-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
The new PL 2,8-4 zoom lenses: 8-18; 12-60; 50-200
- Thread starter eques
- Start date
bluevellet
Senior Member
So many choices. Best mirrorless system.
The only dark cloud is those new lenses are Leica-branded so they won't be... How can i put this... Agressively priced.
The only dark cloud is those new lenses are Leica-branded so they won't be... How can i put this... Agressively priced.
Day Hiker
Forum Pro
I just did not think that the very first reply in this thread would be a negative response, whether serious or not. :-|
Jim Pilcher
Bonita Springs, Florida, USA
Life is a breeze by the sea
Beru Roniki - AKA Grzzl
Forum Enthusiast
I hope the price is reasonable
Day Hiker
Forum Pro
Hard to argue that. I've been with µ4/3 for over five years now. I'm not going anywhere soon, although Fuji keeps pounding on my door.
I disagree. The new Leica zooms will be priced aggressively high. :-D
Jim Pilcher
Bonita Springs, Florida, USA
Life is a breeze by the sea
SpiralTower
Senior Member
Yep, that's me. I was clamouring for a 8-25/4 or 2.8 the last few weeks. But wth, I'll take that 8-18/2.8-4 (comes close enough), for the 25 I can use a prime on another body / or the 12-60.
Regards
Regards
Bhima78
Senior Member
That 50-200 has my name written all over it. If its around $1,200, I'll have to consider selling the car and just biking to work from here on out.
Nope.
--
This is where I write stuff: http://randomibis.wordpress.com/
This is where I upload stuff: http://www.flickr.com/photos/107755637@N06/
SpiralTower
Senior Member
Maybe then you will get a discount on your health insurance, getting fitter? ;-)
mauror17
Well-known member
Also mine
I don't feel in love with my 40-150PRO+mc14 so I'll buy this new 50-200 for sure.
Let's not forget the pricing of the 100-400. I think we all expected it to be higher -- but it WAS (and is) pretty darned competitive.
--
Geoffrey Heard
Down and out in Rabaul in the South Pacific
Ben Herrmann
Forum Pro
Where is it mentioned about an 8-18, a 50-200, and a 12-60? I know about the new Panny 12-60 (around $500 USD),o but is there another 12-60 that was released? Got any links on the other two?
Weight is also to be considered. If it significantly under the O 2,8/40-150 I am all for it, but I am afraid, it is more than 800g.
Peter
SpiralTower
Senior Member
Bhima78
Senior Member
Fredrik Glckner
Senior Member
I'm happy to see that the lenses are f/2.8-4. Making a constant aperture zoom in these ranges is only going to satisfy traditionalists who think a constant aperture is better.
By allowing the aperture to vary, we get a better aperture in the shorter end, with little size addition over a constant aperture f/4 lens.
Samsung have understood this as well, with their f/2-2.8 standard zooms. And Leica recently made f/2.8-4 zoom lenses on their DL system.
http://m43photo.blogspot.com
By allowing the aperture to vary, we get a better aperture in the shorter end, with little size addition over a constant aperture f/4 lens.
Samsung have understood this as well, with their f/2-2.8 standard zooms. And Leica recently made f/2.8-4 zoom lenses on their DL system.
http://m43photo.blogspot.com
Last edited:
jiayaw
Senior Member
The gh5 announcement here mentioned the 12-60/50-200/8-18
The 12-60 looks big though
The 12-60 looks big though
Nightmare because of the gigantic acute GAS attack these lenses have triggered.
These three lenses are a knock out set. Well, almost. If I was coming into this market new, they would be at the top of my list for purchase or at least as the standard against which any alternatives would be judged. Always assuming they come up to themark for IQ, etc.
But for someone who has a strong collection of lenses already, they introduce quandary.
Theoretically, the 8-18 would replace my much loved and much used Oly 9-18, but it is such a sweet, light, tiny lens which I use at 9mm nearly all the time, that I don't think so. A pretty pancakey sort of 8-9mm prime of around f3.5 might do it, but not a comparatively big lens like Leica is offering. Phew, that one is dealt with. Slight deflation of GAS.
