Previous news story    Next news story

Panasonic puts 43mm F1.2 portrait lens and 150mm F2.8 on lens roadmap

By dpreview staff on Feb 2, 2013 at 00:32 GMT

CP+ 2013: Panasonic has added a 42.5mm F1.2 portrait lens and 150mm F2.8 super-telephoto prime to its lens roadmap for Micro Four Thirds, for release in the near future. The lenses, shown in prototype form at Photokina 2012, last September, are shown as being ready for release just after the 14-42mm II ASPH. kit zoom launched this week.

The roadmap indicates the lenses should be expected near the beginning of 2013. We'll ask for further information when we speak to Panasonic, later today.

The 42.5mm F1.2 will offer a 90mm equivalent portrait lens with depth of field equivalent to an 85mm F2.4 on full-frame. The 150mm F2.8 offers a fast 300mm equivalent option for sports and wildlife shooters.

The two lenses on the roadmap aren't the only new optics on show - Panasonic also has plenty of examples of its 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 II ASPH. Mega OIS on its stand. Nearly 25% shorter, it is small and light, and has a rather un-damped feel to the zoom ring, consistent with its lowly status in the company's lens lineup

Panasonic is also showing-off the recently launched DMC-ZS30 (TZ40 in Europe) with NFC capability. NFC (Near Field Communication) allows you to tap the phone against a compatible smartphone and that transfers all the information the phone needs to agree a Wi-Fi connection, making it quick and easy to do

Comments

Total comments: 309
12
Thorgrem
By Thorgrem (Feb 2, 2013)

I see that the DoF-Gestapo really takes m4/3 as a serious threat now. Al this deliberately wrong calculations are just so funny.
http://admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-matter/

12 upvotes
ryansholl
By ryansholl (Feb 2, 2013)

I read as far as your article touting "Less blur!" as a purely positive consequence of smaller sensors when talking about bokeh. Then I stopped, because it was obvious that they had no idea what photography is to those who take photos for aesthetic value.

Why it doesn't matter. Christ. As though the price difference between a $500 dollar 25/1.4 and its full frame equivalent, a 50/2.8 - which no one seems to make because it's so inexpensive they'd make no money on it (yes there are 2.8 macros, but good luck finding a 25/1.4 macro) - matters to anyone in the real world. And the option of having a $350 50/1.4 equivalent with 4/3? Nope.

Just to bang that home... Nope.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Feb 2, 2013)

What puzzles me is why they've only discovered these theories after micro 4/3 became a steady format. Crop sensors have been there for quite a while and no one seemed to care about equivalent aperture BS then. I wonder why.

4 upvotes
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (Feb 3, 2013)

"but good luck finding a 25/1.4 macro"

LOL. Ever seen a crowing duck? quacking chicken? Have you EVER shot macro??? Apparently not, because then you would have known why there are no f/1.4 macro lenses.

1 upvote
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Feb 2, 2013)

Has Metabones set some fire to Panasonic feet? Finally, they are starting to get that people want faster lenses. The 85mm f/2.4 and 300mm f/5.6 equivalent lenses are getting closer to FF standards, provided they didn't sacrifice image quality.

6 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 2, 2013)

actually their current business is based mostly on the cheating by the makers and misunderstanding by the users.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
attomole
By attomole (Feb 2, 2013)

Curious, How do you arrive at those equivalent F stops?

3 upvotes
Cass_Rimportant
By Cass_Rimportant (Feb 2, 2013)

@ attomole:
m4/3 is roughly a 2x crop from 24x36mm, so for equivalent depth of field with the same framing:
1.2 x 2 = 2.4
2.8 x 2 = 5.6

Comment edited 15 seconds after posting
1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 2, 2013)

@Cass_Rimportant,

actually, there is nothing we can find in the output image that is controlled by aperture and not the same as f/2.4 on 35mm-format. nothing unless someone can break the laws of physics.

it's very simple because the apertures are the same,
42.5/1.2 = 85/2.4 = 35.4mm

2 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Feb 2, 2013)

85mm equivalent f1.2. Not too shabby at all. (I'm not sure why people are having a hard time with the 42.5x2 math.)

