Previous news story    Next news story

Panasonic shows 12-35mm F2.8 and 35-100mm F2.8 concept lenses for Micro Four Thirds

By dpreview staff on Jan 11, 2012 at 20:22 GMT

CES 2012: Panasonic is showing mockups of two large-aperture zoom lenses for Micro Four Thirds. The Panasonic stand plays host to mockups of a 12-35mm F2.8 and a 35-100mm F2.8 lens, prominently badged 'Concept' lenses. Next to the models is a lens roadmap confirming the company's intentions to build a 12-35mm (24-70mm equiv) and 35-100 (70-200mm equiv) 'X' grade zooms, but with a note that the maximum apertures are 'to be determined.' The diagram appears to suggest both lenses will arrive later in 2012.

Panasonic Lumix Vario X 12-35mm F2.8 and 35-100mm F2.8 mockups

Comments

Total comments: 199
12
jtan163
By jtan163 (May 22, 2012)

I don't have an MFT as yet, but I'm saving for am OMD.

The one thing that worried me was the lack of fast (ish) mid range zooms.
Prayer, apparently answered.

w00t!

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 18, 2012)

Wow, I guess I am not getting the "CONCEPT LENS" part. What is Panasonic doing here exactly, inventing a short focal range F2.8 zoom lens for the first time, or what?

0 upvotes
MadsR
By MadsR (Jan 18, 2012)

@quaoarus Ya, because the 14-35 f2.0 and 35-100 f2.0 lenses are really bad quality and slow... So is the 12-60 f2.8 to 4.0 and the cheaper 14-54 f2.8 to 3.5...

Anyway, this have been long rumoured, and I really hope Panasonic can pull it off soon, because we really need some fast zoom lenses to go with the system. And hopefully they won't be as expensive as the NiCannon counterparts...

2 upvotes
David VL
By David VL (Feb 16, 2012)

you must be blind to say those HG and SHG lenses are BAD and SLOW.
i bet ur the kind of guy who dreams bout lenses but could never actually afford one. thus ranting about them all day

0 upvotes
speed12
By speed12 (Feb 19, 2012)

Or he's being sarcastic.....

4 upvotes
Leok
By Leok (Jan 17, 2012)

I hope these are fixed f2.8 bright lenses and are released very soon. This is precisely what the micro 4/3 system is missing.

We dont need more kit style variable zooms, there are plenty of those. There is also a huge choice in bright primes in the short to medium tele range.

There is not a single high quality zoom. I just hope these are as good as competing systems 24-70 and 70-200 equivalent lenses!

3 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 18, 2012)

There goes hoping for a whole lot....

0 upvotes
quaoarus
By quaoarus (Jan 17, 2012)

THANKS Oly/Pan for all of those new fast lenses for m4/3.. 12mm f2.0, 45mm f1.8 and those fixed f2.8 zooms.. It's a shame you forgot you have another sistem.. The 4/3. And that it's users would also like some fast lenses in addition to 25mm 1.4 and not so fast, not so cheap 50mm f2. Why can't you make some cheapish f1.8s for us (it's not like other sistems don't have it, nor that we don't have enough problems creating shallow Dof thanks to the chip).

1 upvote
mpetersson
By mpetersson (Jan 18, 2012)

I'm just waiting for Oly to announce that they are finally axing the 4/3-system. It feels like it's been in it's death-throes for a while now. And honestly I see little point to a system that is not much smaller than the competition, but with a smaller sensor. Especially considering it's also party aimed at pros who are probably interested in new improved sensors, DOF-control and improved resolution. But it's a shame, they have a lot of great glass for that system.

2 upvotes
halfmac
By halfmac (Jan 16, 2012)

Some of you are missing what the these lenses are being make for. Another camera in the Panasonic 4/3d's line up is the professional AF100/101 video camera. As a user of one, it is really missing a good fast zoom. I have been using my Canon 24-105mm f4 IS with an adapter but it is even too slow and I can't use the IS as it has no power. The Lumix 14-140 is slower for inside shooting and not constant apertur,e but it has OIS. I want a f2.8 lens or faster with OIS for handheld.

These lenses will be great on my GH2 as well. If you want small, buy pancakes. If you need low light zooms use a bigger lens. The camera is still small. I have the 14 pancake for small and the Leica 25 for fast but neither has OIS. Even with these new lenses I will keep both of those lenses.

I can not wait to get my hands on them. Hopefully at NAB.

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 18, 2012)

That is the Achilles Heel of the pricey AG-AF100. No lenses. Panasonic was actually showing of this camera with an $800 lens adapter and an $18,000 Carl Zeiss cinema lens on it when they were bringing it out.

A camera body without a small line-up of good lenses that match the camera natively is IMO pretty much useless.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Jan 16, 2012)

these small aperture, handy lenses look cute, but what are the exact weights?

0 upvotes
mediokre
By mediokre (Jan 15, 2012)

i hope the focus ring is mechanical rather than electronic!

0 upvotes
BJL
By BJL (Jan 14, 2012)

Not bad, but for a compact system, I would happily trade a bit of speed for wider zoom range and so less lenses to carry. How about 12-50/2.8-3.5 and
50-200/2.8-3.5, similar to the original Olympus 4/3 SLR lenses?

By the way,modern variable maximum aperture zooms can hold f-stop constant as you zoom, so long as you stay in range (f/3.5 and up for my examples), so one traditional advantage of constant aperture zooms no longer applies.

1 upvote
Wohlf
By Wohlf (Jan 15, 2012)

I think these m4/3 cameras are a 2x compared to 35mm, making these lenses equivalent to 24-70 and 70-200...pretty reasonable given the speed advantage over other m4/3 offerings or even DSLR lenses. For me the idea of 2 lenses covering from 24 to 200mm at F2.8 is pretty appealing.