The 12-60 and the 50-200 give me more trouble. They cover the photographic land I live in, pretty much (when I am not using the 9-18 as a 9mm). I am going to stand outside the camera store staring at them in the window and quivering with sheer lust!
I loved the 24-140 (FF equiv) I had on the old Kodak P880; I was a 28mm main lens man from 40+ years back (that f2 28mm on the OM1 was magic) but the P880 converted me to a 24mm primary man (provided there was a bit of zoom available to go a little longer on occasion). I currently get by with a choice of either the Lumix 12-32 or the 12-35, both fine lenses but neither quite what I want at the long end. I extend them using the 1.4x Ex-Tele in-camera software zoom. But the 12-60 would be ideal (I looked with lust at the Lumix f3.5-5.6 12-60 when it was announced, but the test results at 60 turned me off) and its aperture range of f2.8-4 is just fine. I could use the Ex-Tele feature to stretch that 60 to an effective 90 -- 180mm FF equiv. Just that bit longer than the P880 gave me; it sometimes felt a little restricted at the top end.
The downside: the 12-35 would have to go. And the 45-150 too? Hmmm.
Currently, when I want to go longer, I have a choice of the Panny 45-150 or the 100-300. Neither really suits me, although the 45-150 has a lot going for it, not least its tiny size. But on occasion it is a bit short. On the other hand, the 100-300 does tend to feel like overkill and on occasion, its 100 minimum zoom is a bit long and nearly all the time, the 300 is more than I need.
When I first got into m43 with the used G1, I more or less inadvertently bought a kit, which included both the 14-45 and the 45-200 lenses. I was a bit startled when I opened the package which arrived in the mail, truth to tell. I grew to love both lenses (and the Panasonic control/menu system). For the long work I like to do, the 45-200 was ideal and I got some excellent results from it.
When I moved to an Oly E-PL3 (for better JPEG color and ever lighter weight) I dumped the Panny 45-200 in favor of the Oly 40-150 for its much lighter weight and compactness. I came to love its output -- what a grossly under-rated lens it was at the time -- but still hankered for just a little more reach.
Now the 50-200 is offering that reach -- at last, the replacement for the 45-200 has arrived in upgraded form. But how much will it weigh? Hmmm. And, of course, how much will it cost and how much could I recovery by selling the 45-150 and the 100-300? The answer to those two questions is obvious: the 45-200 will cost quite a bit and the sale of the 45-150 and 100-300 will return comparative peanuts.
In the end, I can't see myself getting both the 12-60 and the 50-200. Maybe it would make most sense to ditch both the 12-35 and the 45-150 in favor of the 12-60 (with Ex-Tele 1.4x taking it up to an effective 90) and keeping the 100-300. That would cover a huge proportion of my work and enable me to retain the reach out to 300 for the odd times when I would have no choice about zooming with my feet. I would have a three lens kit taking me from 9mm to 300mm, with the little 12-32 in hand for relaxed walk-around and the Oly f1.8 45 always there for portraiture and low light specials.
Or maybe it would make most sense to retain the 12-35 and ditch the 45-150 and 100-300 in favor of the new 50-200. I've had some real focusing issues with the 100-300 that have led to much grinding of my few remaining molars. Hmmm.
Or maybe I should just get the f2.8 35-100, an excellent lens. Or the Oly f1.8 75mm for more tele reach in low light.
And then there's the camera question. The G80/85 looks very, very good. But why not the 20 MPX sensor? Maybe to save me from myself!
Gawd -- it's unfair. Life was so much simpler when I bought the G1 kit. Why didn't someone warn me about the dangers of getting into ILC again?
These three lenses are a knock out set. Well, almost. If I was coming into this market new, they would be at the top of my list for purchase or at least as the standard against which any alternatives would be judged. Always assuming they come up to themark for IQ, etc.
But for someone who has a strong collection of lenses already, they introduce quandary.