150mm f2.8 could be a killer sports lens if the focus can keep up. Not sure who else really needs a lens that long and fast (and probably expensive).

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 2, 2013)

can 150mm f/2.8 do any better job than a 294mm f/5.5 on 35mm format? physically impossible.

1 upvote
misolo
By misolo (Feb 2, 2013)

The equivalence is to an 85mm f/2.4.

Depending on the optical quality, price and weight, I may get this to replace the Olympus 45mm f/1.8.

9 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Feb 2, 2013)

Sorry, I meant to say it was 55mm f1.5 equivalent since I shoot APS-C.

All of you must shoot FF now, I guess, because that's all you seem to concern yourself with when 4/3 lenses come out.

0 upvotes
ksgant
By ksgant (Feb 2, 2013)

The equivalence is to an 85mm f1.2 lens, not f/2.4. It's still the amount of light that's coming through that aperture.

It's only considered f/2.4 when dealing with depth-of-field equivalence, not low-light performance. Why is everyone having a hard time with this?

5 upvotes
G Davidson
By G Davidson (Feb 2, 2013)

The reason that people are only really interested in the depth of field equivalence, is this is why you'd want a fast portrait lens in the first place. In terms of getting more light, this is balanced out through the noise level and ISO performance being better with a larger sensor (of the same generation). I'm not even sure this would get more light, as the smaller opening might actually let in less at a time.

So it's advantage is mostly within the m4/3 framework, where it may be one of the best for portraits with autofocus. Also, m4/3 lenses are generally fine to use wide-open, whilst full-frame ones benefit from closing down a stop or two, so you get some advantage there.

All that said, I think if people are going to say the equivalent angle of view, they may as well convert the DOF as well, as that way people better know what they are buying.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
ksgant
By ksgant (Feb 2, 2013)

The aperture is the same though as is the exposure for m4/3. When hand-held metering, you still meter and set the camera shutter speed, aperture and ISO the same. You don't go "oh, wait, must add two more stops of light to this because it's m4/3".

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 2, 2013)

a 150mm f/2.8 FourThirds is a 294mm f/5.5 equivalent on 35mm format. compared with Canon and Nikon 300mm f/4 ones, this lens should worth about 750 dollars.

2 upvotes
Optical1
By Optical1 (Feb 2, 2013)

Considering Sigma's 150/2.8 is $1100 and the least expensive 300mm SLR lens is $1300, I can hardly see where you get your $750 price.

2 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Feb 2, 2013)

Even if it were priced this way, which $750 300mm f4 primes are you comparing to? Pentax, Canon and Nikon 300mm f4 lenses are $1400 new. I'd expect at least the same price if not more.

1 upvote
thx1138
By thx1138 (Feb 2, 2013)

Canon 200 f/2.8 $750 or so. Sigma is $1100 because it's a macro lens with OS, the non OS version is much cheaper.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 2, 2013)

> Sigma's 150/2.8 is $1100

that's a 230mm f/4.3 equivalent on 35mm format and is well over piced compared with Canon and Nikon 300/4's if we ignore the differences in AOV.

the Canon and Nikon ones are old but they still perform reasonably well. there is no hint that the Pana one will perform better, yet.

1 upvote
alatchin
By alatchin (Feb 2, 2013)

Dont be silly. You have this all messed up, the lens isnt equivalent in the same way you suggest as your final result would have a light intensity 2 stops lower than the lens you equate it to... So juding by your methods because the noise and DR of the body we just slapped that lens on now performs like a $1000 OMD, the 5Dm111 is no way worth $3000, it should cost $1000, or in fact it has the same performance of the EPL5, so it should cost $600...

Inst equivalence fun, boy are those FF cameras expensive.

