Reading mode: Light Dark

12-75mm f2.5-3.3 lens rumor

Go to last post
S

SHood

Veteran Member
Messages
6,427
Solutions
1
Reaction score
3,402
Location
Markham, ON, CA
Interesting. I'd heard about it several times some months back, then not recently. Those specs seem to be cropping up in most of the rumors... If it isn't excessively huge and the IQ holds up, I'd probably buy one. :)
Walter
 
Big lens with a big price to match I would guess.

Nice range and I'd probably be as happier if it was cheaper and f3.5 constant would.
david
 
David Lawson said:
Big lens with a big price to match I would guess.
Click to expand...
I don't care.

It will still be smaller than the mirrored version, and that is "smaller enough" for me. The 20/1.7 has spoiled me forever on bright glass. The things you can do with that lens really expand the functionality of m43 and address the biggest weakness - high ISO noise. Even the difference in light gathering between the 20/1.7 and 45/2.8 is significant - I don't think I would justify the expense at constant f/3.5. Would like to see AT LEAST f/2.8 if not f/2 for the "fast" end
 
i believe most people would like that zoom lens to be 2.5 til 25mm then 2.8 till 45 and from ther to 75mm it could be 3.3 this would make it oe stop better than kit lens that are 3.5 and one stop worst then lumix 20mm f1.7
 
Not a chance, the Oly 12-60mm is 2.8-4 and is not m4/3 sized by any means. Fast zooms need lots of glass, currently there is no way around this and I don't believe Panasonic have discovered a way. If you want fast zooms you are better off with a DSLR.
--
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/
 
papillon_65 said:
Not a chance, the Oly 12-60mm is 2.8-4 and is not m4/3 sized by any means. Fast zooms need lots of glass, currently there is no way around this and I don't believe Panasonic have discovered a way. If you want fast zooms you are better off with a DSLR.
Click to expand...
Let's see - Olympus releases a m4/3 9-18mm zoom and it's half the size and 60% of the weight of the 4/3 version. Panasonic releases a 14-140 superzoom, and it's 10% smaller in both directions and more than 10% lighter than their 4/3 version, despite being dominated by telephoto requirements (Olympus makes one less than half the weight and smaller still, but without IS.) Panasonic's new 100-300 is 15% lighter and smaller than the Olympus 70-300, despite having OIS added.

Yup, clearly there's no reason to expect m4/3 lenses to be smaller or lighter - especially not a fast zoom starting in the wide angle range, where the retrofocal requirements of long registers generally drive the size and weight. :)
Walter
 
saghost said:
papillon_65 said:
Not a chance, the Oly 12-60mm is 2.8-4 and is not m4/3 sized by any means. Fast zooms need lots of glass, currently there is no way around this and I don't believe Panasonic have discovered a way. If you want fast zooms you are better off with a DSLR.
Click to expand...
Let's see - Olympus releases a m4/3 9-18mm zoom and it's half the size and 60% of the weight of the 4/3 version. Panasonic releases a 14-140 superzoom, and it's 10% smaller in both directions and more than 10% lighter than their 4/3 version, despite being dominated by telephoto requirements (Olympus makes one less than half the weight and smaller still, but without IS.) Panasonic's new 100-300 is 15% lighter and smaller than the Olympus 70-300, despite having OIS added.

Yup, clearly there's no reason to expect m4/3 lenses to be smaller or lighter - especially not a fast zoom starting in the wide angle range, where the retrofocal requirements of long registers generally drive the size and weight. :)
Walter
Click to expand...
If anybody here seriously thinks we are going to see a 12-75mm zoom with a speed of 2.8-3.5 or there about they are deluding themselves. The clue to all those lenses you mentioned is the maximum aperture :).
--
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/
 
We all know there isn't a fast m4/3 zoom yet to compare - that's sorta the point of this thread. ;)

But faster lenses aren't immune to the benefits of shorter registers and digital correction:

PL 25/1.4: 2.9" x 3.1", 1.1 lbs

Panasonic 20/1.7: 1" x 2.5", .22 lbs

I didn't mention this one initially because there's more difference between the two - the m4/3 lens is half a stop slower and 20% wider than the 4/3 "equivalent" - but also less than a third the size, and one fifth the weight.
Walter
 
I don't understand why there has to be such a lengthy discussion about such a trivial issue. The m43 format has half the optical size as full frame. Therefore all lenses can be made four times smaller (because 2^2=4). So in principle a 12-75 lens with f2.5-3.3 can be built with four times smaller footprint and four times lighter than an equivalent FF lens. If that's not light enough for anybody, they can move to PnS. E.g. the LX5 is another factor 2.25 smaller than m43 and has a 24-90 lens with f2.0-3.3. Comparable to the lens that's the topic of this thread. It indeed is very roughly 16 times smaller and lighter than an equivalent FF lens. It also costs roughly that much less. So it is possible to build a fast zoom that is 4 times lighter and cheaper than FF for m43, it simply has to be done. Simple scaling argument, not much arguing necessary.
 
