Its 2.8 Hectares.

If you like it, you can then try the Panaleica 25-50 1.7

TonyPM is missing the point. The desired zoom range is 12–35, at F1.7, of course. Personally, I want a 12 to 100 F1.2. And yes, it can be made. But no one makes it because they make more money selling multiple zoom lenses that cover a less than desirable zoom range. I Personally don’t care about size and weight. I want a super fast yet versatile wide zoom range lens.

@James Wages That range of coverage at f/1.2 would not only be stupendously large and heavy for MFT but would also be well upwards of £2,000, not even counting the extra premium they would probably add in for a lens that would not have widespread appeal.

A 12-100 f/1.2 would probably be closer to $6k+ than 2k. The 10-25 is $1800 already. Hell, that's way faster than almost any FF zoom lens *at equivalent apertures* with the exception of the Canon 28-70/2 and Tamron 35-150/2-2.8 - and it covers a much wider, more complex range than either of those (equivalent to 24-200/2.4).

@James Wages - a 12-100 F 1.2 isn’t produced for the reasons you stated, it’s because it cost north of 40k the most comparable lens that exists is Fujinon broadcasting lens a 28-100 T2.9 that sells for 42,900 USD

It doesn't turn on any more?

Be positive. It is not obsolete. It is now a vintage lens.

I don't think Panasonic's Leica branding ever was anything but paying Leica for the name – and Leica saying ok, that lens is not something to be ashamed of. And perhaps, with the 12-35, they never even asked before now? It used to be one of those 'X' labeled lenses which I guess was supposed to mark premium lenses without having to ask Leica, but seems to be disappearing now that Panasonic and Leica are collaborating even closer than they used to.

I have both Leica and Panasonic branded lenses, and wouldn't say the Leica ones are necessarily better than the "good" Panasonic branded ones. My "best" lens optically is the Panasonic 35-100/2.8, and not one of the Leica branded ones (15 and 25 mm primes). So without changing anything but the label, the Panasonic 35-100/2.8 can become a "Leica" if you ask me.

At another website someone posted the MTF charts of this lens and the original, and the MTF's are identical.

@larkhon

It also extends to 75mm, not just 70. Red apples to yellow apples.

I am not an expert on m43 high end lenses, but the ones I have used compete with full frame high end lenses in rendering and details. Those would be >$2000 lenses from other first party manufacturers. Sure, there is a non equivalence for bokeh, but people who use m43 don't fret over it that much.

"True" F:2,8??

The new Panasonic/Leica 12-35mm/F:2,8 IS a TRUE F.2,8 lens!

Its "bokeh" is NOT the same as the bokeh of a "full frame" 24-70mm/F:2,8, but that is something quite else.

Sad thing is you already knew that, yet still "had to" post such a not true statement.

I shoot both systems and I still see it as apples and oranges just based on weight/size alone, I get the not everyone is AS sensitive to that, but the Tamron on a FF body is gonna be well over 1.1kg, whereas this Pana lens on some M4/3 bodies could end up being a >30% lighter combo, that's not nothing.

I don't see the point of dragging FF into the discussion for such a disparate comparison (f5.6 equivalent vs f2.8 and all), if anything something like the Sigma 18-50/2.8 on APS-C seems like the more interesting comparison for anyone interested in smaller gear (still f5.6 vs f4 equivalent and 24 vs 27mm but much much closer in size/weight).

As for perpetuating silly myths, I've actually found the cost of lenses across systems and formats pretty consistent and I rarely see anyone arguing otherwise tbh... Some systems have a higher ceiling (eg 1st party FF mirrorless zooms) and/or more low budget stuff (eg older and/or 3rd party M4/3 primes), and comparing 1st party vs 3rd party will skew things a lot, but in the middle things aren't that different tbh.

Body cost has always been and continues to be where formats diverge the most, since the highest end bodies for smaller formats are still near $2K and midrange ones are closer to $1K, there's some FF body bargains but those figures are otherwise much higher for newer bodies. On average my FF & M4/3 lenses ran me about the same tho, and I was fine with it. There's still reasons I pick up either...