4 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 2, 2013)

@alatchin
it's the lens. have nothing to do with camera body. just kindly search "Speed Booster" and do some study will solve your problem.

a 43mm f/0.91 lens for 4/3" will do the same job and worth the same money as a 85/1.8 on 35mm-format.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
eliedata
By eliedata (Feb 2, 2013)

A 150mm f2.8 on a m4/3 is equivalent to 300mm f2.8
The f stop is irrelevant to the form factor.

0 upvotes
alatchin
By alatchin (Feb 2, 2013)

@yabokkie
You are still missing the point, you are comparing a lens to a fictional one and deciding pricing... okay so the 50mm f1.2 is $1600 and the 43mm f1.2 should only be $100... but wait when I put the 50mm f1.2 on my m43rds body it is really only like a 100mm f2.5 on FF, so that lens should cost about $500...

Your logic shows a lack of understanding about the application of equivalence. So using your terrible logic, I fell the 50mm f1.2 is worth about $500, and the 5Dm111 is worth about $600.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 2, 2013)

@alatchin

you may want to do an experiment mounting a 50/1.2 lens on a 4/3" body through a 'Speed Booster' adapter.

if Pana mind to make a 25/0.6, it will definitely worth more than a grand and I would like to have one, too.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 2, 2013)

a 42.5mm f/1.2 FourThirds is a 83mm f/2.4 equivalent on 35mm format (bring you every result the same) and thus worth about 60% of popular 85/1.8 ones, about 300 dollars compared with Nikon G.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Feb 2, 2013)

You seems to be using used prices of antique DSLR lenses as a basis for price on newly designed compact lenses.

2 upvotes
Optical1
By Optical1 (Feb 2, 2013)

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

It will probably be priced with a premium, but your logic is flawed. Not everyone has the same "equivalent value" you suggest...

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 2, 2013)

@tkbslc,
I don't mind if you call 85/1.8G an antique lens. old or new, it's performance, the value that the lens can bring us that's important.

and I don't mind if newly designed lenses fail.

@Optical1,
for buyers, knowledge is power, and lack of is power to the makers.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
eliedata
By eliedata (Feb 2, 2013)

A 42.5mm f1.2 on a m4/3 is equivalent to 85mm f1.2
The f stop is irrelevant to the form factor.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 2, 2013)

there is nothing that's controlled by aperture in the output image can be the same at the same f-number.

name it if you happen to know one.

0 upvotes
aftab
By aftab (Feb 2, 2013)

@yabokkie
Just trying to be clear here.
I set my 5D3 at ISO100 with a shutter speed of 1/100 and 50mm lens on it at f/1.2 for a scene. Then I do the same with my GX1 and the new f/1.2 lens. Are you saying that GX1 picture will be underexposed compared to 5D3 picture? In other words, will I need to use a slower shutter speed to get the same exposure as 5D3?

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Feb 2, 2013)

85mm f1.8 G is $500, not $300.

You are pulling these prices out of 20 years ago.

0 upvotes
Frederik Paul
By Frederik Paul (Feb 2, 2013)

Some folks here cannot even calculate correctly. The f-stop equivalent only applies to the DOV of a crop lens, not to the f-stop itself as the counterpart to the exposure time.

1 upvote
Optical1
By Optical1 (Feb 2, 2013)

@Yabokkie:

You have no knowledge of power. Value is in the eye of the beholder. For you, you won't purchase either of these lenses because you don't perceive their value. For those of us who are involved in the system - these lenses fill holes in the lens lineup - to us the value is different. It is obvious that you have little understanding of the trade offs that are inherent with different systems. Equivalence is largely irrelevant. Stop calculating and go shoot a crop sensor camera - you might actually start to understand why folks are switching to them.

Comment edited 40 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 2, 2013)

> 85mm f1.8 G is $500, not $300.

exactly. since this is a 83mm f/2.4 equivalent, not f/1.8, it has less value than 85/1.8G thus 300 US.

0 upvotes
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (Feb 3, 2013)

@yabokkie

Yabokkie, just tell me what the heck is wrong with you now.