These m4/3 and NEX cameras are getting pretty dang close to DSLR. I have a D90 and a flash and a bunch of lenses. I am wondering if this lens combo and a new Panasonic or Olympus would simplify my life and deliver 95% of the performance I am used to.

0 upvotes
max metz
By max metz (Jan 14, 2012)

These have been a long time coming and look remarkably refined for concept pieces. My understanding was m43 was meant to mean cheaper manufacture, m43 lens prices don’t reflect that. M43 camera development is just enough to qualify as “upgrade”, often with the same sensor. Where are the $150 - $300 f1.8 primes?

2 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (Jan 15, 2012)

Can't agree more, bought a gf3 dual lens kit during Thanksgiving.
Wt I can say is M43 is only priced reasonably during Thanksgiving, and very expensive during the rest of the year. (Taking into account wt the M43 lens could deliver)

When M43 first came out, I thought it was ground breaking...since then, innovation is completely gone. 24-70 and 70-200 (FF equiv.) is simply dull...

0 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (Jan 13, 2012)

What is the point? If you're going to carry lenses this big, you may as well have a DSLR! m4/3 needs more small, fast, pancake primes!! Take a hint from the Fuji X-Pro 1!!

1 upvote
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (Jan 14, 2012)

I guess you have lost your senses.. X-Pro 1 small?
you comparing the prime lenses on X-Pro with Pany Bright zooms?
have you seen the sizes of Pany 14mm 20mm and Oly 17mm?

To me you have totally gone to some other planet for last decade and just reached back.

3 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Jan 14, 2012)

These lenses are still tiny compared to their DSLR equivalents. I recently got an E-PM1 and it's amazing how small a body + lens is, even compared to the smallest DSLRs.

3 upvotes
bradbunnin
By bradbunnin (Jan 23, 2012)

No one's mentioned the 100-300, which served me well on a trip to Africa. No one's mentioned the total weigh(and bulk) differential between M4/3 and pretty much every other system. After a lot of analysis and comparison, I decided the minimal loss in quality was a small price to pay for GH2 video capability and total system size/weight advantage.

1 upvote
MindsEyePano
By MindsEyePano (Jan 13, 2012)

Happy to see physical zoom rings. Hope they keep that when it comes to production.

5 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (Jan 13, 2012)

IMHO, rather than going premium, M43 might be better to go cheap
from what I see, many M43 owners are very happy with CCTV lenses.
They are willing to put anything that can bend light on their cameras

just make some CCTV quality lens with large aperture.
and print some DOF control crap on marketing materials, I'm sure the lens will sell.

0 upvotes
mattmtl
By mattmtl (Jan 13, 2012)

Why would the system's main players mess around with that stuff? *Some* m43 owners play with CCTV lenses and the like, but that doesn't make it a mainstream choice.

These kinds of fast, stabilized zooms are exactly the kind of thing people have been crying for ever since they stopped crying for fast primes.

And once they have been released, they will go back to crying for fast primes, this time in the 100mm and up category.

But whatever they cry for, it'll be native lenses. Nobody wants Panasonic to start adapting CCTV lenses, because that small niche is already fully served.

4 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (Jan 14, 2012)

From usability prospective 4/3 DOF is much better than any other system. FF too shallow, Pentax Q too big!

I have no idea what you are crying over .. CCTV lens ?? God!
Man, you can put any lens made ever on m4/3 and it will take it!

Now if you have a problem with this?
All lenses from Pany and Oly are sharpest in their leagues. Feel free to prove your point!

2 upvotes
zxaar
By zxaar (Jan 15, 2012)

"From usability prospective 4/3 DOF is much better than any other system. FF too shallow, Pentax Q too big!" -------- Nope it is not. The FF is not too shallow, it is shallow when you WANT it to be. That is the point of larger sensor you can CONTROL the DOF. On m43 sensor you can not create the shallowness that is not possible because of sensor size. So NO m43 does not give best control so it is not best. For similar price one can get APC for better dof control and spending bit more could give you FF for more control. Second negative point about m43 is that sensor is not small enough to give truely pocketable cameras say for example pentax Q. And if someone is not looking for pocketable system then it makes no sense to give up on dslr or say NEX type system of APC to buy m43. And yes, I have problem with this statement "All lenses from Pany and Oly are sharpest in their leagues." , simply not true. Only a fanboi would utter such words.

1 upvote
RogueSwan
By RogueSwan (Jan 17, 2012)

m4/3 is perfect for my situation. I want a decent quality, pocketable camera with the capacity for different lenses. With a pancake attached a pen becomes pocketable but then has the flexibility of an slr with a couple of decent lenses. Saves me a lot of $'s only having to buy one camera. I don't need a high end compact and a dslr to chew up my budget.

0 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (Jan 13, 2012)

I have to say wt Steve Jobs might say "It's not great, but it's a start"

0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (Jan 14, 2012)

It is great and it is already very mature. f2.8 constant on these sizes is awesome. Check Nikon 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8.

0 upvotes
DoubleUp35
By DoubleUp35 (Jan 14, 2012)

o

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Leiduowen
By Leiduowen (May 22, 2012)

@DoubleUp35: One of the most informed comments I've read here for years :)

0 upvotes
Plochmann
By Plochmann (Jan 13, 2012)

This is what makes Dprieview the worst forum; it is so big people go around trolling all the time. :( Now if you really care about how big the sensor is, go get a medium format camera! I have a full frame camera, it's called film! The depth of field was too shallow at times, and 4/3 standard is a great choice- not everything needs shallow depth of field. Also, focus distance changes depth of field, so if these two lenses focus really close then there, walla, shallow depth of field.
If more super 16 like lenses would come out for this system, then 4/3 would be doing much better. I think ASPC is starting to look like the awkward middle child, with a 1.6 crop and bulky lenses too boot.