It's eight times smaller. m43 vs. FF ratio is 1:2. This in three dimensions means 1:8 in size, volume, weight.
 
I'm actually on the side of those who prefer a micro 4/3 sized version. Why do I say "side" and "micro4/3 sized" ? Aren't we ALL in the same boat that want a native fast zoom ? Well, apparently not.

For some time now the loudest voice has been of those claiming such a lens would be HUGE and pricey (there's even been people who've said it would be BIGGER and more costly). This sounds to me more like people WANTING such lens to be big and pricey.

Why ?

Because such a lens is usually aimed at semi-pro/pro segment and those people wouldn't want to let the exclusivity go to the masses (and neither would panny or oly like to charge what's adequate).

I think it will be pricey (not by necessity but by choice), but it doesn't have to be large. That was supposed to be THE advantage or "raison d'être" for m4/3, and the 20mm f1.7 is an excellent example of that, cheap, fast and "micro".
 
tpani said:
It's eight times smaller. m43 vs. FF ratio is 1:2. This in three dimensions means 1:8 in size, volume, weight.
Click to expand...
I thought the same thing, but am not sure about it because the possibility to shrink the optics length-wise depends on the distance of the lens from the sensor, which can't be arbitrarily reduced.
 
amvrvd said:
I think it will be pricey (not by necessity but by choice), but it doesn't have to be large. That was supposed to be THE advantage or "raison d'être" for m4/3, and the 20mm f1.7 is an excellent example of that, cheap, fast and "micro".
Click to expand...
This lens is also a good example of how m43 lenses are much bulkier than they need to be, in that volume-wise the lenses and optical pathway occupy less than 25% of the lens. For my FF lenses it's the other way around in that lenses and optical pathway occupy more than 75% in them.
 
losangeles said:
I don't understand why there has to be such a lengthy discussion about such a trivial issue. The m43 format has half the optical size as full frame. Therefore all lenses can be made four times smaller (because 2^2=4). So in principle a 12-75 lens with f2.5-3.3 can be built with four times smaller footprint and four times lighter than an equivalent FF lens. If that's not light enough for anybody, they can move to PnS. E.g. the LX5 is another factor 2.25 smaller than m43 and has a 24-90 lens with f2.0-3.3. Comparable to the lens that's the topic of this thread. It indeed is very roughly 16 times smaller and lighter than an equivalent FF lens. It also costs roughly that much less. So it is possible to build a fast zoom that is 4 times lighter and cheaper than FF for m43, it simply has to be done. Simple scaling argument, not much arguing necessary.
Click to expand...
If it's such a trivial issue and just a matter of scaling can you tell me why it hasn't been done yet and why even the current crop of m4/3's lenses have to be software corrected?

The smallest fast zoom I can think of is the Zuiko 14-54mm 2.8-3.5 and that is certainly not m4/3's sized. Even if you removed the weathersealing it would still be much larger than the current crop of zooms.

If it was so easy I'm sure the Zuiko 14-54mm and 12-60mm would have been much smaller from the start, but if you know better than any Zuiko optical engineer could you let them know as I'd love a small 12-60mm for my EPL-1.
--
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/
 
Have you seen anywhere a true 12-75mm full-frame lens? A 24-120mm lens is already massive. Look at the 9-18 and 7-14mm, going a bit wider and you have a much larger lens. So even with your impressive math the 12-75 will surely be as large as any other equivalent lens for DSLR.

There are a couple of cine lenses that have the same zoom range but do not cover the 43 sensor nor start that wide or that fast.

I don't care about the size of this 12-75 if it ever exists. It will be a dedicated movie lens with electronic zoom and all the fancy feature of REAL movie lens. A kit lens for the AG-AF100.

For the time being, where are all the primes people asking for?
 
tpani said:
It's eight times smaller. m43 vs. FF ratio is 1:2. This in three dimensions means 1:8 in size, volume, weight.
Click to expand...
To be more accurate, the volume and weight might be 8 times lower, but the lens's dimensions would be 50% smaller (length, diameter...).

In fact it's not entirely correct for the lens diameter since the MFT bayonet is larger than 50% of a full frame. But for the overall length and the size of optical components, I see no reason why one could not shrink everything by 50% vs a full frame lens - even the MFT flange back distance is approx 50% of an F mount...

So please Oly/Panny: look at the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 and give us a twice shorter and about eight times lighter 12-35mm f/2.8... (yes it's still f/2.8). Or a 12-60 f/4 VR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top