A 42,5mm F/1.2 m43 lens is just what is says there, a F/1.2 lens, with the same field of view on a m43 camera as a 85 mm FF lens has on a FF camera. So far so good? And it's a F/1.2 lens which ever way you try to go around it. It's still a F/1.2 lens. You don't believe?

Let's see. If you have a 85mm F/1.2 FF lens and you shoot with it at F/1.2, and then you take this 85mm FF equivalent 42,5mm m43 lens. What do you do then to make the correct exposure? That's right. You shoot it at the same F/1.2. The exposure time also has to be just the same, when you shoot both cameras with the same ISO. Get it yabokkie?

1 upvote
DenZ
By DenZ (Feb 2, 2013)

I think they designed they designed the 150mm f/2.8 in hopes that someone will manufacture a coffee mug after it. Looking forward to sipping on my new panny 150mm metal thermos :)

4 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 2, 2013)

I'd like to see Panasonic get rid of the ribbed, knurled focus ring. They are dust magnets. In three days, my new PL 25 1.4 had so much lint on the focus ring, it looked like a used lens. Even the 42.5 1.2 prototype seems covered in lint. The tight ribbing of the AF ring just collects it.

5 upvotes
zerlings
By zerlings (Feb 2, 2013)

I couldn't agree more.

0 upvotes
Optical1
By Optical1 (Feb 2, 2013)

Yep. I couldn't agree more.

0 upvotes
kev777zero
By kev777zero (Feb 2, 2013)

nice!

0 upvotes
Mike Ronesia
By Mike Ronesia (Feb 2, 2013)

I have a feeling this lens will be very sharp at 1.2 and be priced to match.

For exposure and focal length - M43's 42.5 f1.2 = FF 85 f1.2
For DOF - M43's 42.5 f1.2 = FF 85 f2.4.
Same settings gives same exp but shallower DOF with FF.

It's that simple... I think???

I for one like the deeper DOF, sure it takes more skill to get a good shot when you can't blur out everything else but in low light I can shoot wide open and have more DOF to work with. Bottom line is there are times when both can be used to your advantage and we all have to work within the limitations of the system we have.

9 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 2, 2013)

why should we put the f-number in focal length comparison and focal length in f-number one?

this lens got the same AOV as an 83mm and
this lens got the same aperture as an f/2.4 one on 35mm format.

an f/2.4 equivalent in every respect that the aperture can do you on the output image. everything including light level (on the whole sensor, and the resulted SNR), DOF, diffraction, ... you name it and there is nothing left behind.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Feb 2, 2013)

yabokkie. If you don't want white photos, you'll use the exposure settings for an f1.2 f-ratio.

2 upvotes
eliedata
By eliedata (Feb 2, 2013)

You (Mike Ronesia) are cetainly right.
f1.2 is f1.2 as far as exposure is concerned.
DOF is increased due to the shorter focal length.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 2, 2013)

> f1.2 is f1.2 as far as exposure is concerned.

only that exposure will give you no same image quality.

0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (Feb 2, 2013)

yobokkie .. you right mate .. IQ will be argueably better on m43, as its easier to create sharper (edge to edge) lens for a smaller sensor, lighter elements or smaller diameters. Pany Leica and Oly are renouned for lens making art!

4 upvotes
redeye47
By redeye47 (Feb 2, 2013)

85mm at f2.4 is a pretty limited depth of field on 1:35 format. (as is 42.5 at f1.2 with m43)

1 upvote
the reason
By the reason (Feb 4, 2013)

yabokkie is either a troll or a very dense headed person

1 upvote
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (Feb 4, 2013)

Yabokkie unrules!

