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

> (including SLRs)

Thus completely missing the point of my post.

Since we don't know the cost of those new lenses, it is hard to comment on cost. Hasn't stopped a lot of people, of course.

It took you a whole day to think up this nonsensical rebuttal?

Let me spell it out for you:
SLRs are not relevant in this debate because their added bulk and weight puts them in another class of buyers.
There are no "equivalent" mirrorless APS lenses that can compete with either of these newly released lenses. The closest to the 43mm f/1.2 is the Sony 50mm f/1.8, and that's too short to be a proper portrait lens on APS and slower to boot.

All anybody has in the ~200mm APS range is a bunch of slow superzooms.

But you knew that didn't you? Otherwise you'd be rebutting with actual lenses rather than this nonsensical drivel.

"how slower is Pana 42.5mm f/1.2 compared to Nikon 85mm f/1.8? "

In terms of exposure speed, the 42.5/1.2 is faster than the 85/1.8, duh. lol.

A few thoughts and facts:
a) FF stands for Full Frame. In that respects MFT ( Micro Four Thirds ) is Full Frame, as the sensor is occupying the full frame size which its MFT standard defines. Probably a better name would be 35 mm
b) Given the use of Proper lenses 35 mm can give MFT a run for their money in case you print 24" ( A2 ) or bigger. If your printer is however US Letter / A4 size or even 13" / A3 then prints of pictures taken with a MFT and 35 mm camera are mostly indistinguishable. Your amount of shoulder pain however may show a great difference between these two camera system sizes after a day of shooting :-)
c) It would be indeed interesting to see of MFT will pick up and Canikon will be sluggish to follow, as they have no such lens lineup. Who would have thought that years ago? Now it is a possibility indeed :-)

"FF = best image quality
APS-C = best value for money
MFT = best size"

MFT is for me quite right with value for money. Best image quality doesn't go to Full Frame. Medium Format will beat the crap out of it. I do not understand all this whining about FF when MF is far superior in IQ.

quality does not = large aperture. You seem to be confused. Large aperture has some benefits but it does not dictate image quality.

I haven't shot APS-C since going 35mm full frame in 2005. Reason: APS-C bodies are slightly smaller, but the lenses are the same size as FF. So frankly it was never worth the sacrifice in IQ. With the higher end m4/3 bodies, there is significant weight/bulk savings with APS-C IQ. For those kinds of weight savings, it's worth the sacrifice in IQ. I still shoot 35mm FF for critical stuff (client work), but for my personal work, it's 99% m4/3.

Could there be any reason? How about replicating a classic portrait length and then giving it the fastest reasonable aperture to almost compensate for the smaller sensor?

Why are you acting like this is a conspiracy? They though about making a good portrait lens, figured the appropriate focal length (About twice the diagonal) and then gave it a fast aperture. Yes 1.2 gives a smaller aperture and thus less BG blur and deeper DOF on 4/3 sensor, but Panasonic did the best they could working withing the constraint of their system. It's not some ploy to trick customers who already know their sensor is smaller than a Canon or Nikon.

Rip off?

Sure it's an expensive lens, but it goes on a relatively cheap body. You want to make FF equivalence posts all day, but is a $2000 body with a $400 lens cheap? And if it is "equivalent" to a $800 lens on a $500 body, then what is the better deal?

And what is your point? Nobody has suggested otherwise.

@noirdesir

Look at the post immediately preceding this one - the poster talks about 35mm equivalents as double the f-stop (or half the light). People bring this up all the time.

"Yes, of course but while the actual focal length and the actual f-stop are what they are, the equivalent focal length and the equivalent f-stop naturally are different"

No they are not. There is no "equivalent" about it. A 150mm F2.8 lens it just that. It doesn't change either focal length or f stop because you stick it on a camera with a different sized sensor.

It has nothing to do with noise levels either. Is a FF camera about two stops better noise wise than an aps-c camera? I'd say so (at higher ISO's) but that doesn't make an F2.8 lens an F5.6 lens on an aps-c camera. It is purely a reflection of one thing and one thing only - sensor noise performance.