4 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (Jan 14, 2012)

That is so correct!
Canon 70-200 is not even 70mm and is huge and DOF is also not that shallow comparatively!

0 upvotes
zxaar
By zxaar (Jan 15, 2012)

"The depth of field was too shallow at times, " ------------ So you did not or does not know how to change aperture to get deeper DOF.

1 upvote
Acrill
By Acrill (Apr 23, 2012)

"So you did not or does not know how to change aperture to get deeper DOF." -------So you don't understand that changing aperture affects shutter speed?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 40 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (May 21, 2012)

APS-C is here to stay, as it sits comfortably in the sweet spot for size vs. cost vs. IQ. For a system to threaten APS-C, it needs to fit in the pocket.

0 upvotes
Valentinian
By Valentinian (Jan 12, 2012)

There is an X before the word Vario on the lenses. So, these lenses are "premium" , right?

0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (Jan 14, 2012)

right!

0 upvotes
rbach44
By rbach44 (Jan 12, 2012)

Dear Panasonic, if these lenses were being ANNOUNCED today, I probably wouldn't be selling all of my M43 stuff as we speak.

Enough with the concepts and rumors and speculation, I have pictures to take and video to shoot. Fill the few but gaping holes in your lineup.

I hate to leave M43 but unfortunately concepts of lenses we need don't pay the bills.

0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (Jan 14, 2012)

You dont have even concept of anything on other ILC, lets say Sony or Samy. They dont even got any ultra wide. Live with their soft and silly kits if you like!

So now if you leaving M43 ... good bye!

0 upvotes
SteB
By SteB (Jan 14, 2012)

Going by how Panasonic previously displayed lenses like this, think the 45mm macro, 100-300mm zoom and the fisheye the release of these lenses is not that far in the future. Most likely this year, maybe 6 months or less. I don't remember Panasonic displaying anything like this which wasn't released in the near future. The vaguness is just how they do it.

0 upvotes
oselimg
By oselimg (Jan 12, 2012)

What is the concept???? A concept product serves the purpose to toy with new ideas and observe peoples reaction to it. Are 24-70f2.8 and 70-200f2.8 new ideas? Who in right mind wouldn't want a faster lens? Looks like an exercise to keep people interested in their m43 system with the help of "concept" products may or may not be made for real. Almost like an inferiority complex against the big brands.

1 upvote
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (Jan 14, 2012)

No concept is a concept .. that can go on anything. In software we are having beta releases, in automobile we got concept cars in all sectors, so why not in lenses. I love the concept of concept, it tells Pany care about their customers and their ILC is long lasting and serious. Give them your feedback, too big too small not bright enough not wide enough .. whatever; but just stop crying like a silly child!

0 upvotes
oselimg
By oselimg (Jan 14, 2012)

I think you missed the feed back in my comment. If you read the main article carefully the Panasonic don't even confirm the specifications of these lenses in the final production process. So what is the this exercise about?? Are they asking whether people would like faster or slower zooms for their systems? There is a limit how small you can make a 70-200 f2.8 zoom lens for any given system unless the manufacturers discover something new about the laws of physics or new, revolutionary materials. Here is my reply (again): This is just a attention grabbing exercise for a firm which didn't come up with something new for this show. But, according to you we should be pleased with whatever the big firms come up with and thank for it just like a bullied child. alternatively you can point out what is new about a 24-70 f2.8 and a 70-200 f2.8 zoom lens.

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Franka T.L.
By Franka T.L. (Jan 12, 2012)

still concept only ....

0 upvotes
jeff_006
By jeff_006 (Jan 13, 2012)

that what I though too when reading the article...

0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (Jan 14, 2012)

Yea, whats wrong with concept?

0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (Jan 12, 2012)

Seeing the competition I am expecting both lenses .. between £400-700 per lens.

0 upvotes
OneGuy
By OneGuy (Jan 12, 2012)

Good move Pana,

I was always surprised that nowadays the m4/3 kit zooms and APS-C kit zooms were offered at the same speed (3.5) -- all the while reading about "smaller and lighter." The only way you can "prove" the intrinsic advantage of m4/3 is to have a faster zoom that is not only smaller and lighter, but ALSO that such speed cannot be easily matched by the NEX or NX bodies.

So I don't see these lenses as being in the pro segment but rather in the enthusiast category and primarily as premium kit lenses. Having said that, I'd expect Nikon Sys1 to offer higher speed lenses as well. Then again, if the quality of these 2.8 (or higher speed) lenses is comparable to Pana 20mm in terms of full aperture resolution and CA, the price might escalate.

I'd also like PDR to do a quick primer on software lens correction. For example, can software correct for resolution? (I think not.)

When talking about lens speed for different size sensors, one should consider light per unit square (mm sq.)

0 upvotes
Valentinian
By Valentinian (Jan 12, 2012)

You'd expect Nikon Sys1 to offer higher speed lenses as well ???
Why would Nikon do that?

0 upvotes
Shelly Glaser
By Shelly Glaser (Jan 12, 2012)

It's a simple equation - given same technology level, sensors' sensitivity (at a given acceptable noise level) depends on pixel size, which in turn depends on sensor size and pixel count. Lens "speed" (f#) for a given physical size depends on focal length. For the same lens physical size and same usable object illumination and exposure time you can choose larger sensor and slower lens, or a faster lens and a smaller sensor. This even works out for depth of field).