1 upvote
tonywong
By tonywong (Feb 2, 2013)

Looks like the 35-100 sold well enough for Panasonic to greenlight the 150mm f2.8. Hope this keeps up, m4/3 is shaping up to be a thriving standard.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 2, 2013)

Not quite the same because of the smaller format, but Nikon beat Panasonic to this large aperture lens with the 35 1.2 N coated portrait lens announcement last week.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/10/24/nikon-announces-developement-of-three-1-nikkor-lenses

I'm guessing the Panasonic f1.2 lens will cost close to $1000, which I guess is OK if you need the speed and shallow DOF, but prices in m43 lenses are going a bit crazy in recent times. It's becoming a bit of a luxury, boutique format in terms of prices.

3 upvotes
NZ Scott
By NZ Scott (Feb 2, 2013)

"Nikon beat Panasonic to this large aperture ..."

I didn't realise there was some race going on.

Who came third?

"...prices in m43 lenses are going a bit crazy..."

Have to agree with you there - generally, anyway. The M. Zuiko 12/2.0 and 17/1.8 lenses are clearly overpriced. There is some reasonably priced glass around though - the 45/1.8 and 40-150 ED spring to mind, and the 25/1.4 can justify its price.

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 2, 2013)

The camera industry is all one big race to innovate and win market share.

As far as m43 prices, yes the 25 f/1.4 is such a good, fast, useful lens, it's price can be justified. Some of the others, not so much. The two f2.8 zooms from Panasonic, really set a dangerous precedent for future prices. I don't think smaller format zooms should ever be priced similarly to professional FF zooms and the 2 Pany f2.8 zooms approach that high grade pro optic price point.

2 upvotes
NZ Scott
By NZ Scott (Feb 2, 2013)

I also think the f2.8 zooms are a bit overpriced but not because of the smaller sensor. I think they are overpriced because they aren't as good optically as their full-frame equivalents. The Panasonic-Leica 25/1.4 is priced a bit higher than a Canikon 50/1.4 but can justify the premium by its optical quality. The two f2.8 zooms aren't quite good enough to match Canikon professional zooms. It will be interesting to see what Olympus brings to the table.

3 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (Feb 2, 2013)

NZ Scott?? on what basis you think f2.8 is inferior in optics than Canikon f2.8?

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 2, 2013)

@NZ Scott I agree about the f2.8 zooms. Aside from optical quality, it's always cheaper to manufacture lenses to cover smaller format sensors, and for build quality, the 2.8 Pany lenses are not on par with high end pro lenses from Canon or Nikon. The 70-200 f/2.8G VRII has a metal barrel, tripod collar, is internal focus, and doesn't change lengths when zooming. I get that the Panasonic 35-100 is a bit less expensive but it should be considerably less expensive.

A few months ago I had a Pentax K-30, and planned to buy the excellent 35-150 2.8 (an APS-C lens). A week later Pentax raised the price of that lens from $899 to $1599. I sold my K-30 and lenses the next day.

IMHO, APS-C and m43 lenses should rarely be priced the same as FF lenses except in special cases. Panasonic (like Pentax) thinks because the 2 zooms are f/2.8 they can charge as much a high end FF f/2.8 zooms. I don't agree and refuse to play that game because someone decided same aperture = same price.

0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Feb 2, 2013)

Put another way: pics or it didn't happen. Lets see some side by side shots that clearly illustrate this. We are talking about photography, are we not? Isn't that about the final images?

0 upvotes
bluevaping
By bluevaping (Feb 2, 2013)

All this talk of full frame depth of field equivalent and the like... But how does it compare to my phone's camera? Yawn.

1 upvote
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (Feb 2, 2013)

I'd rather these lenses be announced by Tamron / Sigma
because I know Panny will price them outrageously
Don't even dream that the 42.5 f1.2 will be comparable to Canon's 85L...
I presume we don't shoot at F1.2 to bump up the shutter speed, we shoot at F1.2 to destroy the background.

4 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (Feb 2, 2013)

One more thing, the 150 F2.8 looks hideous.

4 upvotes
captura
By captura (Feb 2, 2013)

Yes, the Olympus 150mm F2.8 might be christened 'the Beer Mug' after the Minolta lens they called 'the Beer Can.'

0 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (Feb 2, 2013)

The MSRP price is always the starting point. If enough people don't like it, the price drops.
If people like it (as I suspect they will) they will get good revenue for it. The reward of making a desirable product.

1 upvote
Ganondorf
By Ganondorf (Feb 2, 2013)

What the hell does un-damped mean??

0 upvotes
lxcellent
By lxcellent (Feb 2, 2013)

It lacks the smooth (slight resistance) focusing rotation that we used to get when using manual focusing lenses in the the 1970s...

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Feb 2, 2013)

The lack of dampening means that a low powered AF motor can actually focus the lens and do so fairly quickly. fast AF and smooth MF are at odds. .

1 upvote
Pal2012
By Pal2012 (Feb 2, 2013)

It means they complety dried it out from the flooding. A lot of lens got very damp from that and so we are all concerned if it is reallt dry or not.
So "un-damped" means that yes it was wet and now it is dry.

If it is a "dampened" lens then this means you probably should not buy it and you might ask why it was dampened.
Hope this helps.

1 upvote
Dr_Jon
By Dr_Jon (Feb 4, 2013)

It means it doesn't stop smoothly when you stop turning it. No (or little) resistance to turning.

0 upvotes
Chekr
By Chekr (Feb 2, 2013)

@photo nuts

The fact is that kayone was not correct in his assertion. You being a sheep, jumped on the bandwagon and are now criticizing the author for something that he did actually get right.

You can apologize at any time.

2 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (Feb 2, 2013)

How so, Kayone was right. Use a depth of field calculator to prove it to yourself if you wish.

1 upvote
viking79
By viking79 (Feb 2, 2013)

Of course f/1.4 will expose the same always, but you won't get equivalent images shooting at f/1.4 on full frame vs same framing and perspective on m4/3. You have to multiply the aperture by the crop ratio to get the effective aperture. So effectively a 42.5mm f/1.2 on m4/3 will be nearly identical to an 85mm f/2.4 on full frame. I.e. the lenses would serve the same function. Unless you make some trade off the image quality would be about the same between them. I.e. trade longer shutter speed for lower ISO on the full frame, or shallower depth of field for faster shutter speed or lower noise, etc.

2 upvotes
lxcellent
By lxcellent (Feb 2, 2013)

I really urge you to apologize yourself, Chekr. Please. Your ill-conceived comments are embarrassing for humanity. I know that this sounds mean, but your comments are so baseless and rude that I don't know how else to respond.

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (Feb 2, 2013)

Which will end first? Humanity or Equivalency debates?

2 upvotes
random78
By random78 (Feb 2, 2013)

@checkr: Again did you actually read the dpreview text at which Kayone commented? dpreview says "depth of field equivalent to an 90mm F4 on full-frame". Which is wrong no matter which camp do you belong to in the equivalence debate.

0 upvotes
captura
By captura (Feb 2, 2013)

No, not criticizing; grazing.

0 upvotes
Martin.au
By Martin.au (Feb 2, 2013)

Panasonic is doing some pretty awesome work with the m4/3 lenses.

12 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Feb 2, 2013)

Awesome stuff!

0 upvotes
captura
By captura (Feb 2, 2013)

I wonder if Leica is still their silent partner?

0 upvotes
zapatista
By zapatista (Feb 2, 2013)

If this was a Leica "design" Panasonic would be promoting it up the wazoo and charge twice the price. Similar to the price for the 25mm f1.4 lens compared to the FF equivalents when it 1st came out ($600).

0 upvotes
jorden mosley
By jorden mosley (Feb 5, 2013)

That they are. Though I hope that the 150mm 2.8 has OIS and is weather resistant.

0 upvotes
kayone
By kayone (Feb 2, 2013)

Math is wrong on the 42.5 caption, should be an 85mm f 2.4 equivalent

25 upvotes
random78
By random78 (Feb 2, 2013)

+1

1 upvote
harryz
By harryz (Feb 2, 2013)

ahahaha

Comment edited 34 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Chekr
By Chekr (Feb 2, 2013)

The math is not wrong, you are wrong.

Aperture determines two factors, depth of field and exposure. In exposure f1.4 on a crop sensor is f1.4 as it is on a full frame. It is not at all relative to the sensor. Depth of Field is relative and and therefore you can say that the depth of field has an equivalence at play.

7 upvotes
Martin.au
By Martin.au (Feb 2, 2013)

Oh
Is 90mm what you usually get when you double 42.5, Chekr?

7 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (Feb 2, 2013)

42.5mm f/1.2 on 2x crop factor is equivalent to 85mm f/2.4 on a full frame (assuming they were both 4x3, there is a slight difference due to the different crop ratios, but only a few percent. Check a depth of field calculator, checking a 43mm f/1.2 it is very close to an 85mm f/2.4 at the same subject distance. For all practical purposes if you stood in the same spot, shot the same subject, had the same framing, used 42.5mm at 1.2mm ISO 100 on an m4/3, you would get a nearly identical image to a full frame sensor at 85mm at f/2.4, ISO 400. For all practical purposes these would be the same (given both lenses performed at an adequate level).

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
5 upvotes
Chekr
By Chekr (Feb 2, 2013)

@mjankor
re-read the comment, I am referring to the aperture calculation, no mention of FL

1 upvote
Chekr
By Chekr (Feb 2, 2013)

@viking79

As i said aperture ratios are used to measure two things, exposure and DOF. You only do an equivalence equation when calculating DOF, not exposure. DOF is relative to your FL, crop and aperture so using just an f ratio to measure it is plain silly anyway.

f1.2 is 1.2 is 1.2

4 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (Feb 2, 2013)

I did you said "The math is not wrong, you are wrong." when the OP math is just fine. Effectively the aperture of the 42.5mm is 2.4 if you convert it to full frame terms. Just as focal length doesn't change when you convert to effective focal length, the aperture doesn't really equal f/2.4, but it is equivalent to f/2.4 on a full frame at the equivalent focal length.

1 upvote
viking79
By viking79 (Feb 2, 2013)

You are right, 1.2 is 1.2, just as 42.5mm is 42.5mm, the physical values don't change, but if you convert the focal length to full frame terms you need to convert the aperture too.

0 upvotes
Martin.au
By Martin.au (Feb 2, 2013)

Well, they specified DOF equivalent, not exposure, on their caption. Context matters.

Viking79. Depends what you're trying to do and what you consider important.

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Chekr
By Chekr (Feb 2, 2013)

OK well you have no experience using a light meter to set exposure times, that is quite clear. If you had you would have learnt this lesson in practice.

Let me repeat it for you as you are clearly thick. Aperture is used for calculating the light gathering area relative to the focal length of the lens, it has nothing to do with your sensor size. If you want to learn how to properly measure DOF, there are much more things to take into consideration than just aperture http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Aperture affects two aspects of your photograph and you are ignoring one of them. Dont say that aperture is equivalent because that only applies to DOF and not to area of exposure.

Or just keep on acting like a n00b and keep on doing what you're doing.

2 upvotes
Martin.au
By Martin.au (Feb 2, 2013)

This would be so much easier if you two would stop equivocating and specify DOF equivalence or exposure.

0 upvotes
random78
By random78 (Feb 2, 2013)

@Chekr - have you actually read what the original comment was about? Dpreview article says " depth of field equivalent to an 90mm F4 on full-frame". They are talking about DOF not exposure, and have made a calculation error while coming up with the FF equivalent for DOF - I hope you would agree that there is no interpretation under which this lens becomes an F4 equivalent.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 13 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (Feb 2, 2013)

"For all practical purposes if you stood in the same spot, shot the same subject, had the same framing, used 42.5mm at 1.2mm ISO 100 on an m4/3, you would get a nearly identical image to a full frame sensor at 85mm at f/2.4, ISO 400."

One more question:

Why did you put ISO 400 on a full frame sensor and ISO 100 on a m4/3, when that m4/3 is already shot with two stops wider aperture at f/1.2 compared to the full frame f/2.4?