Given at low ISO you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference in noise levels between the two sensors anyway if your logic was correct you would have to say what what ISO an F2.8 lens became "equivalent" to an F5.6 lens when used on an aps-c camera.

These silly battles just go on and on, mostly because many people do not include the necessary qualifiers or do not understand the qualifiers.

As the OP stated, F2.8 is F2.8 and has nothing to do sensor sizes, etc. It is merely a measurement of the light passing through a lens to its recording medium, regardless of the size or type of recording medium. Aperture is "quantity of light", Shutter speed is "time of exposure" or how long the quantity of light exposes the recording medium. ISO is the "sensitivity of the recording medium. These are the 3 elements of exposure in photography.

When some people talk about a 45mm F2.8 m4/3 lens being equivalent to a 90mm Full Frame lens at F5.6, they can do so correctly only if they include the qualifier of "Depth of Field". 45mm at F2.8 on m4/3 will provide the same depth of field as a 90mm on full frame at F5.6. It is not the maximum aperture or equivalent aperture, it is specific to "depth of field"

(continued) Now, when we talk about a 45mm on m4/3 being equivalent to a 90mm on a full frame, what we are really talking about is the angle of view. 45mm on m4/3 will have the same "angle of view" as a 90mm on a full frame camera. The aperture for either lens does not matter. The equivalent "angle of view" will be the same. These terms and relationships were derived from the decades of 35mm film and used to describe relationships between various formats, but since so many photographers today, have no association with film based formats and little historical relationship to the terms, they are often misunderstood, especially when people do not identify the specific value or parameter they are referring to.
Apeture = Quantity of light. It is a mathematical formula that is constant.
Shutter = time of exposure.
ISO = sensitivity of the recording medium.
Equivalent lens = Angle of View.

There can be occasional technical variations, but they are out of the norm.

I would only add to (completely correct) answer of David247: A lens with given aperture (be it f/2.8 for the sake of example) provides the same amount of light per IMAGE AREA as another lens with the same aperture - irrespective to the focal length or the size of the image are. In other words of on camera X at given light conditions a 28/2.8 lens results in 1/100s shutter speed a 300/2.8 lens will result in the same shutter speed.

So - since we get the same amount of light per image area it matters into how many pixels we divide it and that determines (in the first order) how much noise are we going to end up with.

A Gh3 + the Panny 150 f/2.8 will weigh only a half-pound less than the D600 + the Nikon 300mm f/2.8? I don't think so ... . :-)

@ wakaba: PLONK

wakaba, why so angry? btw i hope that shot was meant to be an example something wrong, cause the bird is severely underexposed.

That bird shot isn't very good. Not just exposure. It's soft, as well. Plus, the composition tells me that the shooter should not be spouting photographic opinions as gospel, especially in such an arrogant manner.

Their lineup isn't just about small cameras now, they're trying to take a bite out of parts of the DSLR market now too (especially for video), after all the GH3 is almost DSLR sized itself. It makes sense as your small carry-round camera can be the same system with the same lenses are your large "more serious" camera.

Maybe they just don't respond well to assholes.

Would that be the same inferiority complex that drives you to regularly troll the m4/3 forums with "Nyah, I'm better than you...equivalence, equivalence, equivalence. Your system is rubbish" style posts?

Work harder on your photography if you want to feel better about yourself. Don't go and troll others just for choosing a different format than you.

Why does the equivalence matter unless you are comparing it to a non-existent mirrorless FF system? All you need to know is that this is the fastest AF prime for m4/3.

People don't moan the release of m43 lenses, they moan when m43 users start saying that the shallow DOF of fast FF lenses is essentially unuseable. They moan when m43 users claim that m43 has more DOF (it has not unless you go deep intro diffraction territory).
FF users don't claim that the small size and lower cost of m43 makes it essentially unuseable.

If you actually want to be pedantic, 1.2 on a MFT camera gives a 2.4 DOF equivalent on 135. Which I think should be enough to nicely separate subject from background in most situations... Honestly, do you really shoot all portraits on 135 at f1.4-f2 ? On film, I find myself using f2.8-4 more often than the max f2 value on my 100mm. And if you need a shallower DOF for some shots, well yes it might be a limitation, but for MFT user in general it means a lens with great light gathering ability, and I guess it will be just enough sharp for portraits, so pretty good news for this system...

