we need the fastest glass we can get to help make sure we do not need to push the ISO envelope so often.

My rule has always been never go slower than f2.8 when buying glass.

Until you try and carry it all day...!;-)

Yes, of course, which is absolutely fine for portraits.  My standard portrait FF lens was 105 f2.  It's fun being able to use that paper thin DoF as a special effect, but if you actually wanted more than an eyelash in focus you stopped it down to f2.8 of f4.  So an 85 f2.4 equivalent lens, provided it is xharp wide open, will be just dandy.  The existing Oly 90/f3.6 equivalent (the 45/f1.8) is a great lens, but there are times when one would like something shallower.  You can get it with the 150/f3.6 equivalent (75/f1.8) but that really does put you a long way from the subject.
Well done Panny, this is the lens the system seriously lacked for semi-pro / enthusiast people shooters.
I've gone for the 75.  I'm too old now to find pretty models - my friends' children, who were great when they were twenty, are now all thirty, grrr!  No need for a portrait lens.

--
www.flickr.com/photos/acam http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

Hi idiotekniQues (?),

That is nice and dandy. Jordan is a fluid writer and I usually enjoy his forum posts and opinions when he posts reviews of new gear and such.

But, he is also very often defending micro 4/3. In his article he dismisses some FF advantages using the arguments such as "as I already chosed the E-M5 knowing about the drawbacks they don't count anymore". Then it's not strange he comes up with the conclusion the way he does.

Using Jordan's article as basis for claiming somebody's use of "equivalency in FF terms" as frivoulus can be OK for fanboys only. Would you make the same claim if we had some food and beer and a chat about photography face to face?

A new and skewed article doesn't mean equivalency theories, as expressed and discussed through the years, suddenly ceased to work. Physics didn't change January 26.

/Jonas

I would estimate no less than 800-1000 Euro each. Fortunately there are pretty affordable manual focus lenses in those focal lengths (50mm 1.4/135mm 2.8).