LOL, true f2.8? Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 is only like an f3.5 lens on GFX 100.

The Panasonic still should have better microcontrast, renditional depth, and spatial linear transmission. And neither lens has an actual transmission of 2.8, even my six element Zeiss 50 f2 Milvus doesnt match f and t stop

@ZZT231

"It also extends to 75mm, not just 70. Red apples to yellow apples"

Starting at 28mm vs 24mm is 20% less wide angle. That's a massive difference not the 5mm at the long end. So apples to oranges.

How is a Tamron 28-75 G2 VXD a true f/2.8? Obviously, only a Schneider Xenotar 150mm f/2.8 is a true f/2.8, not your puny miniature format lens.

@Revio

Yes, it's a "true" 2.8 lens, but that tells you almost nothing.

It's not just about bokeh, is about light, which in photography is everything. At the same aperture, a FF lens lets in 4x more light.

I shoot MFT, but the "f2.8 is f2.8" nonsense needs to stop.

@alex does it mean that at f/2.8 on m43 you have to slow your shutter by two stops or increase the ISO by two stops to get the same exposure as your full frame kit at f/2.8?

If the answer is no, then f/2.8 is f/2.8.

@catlyn

> Tamron 28-75 ... a true f/2.8

Ha! This is a TRUE f/2.8 lens: https://www.dpreview.com/products/fujifilm/lenses/fujifilm_gf_45_2p8_r_wr

Your inferior, pitiful Tamron is only f/3.5 (equivalent). Deal with it.

;-)

You know, catlyn, you're lucky that MF shooters do not jump into every FF lens discussion teaching those lost souls how wrong they (FF shooters) are in thinking their f/3.5 (equivalent) lenses are actually f/2.8...

I wonder why they (MF users) are not nagging everyone? Perhaps, they know something you don't? Like, that no format (be it FF or MF) is special, and f/2.8 is f/2.8?..

Only thing that bugs me more than “apples to oranges” is “horses for courses”.

Well, while I agree about the comment of comparing apples to oranges, I do feel the same since I got the Tamron 28-75 G2. The lens is that good, that I don't see myself using the P12-35 2.8 on my EM5.3 body any more. I'd rather take a small prime or the kit 12-32 which is sharper in the center than the 12-35, and if I need ultimate image quality, I take the Tamron with a Sony body, which is well worth the size and weight penalty. That being said, this only applies to dual system users...

@Jon555
"...or anyone using inches...", AFAIK that would be Myanmar and Liberia.

"Improved close-up performance provides a minimum focusing distance of 5.9" at focal lengths of 12-17mm. Minimum focusing distance of 9.8" at focal lengths of 18-35mm."

Well Panasonics own 30mm is also 0.11m at 30mm, while the "new" 12-35 is still 0.25m at 30mm. Not a macro guy but I don't think I've every seen someone saying they want something wider than 30mm. Most people I've seen want something like a 100mm macro.

The exposure setting will still be the same if you have a f2.8 lens on a full frame camera or a micro 4/3 thirds camera. The shutter speed and iso will be identical for the correct exposure on any format.

Thanks you and got it. just feel it less it kind of professional-ish with f2.8 on m4/3. hope they make f2.0 or step a bit wide as 10-40mm f2.8 which is more useful focal length.

@Stu 5

Yes and no. The lens will absolutely let somewhere near T2.8 of light through, but the sensor can't take in that light as well as a FF. Even though the lens is capable of roughly 2.8, the m43 sensor can't reproduce that light in an image in the same amount of time. So the sensor gain is turned up to force the exposures to match despite the deficit, with the sensor noise increasing over FF at the same exposure settings. While you have 2.8 of light available, you're not seeing that in the final image.

https://admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-matter/

@JohnNewman

If you don't mind your pro zooms topping out at 5.6, your pro primes at 2.4, and your consumer zooms at 11, sure. But if you want lower noise or more subject separation, FF equivalence is an insurmountable difference.