Wrong. This is why an Oly 70-300 will be about the same size as a FF70-300, or an Oly 300/2.8 will be about the same size as an FF 300/2.8. You can save a tiny bit with the smaller circle but in general the lenses will be the similar size and complexity (You do see some size advantages in wide angle on m4/3).

Ergo, the Panasonic 150/2.8 will be about the same size and cost as a FF150/2.8

The lenses are the same size? Olympus and Panasonic marketing will be shocked to discover this.

> FF150mm f2.8 should also only cost $500

the cost is much cheaper but both 150mm f/2.8 lenses for 35mm-format or 4/3" should be of the same cost at the same volume.

thus I think it's fair the 4/3" one be sold at a slightly higher price if the volume is low, say 600, and maybe 700 in the first several months.

Mjankor, if you believe that what matters is only the focal length and aperture, let me remind you that there is a $600 camera from Panasonic, the DMC-FZ200, which has a 4.5-108 mm f/2.8 lens. According to your logic, there should be a similar full frame lens for $600. If you can get me such a lens, hell even 28-108 mm, I'll be happy to take it.

You people are all acting like morons.

m4/3 is a full-frame format because the lenses that are made for it are engineered to be full-frame relative to its native sensor size.

WHO CARES what it's "equivalent to" on some other, bigger or smaller format!?

I mean we could remind you that it's about a 138mm f/5.6 on a 6x4.5 on 120-format, but what difference does it make? Nobody cares anymore about 120-format, just like nobody cares anymore about 135-format. It's largely irrelevant to the marketplace. Less than 5% of all cameras sold are 135-format. GET OVER IT.

Because at the end of the day a 1.2 lens will ALWAYS have the SAME light intensity per unit area no matter what format it's on, meaning you'll get to use a lower ISO. And no, ISO is not related to sensor size purely, it's related to sensor size over time. Every year it gets cleaner and cleaner, such that a 135-format camera from 2008 gets outperformed by a m43 camera from 2012.

A brighter lens is always brighter. These arguments about frames being full are just bull. m43 does not crop its lenses, it's full frame by the precise and original meaning of that term, before marketing idiots got ahold of it and ruined it, creating legions of ditto-heads who parrot jargon terms without even knowing what it means.

Alright, Mjankor. I will also agree that this 'equivalence' doesn't have much to do with lens prices. It's purely about light gathering and DOF. Pricing is another issue outside of the realm of physics.

small aperture lenses are lightweight and cheap regardless of the sensor size. micro 4/3" is no Oly mount. it's designed by Pana and Oly followed and changed the track. they may change again, better change again, sooner than later.

What's the point of comparing apples and oranges? The 150/2.8 should be compared to equivalent 300/5.6, and no such FF is neither heavy nor expensive and probably achieves better optical quality, at least it's easier to achieve a better optical quality in FF lenses.

@ equivalence snobs- yes, lets compare apples to oranges. For example, you fail to mention the f/2.8 lens from (insert any format here) will have two stops better shutter speed (or two stops lower ISO, take your pic) at a given exposure at max aperture. Please stop just looking at one aspect of "equivalence".

This equivalence stuff is absolute rubbish. An F2.8 lens is an F2.8 lens. Period. It doesn't matter what sized sensor sits behind it. Same applies to focal length.

Ok a 150mm on m4/3 will give the same d.o.f as a 300mm at F5.6 on ff but surely the point is your 300mm F5.6 is two stops slower.

micro 4/3" lenses shorter than 20mm are more expensive to make. it's was not a smart decision when Pana designed the mount.

small aperture lenses (slower than f/1.4 for 4/3") can put the small rear element behind mount. this may solve part of the problem but still they won't be as good as NEX or EF-M mounts. they = Pana 4/3" and Samsung APS-C.

I can see that you only live on paper.
Cause that, "no creative possibilities" statement with a pathetic try to use math to convince us you are right, definitely can mean only that.