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Jan 12, 2012)

They've already done an article on software lens correction http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5653763779/a-distorted-view-in-camera-distortion-correction

Their conclusion is that software correction is a good thing.

0 upvotes
OneGuy
By OneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

Because I read Nikon V1/J1 user reviews and because the faster lens will not overwhelm the body or the wallet (as could happen on NEX/NX).

0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (Jan 12, 2012)

anybody got any proof, experimental result f2.8 on 4/3 = f5.6 on ff on DOF scale!

0 upvotes
Vlad S
By Vlad S (Jan 12, 2012)

What does this announcement have to do with full frame? These are lenses for the micro 4/3 system. FF is not in the picture, so to say.

0 upvotes
Edgar_in_Indy
By Edgar_in_Indy (Jan 12, 2012)

A concept lens? Really? If it's a viable design, then why bother talking about it and putting it on display. Just build the darn thing and sell it before one of your competitors does. On the other hand, if it's just wishful thinking and not really practical, then why waste everybody's time and get people's hopes up?

I get the idea of a concept car, since manufacturers want to gauge how the public responds to the style of the vehicle, etc. But lenses are different. There's no question that people would want a fast, zoom lens that goes from all the way from a very wide 12mm to a standard 35mm. The only question is, how would the lens perform, and how much would it cost? But toting out a "concept" for people to eyeball does nothing to answer that question.

4 upvotes
d10694
By d10694 (Jan 12, 2012)

It's only a concept. They are feeling the heat from all the other CSC announcements of late by other manufacturers and facing competition, so they rush out a couple of "concepts". As for a "Pro", why have a "Pro" with such a small sensor? I sold all my Panny on Ebay and went Sony NEX, never looked back.

1 upvote
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (Jan 12, 2012)

Sony NEX .. hehe ... and what are you planing to do with that??

1 upvote
zxaar
By zxaar (Jan 15, 2012)

Definitely not going to use them as paper weights as you seem to be doing with your m43 gear. You seem not to understand that cameras are for taking photographs and thats what a NEX user would be using them for. You seem to be lost, here is a forum for you: www.m43-paper-weights.com

1 upvote
chiane
By chiane (Jan 12, 2012)

Could they make them any bigger? Why not just buy a dslr at that size.

3 upvotes
rttew
By rttew (Jan 12, 2012)

some of you people really get me. i mean it's bad enough modern cameras are looking more and more like cheap toys, but now you want them to be even smaller???? I want something substantial in my hands if I am paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for it. you can stay in the cheap seats if you want, but some of us want our money's worth and want to stand out from the rest.

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
flipmac
By flipmac (Jan 14, 2012)

Those have a lens filter diameter of 58mm and that 12-35mm seems like it is about the same size as a typical f3.5-5.6 kit zoom (also with 58mm filter size), but those ones are f2.8 constant and undoubtedly better quality.

That 12-35 is more like the 17-55/2.8 Nikon/Canon APS-C lenses (77mm filter) and both are way bigger/heavier. The FF 24-70/2.8 lenses are bigger still. The 70-200/2.8 lens would dwarf that 35-100/2.8.

0 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (May 21, 2012)

@flipmac, such a big lens on a m43 body, and the IQ will get crushed by a Nikon D3200 paired with the upcoming 16-85 f/4 lens, which will be barely bigger than this and a lot cheaper. If it doesn't fit in the pocket, the compromise is not worth it.

0 upvotes
mattmtl
By mattmtl (Jan 12, 2012)

If constant f2.8 is not set in stone, the final product had better at least match that spec.

There'll be an ugly customer revolt if they show off mockups labeled f2.8 and deliver something slower. Here's hoping the spec of the "concept" versions is conservatively estimated.

0 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Jan 12, 2012)

It should be at least T2.8 .. then it would be interesting. :)

Or simply f2.3 or f2.5 .. so it at least look like its faster than regular dSLR zoom.

Still i prefer Olympus 4/3 with constant f2. Tho way more expensive.

1 upvote
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (Jan 12, 2012)

well later in 2012 mean .. am stick to my DSLR till then. I really wanted to feed my GH1 with these two upgrade and now!

0 upvotes
jeff_006
By jeff_006 (Jan 13, 2012)

+1

0 upvotes
Sam Carriere
By Sam Carriere (Jan 12, 2012)

The only thing better that a piece of equipment announced to great fanfare as available a year or two down the road is a piece of equipment described as a "concept".

0 upvotes
Valentinian
By Valentinian (Jan 12, 2012)

better late than never... it was about time for a M43 lens equivalent to the FF 70-200/2.8

0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (Jan 12, 2012)

well field of view, yes. But you know I think, that ... the physical apperture on smaller sensor's native lenses is really narrower than ff.

0 upvotes
digitalDork
By digitalDork (Jan 12, 2012)

Although you are right that the physical aperture is smaller, this should not affect the exposure. By that I mean that if you used The 12-35 at 12mm, f2.8 and 100asa, the shutter speed for a given scene will be the same as if using a full frame system at 24mm f2.8 and 100asa.

The most noticeable difference will be the depth of field, which will be quite a bit shallower on the full frame shot.

1 upvote
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Jan 12, 2012)

The equivalent (in terms of field of view and depth of field) m43 lens to the FF 70-200 f/2.8 is 35-100 f/1.4 which will be extremely large, heavy and super-expensive.

1 upvote
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (Jan 12, 2012)

DOF specially at long end .. would be good enough for all my needs .. otherwise for DOF fenatics .. I know even FF is something to complain about .. :D middle format is just the right choice for them.

So can you please stop crying over DOF

The size and apperture on that lens is just good enough. I just want them to launch these lenses quick and well tested.

2 upvotes
gerdd
By gerdd (Jan 12, 2012)

"to be determined" - well if that doesn't sound like market research. I say that the whole segment below the classic SLR seriously needs some light power. To interest me it would need to be f2 or better for an M4/3 format. I wouldn't even insist on zoom lenses. A matched set of, say 15, 25 and 40mm at f1.2 or f1.4 could be downright exciting.

1 upvote
PaulSnowcat
By PaulSnowcat (Jan 12, 2012)

Now this is something serious at last, unlike that Oly's 12-50 something...

1 upvote
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (Jan 12, 2012)

Oly 12-50 is excellent as a kit lens. That's the intention of Oly to launch them. Even full-frame cameras got kit with smaller apertures. So take it easy mate

1 upvote
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Jan 12, 2012)

Tantalizing. But does "concept" mean "not likely to appear at any nearby store for under $2k any time soon"? F/2.8, if constant over the zoom range, would be plenty fine, considering how slow the original GH1 long lens was. I'd care less about shallow DOF than the ability to take action shots at over 150mm equivalent with gymnasium or natatorium light.

1 upvote
Sam Carriere
By Sam Carriere (Jan 12, 2012)

Your understanding of "concept" is much like mine, Cy, except I might say "any time soon...if ever."

0 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (Jan 12, 2012)

If these are constant aperture lenses, and weather sealed as was reported on the rumors sites... then it looks like Panasonic is planning a pro camera too.

These are interesting times we live in!

1 upvote
burnymeister
By burnymeister (Jan 12, 2012)

Before we get too excited though - you must remember that little word "concept"...

1 upvote
SimonG156
By SimonG156 (Jan 12, 2012)

Is this 12-35 likley to be much bigger than the 14-45 lens?

0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (Jan 12, 2012)

yeap much much bigger .. just look at its cylinder at the lens mount area and the height. But I won't mind even if they end up making it even bigger, just dont want to see it getting slower!

1 upvote
brentbrent
By brentbrent (Jan 12, 2012)

This picture shows that better:

http://www.photographyblog.com/images/sized/images/uploads/panasonic_ces_2012_concept_lenses-550x352.jpg

0 upvotes
nikonnikon
By nikonnikon (Jan 12, 2012)

i think there's a difference between 2.8 in aps-c and m4/3 regarding depth of field... therefore for now i definitely prefer lenses on aps-c system (actually FF is my dream but its out of my budget) :(

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Jan 12, 2012)

Only when dealing with different focal lengths, so for example 100mm f2.8 on m4/3 will have the same depth of field as 100mm f2.8 on APS-C, but on APS a lens with the same equivalent focal length, 133mm f2.8, would have slightly shallower DoF.

Of course the full frame equivalent, 200mm f2.8, would have shallower DoF than both of them. At any rate the difference between depth of field on m4/3 and APS isn't that great.

1 upvote
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Jan 12, 2012)

100 f/2.8 on m43 is equivalent to 133 f/3.8 on APS-C. The difference in DOF is nearly 1 stop.

If one considers the above difference to be trivial, then that between APS-C and FF is also negligible. But that's really a lie.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
1 upvote
mungozan
By mungozan (Jan 12, 2012)

"maximum apertures are 'to be determined.' " I hope they will opt for f/2. If so, count me in! Not so with f/2.8, except maybe for 35-100.. But only after hard consideration.

2 upvotes
ashwins
By ashwins (Jan 12, 2012)

f/2 sounds very optimistic. I would think that 'to be determined' more likely means that the final aperture could be less than f/2.8—rather than faster.

1 upvote
Marc C
By Marc C (Jan 12, 2012)

f/2? Not at all! Four Thirds brand partner Olympus has such full large aperture zooms in their "Super high grade" (Top pro" in Europe) range of lenses. These aren't cheap of course, as you might expect, but their prices can easily match those of 35mm f/2.8 zoom lenses from Canon, Nikon and Sony (late Minolta lens fitting). If Panasonic has not the technology to design and built such large aperture lenses (what would be strange given the fact it's one of the biggest electronic corporations in the world with large resources), they can ask their lens partner Leica, but that won't make them more affordable for sure!

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Jan 12, 2012)

Yeah, a $4k f/2 telephoto lens might be possible, but for that money one might as well opt for FF, the niche where outlays of that sort are more the norm.

1 upvote
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (Jan 12, 2012)

I would say even if they make it f2.5 it will be big acheivement in this compact form. f2.8 is more likely and for me it is still good, if its sharp as normally Pany people make, quick and not too expensive. And make them soon!

2 upvotes
ZAnton
By ZAnton (Jan 12, 2012)

I bet they will be as expensive as hell as everything from Pana/Oly. You get half of the ASP-C sensor, dark, unsharp lens with huge distortions, CA etc. at the price of Nikon D7000 or Canon 7D.
You can say it's the price of the size, I say, it is a price of commertial and marketing.

1 upvote
Bluetrain048
By Bluetrain048 (Jan 12, 2012)

Sorry, as an ex owner of Olympus and now an owner of a Nikon D7000 system, I have to correct you here.

1) 4/3 is not half the size of an APS-c

2) since when was f2.8 'dark' ?

3) Check the lens tests on this very site, amongst others. Many of the very sharpest lenses money can buy are made by Oly. Even their bottom of the range kit lenses give top range lenses a run for their money.

4) Oly lenses are renowned for their lack of CA and distortion. Again, check the tests and reviews. Nikon lenses, not only in my experience but also in reviews, are renowned for distortion and CA problems.

15 upvotes
ashwins
By ashwins (Jan 12, 2012)

True, Bluetrain, Olympus delivers great glass, some of the sharpest lenses in the industry.