An F/2.8 m4/3 lens is not perfectly equivalent to a FF F/5.6 lens.
In low-light an F/2.8 m4/3 lens will focus faster&better than a F/5.6 lens mounted on a FF.

And a PRO lens does not mean the fastest lens.
There are m4/3 PRO lenses with F/4.0 aperture like 150-400mm F/4.5 or 12-100mm F/4.0. These lenses are very sharp, weather sealed, with IS, very reliable lenses for hard conditions...etc,

That's not a great article these days, as relying on the, really fairly old on the whole, m43 sensors having better Quantum Efficiency than the assorted newer FF sensors to reduce the equivalent-technology 2x extra noise you get with m43 at the same f-stop is looking shaky. (Basically any set part of a final m43 image has to be magnified 4x more than a FF image, so if they had the same light per unit-area, which the same f-stop gives, you have 1/4 the light and so 2x the noise in any identical part of the final image. Of course a lot of the time the noise won't be noticeable and you won't care...)

(I've bought more m43 cameras than all other digital ILCs put together BTW. Had one with me whenever I've gone out with a camera this month.)

What a worn out topic. Funny people still even bring it up. Must have something to compensate for:)

Micro Four Thirds has better IBIS. Yeah we all get the science behind the smaller sensor.
It is a beat to death topic, brought on to the m4/3 section, likely by people who don't even shoot the format. It really shows how desperate people are to have something to "be right" about.

Bottom line is nobody cares, and no matter how much you rany and rave about aperture equivalents, your IBIS will always be sub-par. Your system will always weigh more, and nobody looking at this lens puts much(if any) value on your opinion. You convince noone, and end up looking like a schill for bringing up such dead in the water topic. Grow up!

@Stu 5

What you say is true, but irrelevant. You're focusing on meaningless numbers. Why should we care whether settings are identical or not, if the result is different?

@ZZT231
Wow, must be fun talking about this topic, endlessly. Beat to death, boring, worn out topic. Left there for folks to bring up on the regular, to, as I stated, "be right" about a topic. Wowwwwweeeee are you soooooo smart, please explain more of this boring topic, so it can fall on dead ears. Have fun with your tripod.
Must have a lot going on to click on a lens you have no interest in reading about, so you can bring up same old, same old, again, and again, and again.
At the end of the day it's sad more than anything else.

Does a light meter ask if are shooting micro four thirds or full frame??
Hint: It does not.

@tkbslc
Performance is just no competitive

The Olympus 2.8/12-40 mm was always in every aspect superior.
Even it is an old calculation- but Panasonic teases now 25 MP!
For GH6 and coming G9II the 1.7/10-25 mm and 25-50 mm are the best choices.

Guess ignorance is bliss. It was always a fantastic lens when I used it.

@quarrycat: as far as I remember corner sharpness was a little bit worse with the Panny at wide angle but nothing concerning. It's still lighter (and maybe smaller) so both have advantages.

Yeah AFAIK it's always traded blows with the larger and OIS-less Oly 12-40/2.8, it may be a tweaked rehash of an existing design but it's still a solid option for M4/3 if you want a small high quality zoom.

In fact most users who want that are probably cross shopping it vs Pana's own 12-60 or Oly's newer 12-45/4 rather than vs the 12-40/2.8 (body choice would probably be the determining factor there, for ProCap or Dual IS compatibility with either).

@QuarryCat I'm not sure about "every aspect superior"
12-35/2.8 is sharper at tele end, while 12-40/2.8 has less distortion and sharper at the wide end. 12-35/2.8 - smaller, lighter, OIS

@QuarryCat
- the new 12-35/2.8 is focusing from 15cm, if this important for you, why it's not your best choice then?
- some MFT cameras are without IBIS - GH5s, G100, BMPCC...
- DUAL IS gives more stable image in video
- I shoot landscapes/panoramas at 35 (70mm). for portraits "80mm f/5.6" not the best choice in any way