I think SLOtographer means he can get the light gathering of f 1.2 (resultung in faster shutter speeds) and the DOF of f 2.4 compared to an equivalent lens on FF. This indeed might be a slight advantage in shooting moving objects (more tolerance to less than perfect focus) compared to a 85mm f1.2 on FF. I doubt however, that this a real advantage for creative photography.With M4/3 you loose more on the side of selective focus and background blur.

So you couldn't be creative with a 85mm f2.4 on FF or a 55mm f1.5 on APS-C?

This guy has been going all day. I wonder if he works for some consortium of anti m4/3 brethren.

I thought everybody knew that the apertures of f1.2 and f2.4 render you creatively impotent. Why do you think I set my camera to 1/3 EV steps and avoid all lenses faster than f1.4?

No bokeh, no buy - the old Marley classic.

There's plenty of bokeh, and it's good quality too. If you want shallower depth of field than the system provides, then you're simply barking up the wrong tree. Try "full frame" or medium format or even large format if you want the ultimate in shallow DOF.

However, the Oly 45/1.8 has excellent bokeh wide open, see: http://go o.gl/PMDUT (delete the space)

Of course if you'd rather waste your time whining on online forums about gear that doesn't exist and might never exist, then by all means, have fun with that.

Troll's arrogance and pretension best serves troll's head further up own rectum.

Exactly. FOD. Yet, yabokkie, you seem to suffer from this worst.

I use full and cropped frame cameras for stills, and m43 for video. There are some studio gigs that I'd but just as happy using my little GX1 bodies on, but they are too small for most clients to take seriously. But the quality is there.

It sounds like your hung up on the lens math, but you're missing other parts of the equation. You're correct about depth of field. And that's about it.

You don't know anything about the quality of these lenses or sensors. Go use a m43s camera. Use one with the following lenses: 14/2.5, 20mm/1.7, 45mm/1.8, 75mm/1.8. And don't make another whiny post until you do. You do not understand what can be done with this gear until you actually use it.

All you're doing now is bootless speculating.

Agentul: what do you mean «"unique and creative" style»? That certainly doesn't apply to the people you've mentioned. They photograph their cats and MTF charts. That's hardly unique or creative!

Don't you forget that FF pixel gather 4x more light so ISO400 on FF equivalent to ISO100 on 4/3. You can have 4x faster shutter speed on FF.

"Working with a smaller sensor and a fast lens you can use wider aperture = lower ISO or shorter exposure time and still get a decent depth of field. That's what it boils down to. You don't want to have just one eye in focus - most of the time."

Working with a larger sensor, you stop the lens down and shoot at a higher ISO yielding the same image. The difference is that the full frame lens that gives you that image cost far less than the m4/3 lens, and when don't need the DOF increase allows faster shutter speeds/lower ISOs than the m4/3 lens. Reference Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 vs. any full frame 50mm f/1.8.

100 ISO on FF = 100 ISO on m43. It's a standard. That's why it's called "ISO". It's measured to standards.

There is a difference of noise. However it's not four times more on m43. There is an issue of not just the math of "bigger sensor collect more light" but the fact that these are completely different sensor designs backed by completely different circuits.

My m43 cameras have shocked me by how well they do really long exposures and extremely long video clips. That tells me that they generate and/or dissipate heat differently than larger APSC or full frame sensors. (see: NEX cameras overheating with video). In that one thing alone--heat, which generates noise--we have one place where these cameras are not directly comaparable, so you can see that your assumptions and simple math are wrong.

Yes, the larger sensors do tend to perform a little better when comparing a similar generation of cameras. However, not by as much as you seem to think.

Mike: Without telling us what their "slower lens" was it's impossible to tell whether you're making a fair comparison. For example a FF DSLR at ISO 6400 with a 50mm at f2.8 will produce an almost identical image in terms of DOF and "noise" to a 4/3 DSLR/EVIL at ISO 1600 with a 25mm at f1.4, assuming the technology is equivalent. With these settings the FF DSLR captures ~1/4 times as much light per unit area, but its sensor is ~4 times the area.