2 upvotes
Spunjji
By Spunjji (Jan 12, 2012)

ZAnton, your comments are not supportable by any available evidence.

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
fz750
By fz750 (Jan 12, 2012)

it's true that m4/3 is not half the size, but 60%.
(somewhat less of a difference than that between FF and APS-c which is 18%..)

The lenses for M4/3 are ridiculously expensive compared to canonikon, and whilst I love my E-PL2 the price of the glass IS a deterrent...

4 upvotes
Noopz
By Noopz (Jan 12, 2012)

This is what moved me away from m4/3. You're paying top dollar for lens that REQUIRE significant amount of digital correction.

I love the format, and loved my E-P1 with the 20mm 1.7 but couldn't bring myself to part with money for the rest of the lenses.

1 upvote
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Jan 12, 2012)

All bridge or "starter" system cameras should sell sealed in a kevlar bag that bears a warning: "Wealthy camera-addict use only. Do not open unless prepared to spend another $5k before your kit is complete."

1 upvote
Spunjji
By Spunjji (Jan 12, 2012)

I cannot identify with the above 3 comments. In my experience, the only expensive M4/3 lenses are optically very good. The ones that require (minor) corrections are cheap, and the cameras will do that for you if you're too lazy to do it yourself. By contrast, with Canon, the cheap lenses are nasty. I have not recovered from the experience of my 17-85mm IS zoom, which was optically the worst lens I have ever owned. It didn't help that it was physically flimsy. With My EP2 and the R version of the kit zoom I have a wide-angle zoom lens 1/3 the size, in-body IS, far less lens aberrations and the whole lot cost me 1/2 what I paid for a 50D with the 17-85mm.

1 upvote
ZAnton
By ZAnton (Jan 12, 2012)

@ashwins
True for 4/3 but not the case with m4/3.
@Spunjji
go to amazon and check the prices for Panas/Oly and compare them with canon/nikon and read reviews on photozone.de.

0 upvotes
ZAnton
By ZAnton (Jan 12, 2012)

@Spunjji
The 17-85 is total crap, it is sad that you didn't know it.
My wife's Oly EPen1 gives bad colors and massive noise. IQ is significantly worse than my old 350D + Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Oly's RAW files are practically not editable in LR. Even small amount of Fill Light caouses huge noise in shadows and blur. The colors is total disaster. I have never f***d so much to get proper sky and trees colors. In addition all changes in color give grain in gradients.

0 upvotes
camirisk1
By camirisk1 (Jan 12, 2012)

I totally disagree with the comments posted saying that olympus lenses are bad and that the cameras need lots of color correction, the truth is that they normally dont need any correction while canon xs and xsi normally transform reds and greens and you need a lot of correction to get colors that are somewhat real. The fact is that the quality that you get with Olympus/Panasonic is matched only by advanced enthusiast cameras from Canon (like 50d and 7d) and if you get the pro lenses made by Olympus you will clearly see the difference between those photos and other photos taken with those cameras, for me in the end the most important part resides in knowing your equipment well and get the most with it, other discussions are more a matter of religious faith and nothing about the capabilities that each one of us must develop in photography.

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 12, 2012)

f/2.8, eh? Good, at least they are not f/4.0 max. open iris lenses. But there is no hurry to bring these two to market, Panny -- Fujinon, Olympus, Sony, etc. will patiently be waiting around until you release these two glasses. Whenever.

0 upvotes
photo perzon
By photo perzon (Jan 12, 2012)

Where is my credit card? Where is my credit card?

1 upvote
CarlPH
By CarlPH (Jan 12, 2012)

I'm afraid These will be priced same as the Pany ultrawide.

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (Jan 12, 2012)

Lets not speculate on that right now. I am hoping it will be available with weather sealed GH3 as a kit!

1 upvote
LukeDuciel
By LukeDuciel (Jan 12, 2012)

I would bet on these two boys are planned coming out with GH3; but GH3 is behind schedule for Pana.

GH3 should be coming out at least with new sensor (with global shutter) + processor + probably a new EVF.

Well, that's just my guess.

2 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (Jan 12, 2012)

I aggree! and am ready to pay any money for that kit!

0 upvotes
Chris_in_Osaka
By Chris_in_Osaka (Jan 12, 2012)

I own and use both FF (5D Mark II) and M4/3's (E-PL1 and E-PL2).

Full frame are seriously over rated. I more often than not grab one of my Olympus cameras rather than the Canon. Apart from the obvious, weight, one reason is I can get more depth of field at lower aperture. FF shallow DOF can have it's disadvantages. In lower light you have to crank up the iso to match what you'd get at lower iso's on m4/3's, so noise goes up and the large sensor advantage goes out the window.
The famous phrase goes..."f8 and be there." Well, I'm sure whoever said it (Weegee or Capa, depending on which historian you believe) would have loved to "be there" shooting with a smaller lens at f4 and getting the same result.
I for one would prefer to carry around a small f2.8 (f5.6 equiv) m4/3 lens (or preferably f2.4, or even f2 if small enough) rather than my Canon 70-200 f4L and get similar results so I welcome these editions to the m4/3 lens line up.
The people criticizing need to get a clue.

16 upvotes
Vladik
By Vladik (Jan 12, 2012)

It is either you dont own any good glass or you PP your images to death. There is no way anyone who uses 5D 1 or 2 will be happy with image quality of E-PL1 / 2. Even though Olys make great little cameras, I would only use one when Point and Shoot quality is ok. E-PL1 and 2 has noise even at base ISO, not talking about the artifacts. The smooth color gradation of full frame, has not been match by any APC-S size sensor and you're comparing it to FF. Even though those Panys are welcome edition, they will most likely cost more than you 70-200L etc etc etc

6 upvotes
Entropius
By Entropius (Jan 12, 2012)

Have you ever actually printed files from an Olympus? Yeah, they are noisier than a fullframe camera, but that noise is not very obtrusive at all at low ISO, and is pretty much invisible in print. I've made 16x20 prints from 4/3 sensors that look stunning.

4 upvotes
Chris_in_Osaka
By Chris_in_Osaka (Jan 12, 2012)

@Vladik. You've missed the point, or I wasn't clear enough. They are different cameras systems and both have their strengths and weaknesses. To sit and compare/complain about DOF equivalencies (f2.8 is equal to F5.6 etc.) or sit and stare at 100% crops of identical high ISO settings is silly.
As for post processing, I do a lot more of with the 5DII images. The Olympus out of camera jpegs are excellent. I only shoot RAW in bad light. Canons jpegs are usually c***p. My E-PL2 + the cheap yet amazing 45mm f1.8 holds it's own when compared to the 50mm 1.4 or 100mm f2. The Canons give me more DOF, but they're soft wide open and need to be stopped down for sharpness comparable to the Zuiko (and I have to shoot RAW).
My Canon shines when I shoot in RAW with my Tokina 16-28mm f2.8 or 70-200mm f4L, but we're talking about significant weight here. The Tokina alone is 1KG. That's more than my usual bag of m4/3 gear. A little noise visible at 100% and not in print is a small trade off.

12 upvotes
dutch3dmaster
By dutch3dmaster (Jan 12, 2012)

I agree. I have bought a 5D MkII but hardly use it. Instead I use nearly on a daily basis my E-P1's, GH-2's and NEX5's. Especially when you are shooting 3D a large (double) camera becomes a huge problem. And I am very satisfied with the image quality of the smaller large sensor camera's.

3 upvotes
CharlesJH
By CharlesJH (Jan 12, 2012)

I also use a 5D MkII and a Panasonic GF-1, always shooting RAW. The trade-offs are clear. I love the 70-200 f4 IS and the 100-300 Panasonic is not its equal in quality. But I can carry the Pany around just in case, and I can shoot FF 200-600mm equivalent without breaking the bank or my back. If I take a good photo with the Panasonic I always wish I had taken it with the 5D Mk II, but I have to make a definite decision to take out the 5D, whereas I can pack the GF-1 "just in case". Now I am considering what to upgrade to from the GF-1. The choices have just go much more interesting...

4 upvotes
Jon Rty
By Jon Rty (Jan 12, 2012)

I'm sorry, but why not then shoot the Canon 80-300mm L if the aperture isn't what you need? As for the 100mm F/2, I've got a hard time believing that it wont on a 5DII at F/3.5 handidly outresolve the Oly 45mm at F/1.8 where both are similar for total light gathered. In fact, if you downscale to 12mp, I'd be surprised to see a large difference between both even wide open.

FF is about flexibility. When want it, it offers shallower DOF than almost any other system. When you need it, and live with the DOF, it offers unparalled low-ligth capability. And when you need the DOF, it offers such SNR that you can still stop down and get DOF similar to that of smaller systems with larger apertures. The only downside is weight and price.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
ZAnton
By ZAnton (Jan 12, 2012)

@Chris_in_Osaka
Last time I went to mountains I took Oly E-Pen1 instead of my old Canon 350D, and that was a mistake. I thought I'll save the weight, yes I did, 200gramms. But also I got wrong colors (purple sky, wrong green) which is almost impossible to recover in LR (bad gradation) and massive noise even at ISO 200.

@dutch3dmaster
It looks like you are not shooting, but collecting the cameras and gadgets. To have 4 different systems is ... well... not optimal.

@CharlesJH
Why don't buy Canon 1100D and enjoy? Its cheap, weight and IQ same as Pana GH or better. You get cheap good zooms like 55-250 IS and you can use some of the FF lenses on it.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
mungozan
By mungozan (Jan 12, 2012)

@Chris
The DoF differences are the whole point here, IMHO!

I shoot with 5D (mk i & II), GF1, GH2 and I must say that while these days I most often shoot with GH2, there is no comparison to images I can get from 5D´s & 35 f/1.4 for example. This is the weakest link on M43 world and the reason I have moved to only shooting with primes on GH2 and GF1.

0 upvotes
NZ Scott
By NZ Scott (Jan 12, 2012)

ZAnton:

If you got "wrong colours" out of your Pen then that is a reflection on the photographer, not the camera. Olympus cameras produce the best colours in the business.

4 upvotes
kucingitem
By kucingitem (Jan 12, 2012)

I have sold my Canon 1D system in exchange with the m4/3 system ...I prefer to walk around with small gear in my neck rather than showing around a huge camera that scares people away.
although the 1D IQ is much better than the m4/3..
so i think its all about preferences...there is always compromise..

0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (Jan 12, 2012)

Totally agree ... Never touched FF for any serious job, but probably I didnt felt the need of it. There are so many photographers I know who even dont like APSC and 4/3 sensor size and happy shooting in the streets with their Ricoh fixed lens compacts, because of greater DOF, so if the AF even missed, they still get quite acceptable frame. FF is for DOF fanatics, and I would say 4/3 is the sweet spot of all the digital sensors. I dont even mind Nikon 1, they just need to get more mature with their lens catalogue and bit more pump to sensor ISO cleanup.
I took my GH1 to over more than 9 countries world wide, and never regret on any reason for any other camera. I took D90, Sigma S5 Pro, E-P1 and recently D5100 and Olympus XZ-1 with it and always end up using GH1 more than anything else.