3 upvotes
misolo
By misolo (Feb 2, 2013)

Rage Joe: This way, for the same scene illumination, you'll get the same shutter speed. Because the actual apertures (diaphragm diameter) are 42.5/1.2=35.4mm and 85/2.4=35.4mm, that is identical, the total light on the sensors is the same and, for sensors of the same generation, the amount of noise in the final image also about the same (even though one is at ISO 100 and the other at ISO 400). This doesn't just work in theory, it also works in practice: I have both kinds of gear and can attest that, with a bit of care to do controlled comparisons, this is easy to verify first-hand.

0 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Feb 2, 2013)

don't forget that while one calculation is linear (ie: 42.5 vs 85 (or 90 as they wrote in the article), the surface area (of the opening) decreases by the square root, thus, the relative aperture change is far greater than the extension.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
noirdesir
By noirdesir (Feb 2, 2013)

The same way focal length is meaningless without specifying the sensor size, exposure (as in determining the noise level in the image) is meaningless without specifying the sensor size. The same focal length does not have the same effect on differently sized sensors, ditto for the exposure, the same exposure does not have the same effect on differently sized sensors.

Thus the same way we talk about equivalent focal length we should also talk about equivalent exposure.

0 upvotes
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (Feb 3, 2013)

@misolo

The other way to look at the situation is to admit that with the m43 sensor and matching lens you can shoot with 2 stops faster shutter speed having the same DOF compared to a FF camera.

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
misolo
By misolo (Feb 3, 2013)

@Rage Joe

But then you have two stops less total light hitting the sensor. That is, a quarter of the photons, which means twice the noise amplitude (plus whatever read noise the sensor has, which may dominate at low ISO).

Put another way, ISO 1600 on my micro-4/3 gear is a completely different thing from ISO 1600 on my 35mm-format gear. (This doesn't matter much if there's enough light that you are in a range where the noise is very small either way -- but in that case the shutter speed "advantage", if there was one, wouldn't matter either).

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (Feb 3, 2013)

misolo: "But then you have two stops less total light hitting the sensor."

You are wrong.

With a m4/3 camera you can use two stops wider aperture to have the same DOF as on a FF camera - and that's exactly the amount of light that you lose having smaller a m4/3 ( crop 2x) sensor compared to FF sensor. That's easy math, you were wrong, I'm sure you can figure this out.

1 upvote
misolo
By misolo (Feb 4, 2013)

@Rage Joe

The f-number tells you the relative aperture (focal length over actual aperture). For a given scene illumination and shutter speed, the f-n. also determines the light density on the sensor. The total light is equal to density x area (think of how much water you can collect from 1" of rainfall over 1 sq. ft vs. over 4 sq. ft). The total noise in an image is proportional to the total light used to make it (quanta and Poisson processes and all that).

And all of that is why any doubting Thomas can pick up, say, a G5 and a 5DIII and check that (RAW scaled to same size) ISO 400 on the G5 has about the same noise as ISO 1600 on the 5DIII. That means you can shoot at, say, f/2.8, ISO 400, and 1/100 sec on the G5 and f/5.6, ISO 1600, and 1/100 sec on the 5DIII (i.e., unlike you stated, the same shutter speed) and end up with very similar images (DOF, noise, motion blur).

I'm sorry if this makes you feel insecure is some weird way (we can all be strange creatures at times).

1 upvote
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (Feb 4, 2013)

Well, this is hopeless, you still didn't get what I was after. You didn't understand a word I was saying.

1 upvote
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (Feb 4, 2013)

says Uematsu:

"Other people can say 'we have a bigger sensor,' but a combination of a not-so-big sensor and a brighter lens can be maybe better, but you have to explain F-number - it's very difficult."

Uematsu is right.

1 upvote
keith james taylor
By keith james taylor (Feb 2, 2013)

It sounds like good motivation to go out and sel some more piks to pay for them

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Total comments: 309
12