Lumix X lenses are f2.8 in aperture

[Jeremy_T]

The text of the article linked at start of this thread says "maximum" aperture of 2.8 and no mention of "constant"

But the images the rumor is based off of clearly indicate that they're f/2.8 fixed.

Of course they could be engineering samples with incorrect printing or something, so that's no guarantee, but it's a pretty big hint.

 

[Marla]

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?

Just saw this on dp "news stories" announcement on home page.

Next to the models is a lens roadmap confirming the company's intentions to build a 12-35mm (24-70mm equiv) and 35-100 (70-200mm equiv) 'X' grade zooms, but with a note that the maximum apertures are 'to be determined

--
Maria

 

[brunobarolo]

I don't get it. What is so difficult about these simple facts?

A sensor 4 times the size gathers 4 times as much light with the same exposure (no matter which focal length), or the same amount of light at 1/4 the intensity of exposure, e.g. at f5.6 vs f2.8.

Why do you get so defensive? There is no need for inferiority complexes. M4/3 has its specific advantages that no other camera system has.

M4/3 isn't the king of low light and will never be. Nevertheless I have a m4/3 system besides my FX system. Because both have different strengths and weaknesses.

Nothing beats an FX camera for low light purposes. I would need an f0.7 m4/3 lens to get the results that the FX system delivers at f1.4. That's why I use an FX camera for these situations.

But I don't want to take my Nikon FX system with me when I'm travelling, it's simply too big and heavy. That's why I have a GH2 system.

Horses for courses, as they say.

 

[brunobarolo]

The text of the article linked at start of this thread says "maximum" aperture of 2.8 and no mention of "constant"

But the images the rumor is based off of clearly indicate that they're f/2.8 fixed.

Of course they could be engineering samples with incorrect printing or something, so that's no guarantee, but it's a pretty big hint.

That's an interesting aspect.

The mockups published on 43rumors several weeks ago didn't have the writing regarding f2.8 and 58mm filter thread next to the front lens. The mockups shown now have it.

So it seems these parameters have now been set in the meantime.

BTW, these lenses really are no rumour at all. They are fact.

 

[Marla]

This statement is included on dp "news stories" announcement on home page.

Next to the models is a lens roadmap confirming the company's intentions to build a 12-35mm (24-70mm equiv) and 35-100 (70-200mm equiv) 'X' grade zooms, but with a note that the maximum apertures are 'to be determined

Doesn't this mean that the maximum aperture is not determined yet? I'm confused! But then I'm a bit "technically challenged" to be honest.

--
Maria

 

[jim stirling]

I don't get it. What is so difficult about these simple facts?

A sensor 4 times the size gathers 4 times as much light with the same exposure (no matter which focal length), or the same amount of light at 1/4 the intensity of exposure, e.g. at f5.6 vs f2.8.

Why do you get so defensive? There is no need for inferiority complexes. M4/3 has its specific advantages that no other camera system has.

M4/3 isn't the king of low light and will never be. Nevertheless I have a m4/3 system besides my FX system. Because both have different strengths and weaknesses.

Nothing beats an FX camera for low light purposes. I would need an f0.7 m4/3 lens to get the results that the FX system delivers at f1.4. That's why I use an FX camera for these situations.

But I don't want to take my Nikon FX system with me when I'm travelling, it's simply too big and heavy. That's why I have a GH2 system.

Horses for courses, as they say.

Couldn’t agree more, but in some forums the simple equation "Total Light = Exposure x Effective Sensor Area" can get you on the hate list
Jim

 

[brunobarolo]

Next to the models is a lens roadmap confirming the company's intentions to build a 12-35mm (24-70mm equiv) and 35-100 (70-200mm equiv) 'X' grade zooms, but with a note that the maximum apertures are 'to be determined

Doesn't this mean that the maximum aperture is not determined yet? I'm confused! But then I'm a bit "technically challenged" to be honest.

--
Maria

It means that these lenses are not yet formally announced.

But since "f2.8" has just been added on the lens barrel (while it was not there when these mockups were shown initially) I would say that we can be very sure that these will be announced with f2.8 (probably at the CP+ show in Yokohama in February).

 

[Vlad S]

Next to the models is a lens roadmap confirming the company's intentions to build a 12-35mm (24-70mm equiv) and 35-100 (70-200mm equiv) 'X' grade zooms, but with a note that the maximum apertures are 'to be determined

Doesn't this mean that the maximum aperture is not determined yet? I'm confused! But then I'm a bit "technically challenged" to be honest.

Well, they probably have not completely committed yet, but what are the options? If Panasonic makes it f/3.5 they will be tarred and feathered. If they make it f/2.0 many will be very happy, but the size and cost might be too much, although overall I think people will appreciate at least the possibility of such a fast zoom..

Vlad

 

[Marla]

Next to the models is a lens roadmap confirming the company's intentions to build a 12-35mm (24-70mm equiv) and 35-100 (70-200mm equiv) 'X' grade zooms, but with a note that the maximum apertures are 'to be determined

Doesn't this mean that the maximum aperture is not determined yet? I'm confused! But then I'm a bit "technically challenged" to be honest.

--
Maria

It means that these lenses are not yet formally announced.

But since "f2.8" has just been added on the lens barrel (while it was not there when these mockups were shown initially) I would say that we can be very sure that these will be announced with f2.8 (probably at the CP+ show in Yokohama in February).

OK....thanks. Good to know how the process works.
--
Maria

 

[Marla]

Next to the models is a lens roadmap confirming the company's intentions to build a 12-35mm (24-70mm equiv) and 35-100 (70-200mm equiv) 'X' grade zooms, but with a note that the maximum apertures are 'to be determined

Doesn't this mean that the maximum aperture is not determined yet? I'm confused! But then I'm a bit "technically challenged" to be honest.

Well, they probably have not completely committed yet, but what are the options? If Panasonic makes it f/3.5 they will be tarred and feathered. If they make it f/2.0 many will be very happy, but the size and cost might be too much, although overall I think people will appreciate at least the possibility of such a fast zoom..

Vlad

I agree - I hope it is f/2.0 constant! Maybe too much to hope for. Then the price might be above my pay scale!

Thanks!

--
Maria

 

[Vlad S]

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

70-200 f/2.8 are the go-to lenses for sports. I think Lumix f/2.8 will be very practical lenses. I just hope the price is right. Tamrons are $700, Canon and Nikon are what, anywhere between $1000 and $2000, depending on the model? The 100-300 is around $600 now. I hope the 35-100 f/2.8 will be no more than $899.

Vlad

 

[GarageBoy]

Does it matter that it gathers 4x the light if you don't need 4x the light to expose properly?
Doesn't matter if the camera is a Minox or an 8X10 view camera, an EV is an EV

 

[ZoranC]

58mm filters?! OUCH!!! Count me out!

 

[tedolf]

two new X lenses with f/2.8 constant aperture!

The pics show lenses with f-stops of 2.8 and not something like 2.8-3.5.

If you are wrong, will you post an apology?

I willl wear ashes and sack cloth and lie prostrate before the u 4/3 forum while Tim in Upstate N.Y. lashes me with a cat-o-nine tails!

If I am right, what will you do?

TEdolph

 

[tedolf]

two new X lenses with f/2.8 constant aperture!

The pics show lenses with f-stops of 2.8 and not something like 2.8-3.5.

If you are wrong, will you post an apology?

Good luck on that.

FWIW Ted wrote:

"No compact camera system is ever going to make a fast zoom. It will be too big, defeating the purpose of using a smaller sensor.
If you need a fast lens slap on a prime.
If you want a fast zoom get a 4/3 lens and adapt it.
Otherwise, just get a FF and open up your wallet for that constant f/2.8 zoom!"

So he said there won't be a constant f/2.8 zoom for m43. At this stage of the game, it's too early to tell if he'll be right or wrong. In either case, I wouldn't hold my breathe for an apology, given his habit of backpedalling. For instance, he'll probably say that f/2.8 on m43 doesn't count as fast. Just you wait and see.

LarsBC has a good point.

I already have my defense prepared!

larsbc

TEdolph

 

[tedolf]

4/3 Rumors website before I shot off my mouth.

Dang.

Anybody know where I can pick up some sack cloth cheap?

TEdolph

 

[exdeejjjaaaa]

But I don't want to take my Nikon FX system with me when I'm travelling, it's simply too big and heavy. That's why I have a GH2 system.

Horses for courses, as they say.

yes, but FF != big nikon dSLR... FF might as well be M9-sized or smaller body w/ smaller lenses... so stop thinking in terms of how C or N design their dSLR bodies...

 

[Loga]

70-200 f/2.8 are the go-to lenses for sports.

Usually, but I am not really sure, how this "power zoom" will perform in sport/action photography. It would be really annoying, if the AF and aperture were quick enough for that, but the zooming method wasn't.

 

[brunobarolo]

But I don't want to take my Nikon FX system with me when I'm travelling, it's simply too big and heavy. That's why I have a GH2 system.

Horses for courses, as they say.

yes, but FF != big nikon dSLR... FF might as well be M9-sized or smaller body w/ smaller lenses... so stop thinking in terms of how C or N design their dSLR bodies...

That is certainly possible and may come true some day (I really hope so!), but today the M9 is the only smaller FF camera, no matter what I start or stop thinking. And regrettably, an M9 system is a bit too rich for me.

 

[Paco 316]

A sensor 4 times larger than the other is capable of gathering more light at a certain aperture. It is simple physics. Does a Ferrari run faster than a station wagon if they are both going at 55mph? Or is a pound of feathers heavier than a pound of pebbles? Come on! Use your head guys.

--



http://www.pueblostudio.com