You welcome to check my flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/hakeem-na/sets/

1 upvote
ljmac
By ljmac (Jan 13, 2012)

@Zanton: the colours you are referring to (as your comment reveals) are not Oly's, but Lightroom's. Use OOC JPEGs or Oly's own RAW conversion software, and the colour is the best around. And that isn't just my opinion - every Oly review says the same thing.

0 upvotes
Gavril Margittai
By Gavril Margittai (Jan 12, 2012)

Hate to be a killjoy, but if anyone believes that possessing these two lenses will make them a better photographer he is wrong. Having these two lenses will not improve picture quality.

If serious about photography and with available money to spend I would rather buy studio lights if one works on portraits, or a good sturdy tripod if nature & landscape are your thing. Both these two will make much more impact. Oh and I almost forgot. Spend on Photography and Photoshop courses.

1 upvote
bpalme
By bpalme (Jan 12, 2012)

People still need some sort of lens don't they?
Why the rant?

20 upvotes
dubstylz
By dubstylz (Jan 12, 2012)

@Gavril, do you only use a kit lens? do you not need faster glass for shallow DoF? ofcourse better glass makes for better image quality. The best thing you can do to improve your images is to get glass beyond the basic and all to often slow and soft kit lens.

6 upvotes
Cass_Rimportant
By Cass_Rimportant (Jan 12, 2012)

Soooo - who are you responding to? Have you ever actually met someone who thinks that lenses will improve her or his skill? Most people can easily figure out the equipment they want or require to take the kinds of pictures that they want to take. How about you mind your own "business" instead of attempting to give unasked for budgetary planning advice.

7 upvotes
Dan_168
By Dan_168 (Jan 12, 2012)

What makes you think those buying these two lenses doesn't already have and using a good tripod or own some studio lighting? so we should all go out to find some crappy lens then we can become better photographer?

2 upvotes
HeezDeadJim
By HeezDeadJim (Jan 12, 2012)

Exactly Dan_168. I don't think too many people who bought a m4/3 camera doesn't at least know the basics of photography. Probably they have a DSLR as main and m4/3 to compliment. I learned a lot with the stock lens and entry level camera. Then I got a few primes and one "L" glass and a proper external flash and tripod.

So if/when I decide to go "portable", you can bet I'll be looking only for faster glass than the stock lens. Not another "sturdy" tripod that I already own.

As for spending money on Photography or PS clases, I learned by "hands-on" training (and some by looking up free websites for basic tutes). That money I saved from going to classes is what I'm using to spend on better glass. Some people can actually learn by trial/error than someone telling them how to do it. Because I'm sure Henry Ford had someone tell him how to work on a car.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
camirisk1
By camirisk1 (Jan 12, 2012)

I totally agree with the comment made by Gavril, the main point is knowing well your technique and you can made gorgeous photos with a plastic lomo or a Hasselblad H4D, the fact is that some people runt about cameras that sometimes they didnt have the choice to use, for me the most important part is knowing how to use the equipment (whatever their choice) and be masters of their vision, if someone is thinking that just using a camera will automatically improve their skills, they would always be using the "P" mode or as some people say, the "professional" mode. :)

0 upvotes
Phil Flash
By Phil Flash (Jan 12, 2012)

Pity that they are concept-only. If it takes a year for Panasonic to bring these to market, it may really hurt them. I'm guessing the final aperture will be 2.5, like the 14mm pancake, after it was initially mentioned as being a 2.8

3 upvotes
amirput90
By amirput90 (Jan 12, 2012)

m4/3 is going towards something bigger, a pro body will not be a dream anymore..

1 upvote
ZAnton
By ZAnton (Jan 12, 2012)

there is already half-professional Oly E-5. What you suggest doesn't make sense.

0 upvotes
geecen
By geecen (Jan 12, 2012)

Yes it does. E5 is a 4/3 (NOT MICRO 4/3) body. It's an slr with bigger lenses. There has been talk (amongst enthusiasts) about a pro m4/3 body for a while. I think Thom Hogan predicted and rooted for it a while ago.

1 upvote
MichaelRpdx
By MichaelRpdx (Jan 12, 2012)

When are we going to get long primes?
Well OK, if these are f2.8 end to end I'll live with it.

0 upvotes
geecen
By geecen (Jan 12, 2012)

I'm not a m4/3 user, but I would have thought long primes are where it's at on these cameras. You can use old mf lenses, or 4/3 (non micro) with the autofocus adapter- there is a 50 f2, 150 f2 and 300 f2.8. There is also already a 35-100 f2 pro zoom.

1 upvote
Nismo350Z
By Nismo350Z (Jan 12, 2012)

I'm always grateful that someone else has the time and the access required to attend these trade shows so the rest of us can get a preview of upcoming products. But I wish they would bring a small ruler so we can get an idea of how of big they are (and how big the new camera bag should be!)

8 upvotes
skytripper
By skytripper (Jan 12, 2012)

With a filter size of only 58mm, both of these lenses appear to be on the small side for constant aperture f/2.8's. The Panasonic 14-140mm zoom takes 62mm filters.

3 upvotes
WT21
By WT21 (Jan 12, 2012)

The 12-35 looks kit lens sized, and the 35-100 is very tempting.

1 upvote
slncezgsi
By slncezgsi (Jan 11, 2012)

Well, obviously these lenses need to come out before X-Pro1 gets its zoom lenses in 2012/13. Good to see m4/3 moving more and more towards a full system.

1 upvote
Tim in upstate NY
By Tim in upstate NY (Jan 11, 2012)

If I stay with m4/3 for the long haul, these two lenses will be on my list of upcoming purchases no matter what the cost. But first, there needs to be a better m4/3 body that can focus track a moving subject like Nikon has achieved with the J1 and V1.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 199
12