Lumix X lenses are f2.8 in aperture

[dv312]

http://www.photographyblog.com/news/panasonic_12-35mm_and_35-100mm_lenses
to keep size and cost down obviously
cheers, ;-)

 

[Nappe1]

This sounds like I soon have upgrade path.

They could be faster but I am perfectly happy with F2.8 Only thing I now need is 1.4x converter to use with the tele.

Me likes!

 

[SF Photo Gal]

F2.8 at (35-100) 200 equiv.? who could complain. Of course depends on the price, as always.

SF Photo Gal aka Queer Chick
Canon 1DsIII & 5DII/Panasonic GH1-GF1-LX3

 

[robonrome]

I note the article says " with maximum apertures of f/2.8".... that doesn't sound like it means constant 2.8.... does this mean 2.8 at the wide end and something like 4 at the long?

 

[Jorginho]

That is very important in my view too. Even f2.8 wide open is underwhelming. For a better control over DOF, f2.0 to f2.8 or something likewise woluld have been really nice.

There is more to a lens than DOF. Sharpness etc. Look at the 7.5 mm Samynag that does everything right, even though it is f3.5.

With these kind of aperatures on these 2* crop sensored cams, I feel I pay for it because I cannot get around it. F2.0 - f2.8 lens would have been expensive, I know and also a bit larger, but it would have given me the choice when I need it.

But lets wait and see...

 

[Coby]

The photograph of the lenses shows just F2.8 .... no indication of an aperture range. But then these are just concept lenses behind glass, so we still can't be sure.

 

[Mike Koo]

The photograph of the lenses shows just F2.8 .... no indication of an aperture range. But then these are just concept lenses behind glass, so we still can't be sure.

Gotta agree with you there. Concept lenses are just that, concept lenses.

 

[jeffharris]

http://www.photographyblog.com/news/panasonic_12-35mm_and_35-100mm_lenses
to keep size and cost down obviously

Check out the close-up photos of the fronts of both lens. It clearly says f1:2. On both. Nice!

http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/1974/ces-2012

 

[Vlad S]

Check out the close-up photos of the fronts of both lens. It clearly says f1:2. On both. Nice!

http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/1974/ces-2012

It actually clearly says 1:2.8 on both. I suppose it also implies they are constant aperture.

Vlad

 

[ZZ9]

maybe new glass it s very clearly and big ....F 2,8

 

[Cani]

Power OIS lenses with MEGA OIS switches... Conceptual indeed!

 

[Jorginho]

The power part could be for ""powerzoom", thus for movie, the other part for manual focussing etc? Don't know.
Wonder about the price though. And of course how well they perform.

 

[GarageBoy]

I'll take the F2.8
Fast enough (esp if its constant 2.8) for me
F2 will be EXPENSIVE

 

[mfbernstein]

F2.8 at (35-100) 200 equiv.? who could complain. Of course depends on the price, as always.

How much would you pay for 70-200/5.6 for your 5D2?

--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey

 

[45matai]

Doesn't the 45mm 2.8 do decent portraits? Any chance the 35-100 would be better?

 

[Adventsam]

Still, id of preferred 12-60 and 60-200 f 2.8 const. Theres some thing about the the.12-35 that says a bit short?

I'll take the F2.8
Fast enough (esp if its constant 2.8) for me
F2 will be EXPENSIVE

 

[Brian Short]

I'll take the F2.8
Fast enough (esp if its constant 2.8) for me
F2 will be EXPENSIVE

Not to mention large, and they already look sort of big already. I'm interested in the 12-35 as a single lens walk around for my Europe cruise in September but at the size they appear to be, I might just stick with the 14-140 kit and a couple primes. They'll be hard to pass on if they're sharp wide open though.

 

[Sean Nelson]

How much would you pay for 70-200/5.6 for your 5D2?

Irrelevant, unless your only concern is DOF.

 

[runlsd]

What I really want is for Olympus to produce the legendary f2.0 constant zooms for m4/3.

 

[brunobarolo]

How much would you pay for 70-200/5.6 for your 5D2?

Irrelevant, unless your only concern is DOF.

No, also relevant regarding low light capability.

But a m4/3 camera with this 35-100 f2.8 is smaller and lighter than any FX camera even with a slow 70-200. That's the point for m4/3, not necessarily costs.