Theoretically, the 8-18 would replace my much loved and much used Oly 9-18, but it is such a sweet, light, tiny lens which I use at 9mm nearly all the time, that I don't think so. A pretty pancakey sort of 8-9mm prime of around f3.5 might do it, but not a comparatively big lens like Leica is offering. Phew, that one is dealt with. Slight deflation of GAS.
The 12-60 and the 50-200 give me more trouble. They cover the photographic land I live in, pretty much (when I am not using the 9-18 as a 9mm
). I am going to stand outside the camera store staring at them in the window and quivering with sheer lust!I loved the 24-140 (FF equiv) I had on the old Kodak P880; I was a 28mm main lens man from 40+ years back (that f2 28mm on the OM1 was magic) but the P880 converted me to a 24mm primary man (provided there was a bit of zoom available to go a little longer on occasion). I currently get by with a choice of either the Lumix 12-32 or the 12-35, both fine lenses but neither quite what I want at the long end. I extend them using the 1.4x Ex-Tele in-camera software zoom. But the 12-60 would be ideal (I looked with lust at the Lumix f3.5-5.6 12-60 when it was announced, but the test results at 60 turned me off) and its aperture range of f2.8-4 is just fine. I could use the Ex-Tele feature to stretch that 60 to an effective 90 -- 180mm FF equiv. Just that bit longer than the P880 gave me; it sometimes felt a little restricted at the top end.
The downside: the 12-35 would have to go. And the 45-150 too? Hmmm.
Currently, when I want to go longer, I have a choice of the Panny 45-150 or the 100-300. Neither really suits me, although the 45-150 has a lot going for it, not least its tiny size. But on occasion it is a bit short. On the other hand, the 100-300 does tend to feel like overkill and on occasion, its 100 minimum zoom is a bit long and nearly all the time, the 300 is more than I need.
When I first got into m43 with the used G1, I more or less inadvertently bought a kit, which included both the 14-45 and the 45-200 lenses. I was a bit startled when I opened the package which arrived in the mail, truth to tell. I grew to love both lenses (and the Panasonic control/menu system). For the long work I like to do, the 45-200 was ideal and I got some excellent results from it.
When I moved to an Oly E-PL3 (for better JPEG color and ever lighter weight) I dumped the Panny 45-200 in favor of the Oly 40-150 for its much lighter weight and compactness. I came to love its output -- what a grossly under-rated lens it was at the time -- but still hankered for just a little more reach.
Now the 50-200 is offering that reach -- at last, the replacement for the 45-200 has arrived in upgraded form. But how much will it weigh? Hmmm. And, of course, how much will it cost and how much could I recovery by selling the 45-150 and the 100-300? The answer to those two questions is obvious: the 45-200 will cost quite a bit and the sale of the 45-150 and 100-300 will return comparative peanuts.
In the end, I can't see myself getting both the 12-60 and the 50-200. Maybe it would make most sense to ditch both the 12-35 and the 45-150 in favor of the 12-60 (with Ex-Tele 1.4x taking it up to an effective 90) and keeping the 100-300. That would cover a huge proportion of my work and enable me to retain the reach out to 300 for the odd times when I would have no choice about zooming with my feet. I would have a three lens kit taking me from 9mm to 300mm, with the little 12-32 in hand for relaxed walk-around and the Oly f1.8 45 always there for portraiture and low light specials.
Or maybe it would make most sense to retain the 12-35 and ditch the 45-150 and 100-300 in favor of the new 50-200. I've had some real focusing issues with the 100-300 that have led to much grinding of my few remaining molars. Hmmm.
Or maybe I should just get the f2.8 35-100, an excellent lens. Or the Oly f1.8 75mm for more tele reach in low light.
And then there's the camera question. The G80/85 looks very, very good. But why not the 20 MPX sensor? Maybe to save me from myself!
Gawd -- it's unfair. Life was so much simpler when I bought the G1 kit. Why didn't someone warn me about the dangers of getting into ILC again?
Last edited:
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum