text:
Hope you guys cover the issue of this lens not seeming to offer a constant aperture throughout the zoom range, i.e. the effect this seems to have on shooting video with this lens?
Panasonic Lumix G X 12-35mm F2.8 ASPH Power OIS hands-on preview
Just Posted: our hands-on preview of the Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 fast standard zoom for Micro Four Thirds. It's the first constant-aperture standard zoom for a mirrorless system - helping strengthen the position of the system developed by Panasonic and Olympus. We've been using a pre-production version of the lens on both makers' cameras, and have prepared a hands-on preview and a small gallery of sample images.
Click here to read our Lumix G X Vario 12-35mm/F2.8 ASPH./Power O.I.S hands-on preview
I own it
I want it
I had it
Discuss in the forums
Hope you guys cover the issue of this lens not seeming to offer a constant aperture throughout the zoom range, i.e. the effect this seems to have on shooting video with this lens?
Looks nice and good on OLY E-M5 but - and particularly in a Preview - other cams deserve a picture as well: Pana GF1/GX1, for example. Also interesting might be the inclusion of the E-M5 battery holder/larger grip.
For the review: Does the F2.8 speed make the diff for indoor shooting, particularly w/o the built-in flash? And the $640 question: With fast focus and fast speed, how's them sports shooting?
Sony 16-50/2.8 has the same equivalent focal length, same aperture and better DOF, and costs $620. It can be also used on NEX via adapter. Panasonic wants to charge twice. They are out of their mind! The rough equivalent of this lens in terms of production costs is $200.
IS & weather sealing add to the cost of production of the Panasonic lens. Faster focus and closer focusing probably also contribute to the higher cost of production of the Panasonic lens.
The Sony also has vastly inferior optical performance (look at the reviews), has inferior build quality (no weather sealing), has no IS, and is far bigger and heavier. But of course, for camera forum trolls like you, these things are all irrelevant - the only thing that matters is peni.., um, sensor size.
supeyugin1, Using adapters, I can use all my 4/3 glass on my m4/3 cameras. Like my sigma 18-55mm f2.8 which I picked up used for $380. There are drawbacks to using adapters. Using adapters, m4/3 still a better deal. Thanks for pointing that out. And the production cost of a dedicated lens with weather sealing and higher quality is not going to be $200.
Watch it guys, supeyugin1 is apparently an expert who knows how much it is to manufacture a product just by looking at it and things like performance and quality don't amount to anything.
No, it doesn't matter that this lens has a metal barrel and the 16-50mm is only plastic. Disregard the fact that it has 4 aspherical lenses and stabilization where as the Sony only has 2 aspherical and no stabilization. Ignore the soft corners, complex distortion and chromatic aberration of the 16-50mm because the 12-35mm must be cheaper to produce since it is smaller. The 16-50mm is awesome for it can mount on a NEX via a $400 mirrored adapter with a f/3.5 max limit in video mode.
There is similar Sigma lens, 24-70/3.5-5.6 which costs $220.
But it should be more expensive than Panasonic, which has a constant f/5.6 equivalent. That's why Panasonic cost should be no more than $400, including weather sealing, IS, and all those super-duper elements. Then, there is Sigma 17-50/2.8 with IS, asph, LD, and costs $600. Sorry, but Panasonic is really out of their mind.
Superyugin1, change hobby. NOW.
You're not REALLY multiplying x2 the aperture because of the m4/3 format, are you? ARE YOU? Please tell me you're not.
The aperture is the same across different formats, it's ONLY THE FOCAL LENGTH that changes in other formats in equivalence to 35mm.
f/2.8 is f/2.8, there's no "equivalence". Please study before you state such atrocities.
"The Sony also ... is far bigger and heavier"
That is why is costs much more to produce.
supeyugin1, wrong again. This lens is an f2.8 lens and they cost significantly more to manufacture. Do you realize that aperture does 2 things, it affects Brightness and depth of Field. This lens will be a bright (fast) lens regardless of format allowing faster shutter speed and/or lower ISO settings. Most people don't buy zoom lenses for shallow DoF, they buy prime lenses for that. You also miss the point that this is a Super High Grade lens, which costs more to manufacture versus the Standard Grade you present.
Sigma is always cheaper than native lenses, otherwise they'd not sell as much.
And by your logic Sigma 17-50mm/f2.8 on Canon APS-C is equivalent of 27-80mm/f4.8 on FF. Not so fast anymore. Why it doesn't cost $220 with free ticket to Disneyland?
All the people complaining about price IMO are deluded. Panasonic is a VIDEO COMPANY FIRST. I can see photographers balking at some of the prices but for videographers the prices are well under neath Canon and Nikon counterparts for a camera that is more video friendly and has shown to complete VERY WELL if not exceed the full frame video from Mark II and trounces the 7D and APSC sensors for Video.
You're paying for Continuous auto focus and IS suitable for video. The IS built into the sensor has proven very unusable for video, so that's why it's in the lens. Video from ALL IN BODY IS cameras has been horribly jello like.
To keep price in perspective the Nikon version - WITH IS is $1900.
Canon doesn't make a 2.8 wide angle WITH IS. The Non IS version is about the same price as the Panny and is probably one of Canon's weakest L series lenses and is no where near as sharp as Panny's glass.
Again to those complaining about price, shoot video with this lens on a GH2 or GH3, then compare it to the Sony 16-50 with it's jello for video IS.
A pinhole has the same size no matter what camera it is on. A F2.8 full frame lens has a larger "hole" than a F2.8 on a micro 4/3rds camera. F stops are RATIOS of the distance versus aperture size to measure the intensity of light. If the length is longer, the sensor gets less light than a shorter lens having the same PHYSICAL aperture size. Even thought the "hole" is the same, the longer lens would perhaps be F4 and the shorter lens a F2.8, for example (F stop is length / aperture size, which is why the numbers get smaller as aperture gets larger). To get the area of the hole, you of course need to square the aperture (times pi), wich is why F2.8 is 2x brighter than f4. 2.8*2.8 = 8 whereas 4*4 = 16.
An example using the 8/16 numbers above: if the f2.8 and F4 lens are the same length, the F2.8 lens allows 2x more light since the hole/aperture is 2x larger and the light is "spreading" out over the same length. Nnow you should understand why a 2x larger F-stop is 4x "slower".
All true!
The COST of the GLASS is a minor part of the the design and cost of a lens (except for maybe VERY ecotic mices).
We should perhaps, be more concerned with the QUALITY of the glass than the QUANTITY the of glass ...
on the grounds of the never ending equivalence debate, really interested in knowing how many photographers use large aperture to gain shutter speed? and how many to control DOF?
I personally think that high shutter speed is only crucial to sports photography, and that the m43 system is not a good sports photography tool to start with.
Lets first take for granted that m43 is not good for sports. So far AF tracking does not make the cut, yet its not to say that it ever will. Lets assume for now its the tragic case, forgetting that a couple years ago, very few thought that AF speed would ever be fast enough : Your argumentation is based on the assumption that there is only sports photography that makes good use of fast shutter speed. This is oversimplification of photography, I am afraid.
Without thinking too hard, street photography, low light photography, Shooting without a tripod, birding, all comes to mind. And the list can go on.
Shutter speed is a big deal. Having a certain control on shallow DoF when needed is also a big deal, even if its pale compared to FF. All in a relative small package is great and lets not forget the most important : we are talking about high grade optical quality. I don't see why it could not be desirable for everything it has to offer.
street photograhy benefits from fast shutter speed and large dof. 2x crop makes it easier to achive both.
I do street photography mainly, with an APS-C camera and a 31mm f/1.8 lens. I try to stick to apertures no wider than f/2.2 because otherwise the DoF becomes too shallow. With m4/3 I can shoot with the Panny 20mm f/1.7 wide open without having to worry about my DoF not being deep enough, *and* I get faster shutter speeds.
Not everyone is obsessed with razor-thin DoF.
Depends on what sports you photograph. Sports isn't the only use for faster shutter speeds. Low light maybe?
There m43 can shine without carrying 3 kg of camera gear.
I could buy a brand new OMD-5 with that money... difficult choice, especially since I own GH2
Do you guys know it cost $1300
not so excited any more?
just yesterday I see attack on NEX lens line up, at least no single lens is price at this ridiculous price
In any case, no one is holding anyone's head under water until they swipe their credit card for one...
At least Panasonic offers such a lens, what does Sony offer? Nothing! Nothing comparable they can take 1300 $ for.
Sony offers DT 16-50/2.8 at $700. It's Alpha, not NEX, but works through adapter. Also Sigma 17-50 at $650. $1300 for smaller-lighter-simpler (14 elements vs 16 in Sony and 17 in Sigma) lens is about 2x overpriced.
how much does that adapter cost by the way?
peevee1, Using adapters, I can use all my 4/3 glass on my m4/3 cameras. Like my sigma 18-55mm f2.8 which I picked up used for $380. There are drawbacks to using adapters. Using adapters, m4/3 still a better deal. Thanks for pointing that out.
Those nex lenses are almost universally soft at the corners - no NEED for effects filters.
This is the lens I have been waiting for since I went m4/3s just over a year ago. For the previous seven or so years, my #1 lens on my Canon 20D/40D/50D/7D was the ef-s 17-55 2.8 IS. I shot hundreds of published photos with this lens and made numerous large 17x22, 17x40 etc. prints, a fair number of which sold for real money. Fast, sharp, versatile, great colors. It certainly looks like the new Pana will be the "equivalent", albeit with a bit more wide angle and a bit less tele.
This kind of reasonably fast, reasonably short depth of field lens, if sharp and good color, is a great tool for composing both landscape and people photos. Just wish I had it now as I have large well-paying job photographing a wealthy family's extensive gardens.
RE Cost: The Canon 17-55 has always sold for around $1200-1300. This is what better zoom lenses cost, whether it be Canon, Nikon or any other brand. The good news is that when I sold my Canon 17-55 I got $925 after seven years of use.
I believe what photoshutter was trying to point out is the difference not only in focal length but also in DoF (and he also made a mistake in the calculation). It is true that the same lenses (whenever possible by the lens manufacturer) on 4/3 sensor bodies (m4/3 are 4/3 in terms of sensor size) are one F-stop darker than on APS-C sensor bodies and two stops darker than on FF bodies; this affects the DoF value. So, in order to obtain the same DoF on a 4/3-sensor camera you need one F-stop brighter lens (all other lens parameters unchanged). Practically speaking, in this case, the lens by Panasonic is 24-70mm F5.6 (35mm equivalent) and 16-47mm F4 (APS-C equivalent).
They are NOT darker - the brightness (light intensity/exposure) is ALWAYS the same for a given F-ratio REGARDLESS of format.
The DoF is constant for a given REAL focal length REGARDLESS of format too. So the DoF at 12mm is the same regardless of format. HOWEVER, because of the 2x crop factor, the APPARENT focal length is twice as long on 4/3rds as it is on FF. This means that the FoV of 4/3rds at 12mm is the same as FF at 24mm. But the DoF is still the same as 12mm on FF (or any other format).
Where did you get your numbers? The sensor area difference between these systems (MFT, APS, FF) is not linear.
The total light received by sensor area between MFT and APS-C is between 0,46 EV and 0,64 EV (Canon APS vs. the rest).
Crop factor (calculated by diagonal) between MFT and APS-C goes from 1.25 to 1.33 (Canon APS vs the rest). To get one stop, the crop factor difference should be 1.41 which it is not!
Problem with this that the systems are different by aspect ratio too. If you crop 2:3 system to 3:4, then the difference with sensor area would get even smaller.
For DOF calculations, one should consider the actual lenses available and their focal lengths. The focal length differences might not match the crop factor differences with all lenses.
Slight error, crop factor between APS and MFT varies 1.23X from 1.31X.
4/3 is FF. Also, 4/3 is not a crop format.
And if you used exactly the same FF lens on MFT body via adapter, its brightness would NOT change.
Except for average brightness with large apertures, which will be higher because corner fall off area will be cut off on MFT.
Has anybody of the "equivalent aperture" folks done pinhole camera ever? What happens if you use the same pinhole, but increase distance between pinhole and film by factor of 2?
The image will get 4 times larger but at the same time 2 stops darker.
The thing is, I'd imagine for the majority of people, having the extra DoF is preferred to not having it. I certainly appreciate i, especially in low light where there's always a trade of between stopping blur and DoF.
Also, f2.8 is f2.8, whether on m43, APS-C, 35mm FF, 120, 5x4 or 10x8. To say the lens, purely due to the DoF, is f4.0 is not very helpful to people who don't know better. It just spreads confusion, like seen in this whole thread.
"It is true that the same lenses (whenever possible by the lens manufacturer) on 4/3 sensor bodies (m4/3 are 4/3 in terms of sensor size) are one F-stop darker than on APS-C sensor bodies and two stops darker than on FF bodies"
But the thing is that native 4/3 and m43 lenses are NOT the same as FF lenses on 4/3 bodies. Natives concentrate ALL the light they gathered on the smaller 4/3-sized light circle, 4/3 IS NOT the crop of the FF-sized light circle as all the wrong calculations here imply.
Yet, with flash, it IS f2,8
To be real 24-70mm f2.8 equivalent, this lens must be f1.4, or at least f1.8
Will you equivalence trolls get over yourselves? By your logic, what's the real aperture of compact cameras? F50? If so, how do they get any light at all? Or what's the real aperture of medium format, or large format? Why do all these formats have precisely the same exposure for a given F-number and shutter speed?
Get it through your thick skulls: and F-ratio is an F-ratio is an F-ratio. Yes, a FF lens will collect 4 times as much light as 4/3rds for a given F-number, BUT the sensor is also 4 times larger, so it has to be spread over 4 times the area. So guess what? The light intensity (hence the exposure) will be EXACTLY the same.
It is not light intensity that matters but total amount collected and yes compact camera's are indeed limited to tiny apertures of around f14 usually as the largest.
You could also say focal length is focal length but it is generally accepted that it is not the focal length that matters but the field of view and thats why we use equivalent focal length. The same is true for equivalent aperture and equivalent iso because what matters is the size of the aperture and the total amount of light collected. Every idiot can understand that the light intensity for a given f-number for different formats is constant, its really funny or perhaps sad that all these posts stating this obvious fact are uprated by 5-20.
You should look at large format lenses, most 5x4 format primes are limited to f/5.6 which is equivalent to about f/1.4 full frame.
And the reason why compact camera's get their required light with their tiny apertures is because their base iso's are equivalent to about iso 2000 full frame.
So f1.4 on FF equals total light of f5.6 on 4x5"?
Please do a following test: load both cameras with exactly the same 100 ISO slide film and expose for same time with those apertures (4 stop difference). Then scan both developed images at similar resolution and settings and downscale 4x5" image to the size of 24x36mm scan.
What do you get?
What exactly are you getting at? iso 100 on 5x4 would capture 15 times the amount of light as iso 100 on full frame.
edit: I should correct this with 'can capture 15 times the amount of light' obviously when using f5.6 instead of f1.4 on full frame it would be underexposed, all of the 'equivalence trolls' know this and it is just a basic fact so there should be no need to point it out but ive learned from experience on this forum...
So to make it simple lets assume you have a 144x96mm large format sensor, the equivalent shot of f1.4 at iso 100 on full frame would be f5.6 at iso 1600.
To argue that you need an f1.4 lens on large format to equal an f1.4 lens on full frame would be quite absurd.
I said 15 times rather than 16 because i knew the 5x4 format is less than 4x the size of full frame but it seems i overestimated the size still, according to someone on this forum the actual size of 5x4 is 120x90mm which means its only 12.5 times the area of full frame. A sensor with 3:2 aspect ratio with the same diagonal would be 12 times the area.
So its easyer to have this discussion using the 144x96mm sensor size.
Well, max. f-number is physical property of a lens and nothing to do with properties of film or digital sensor.
Single photocell doesn't know what the total area of the film is. If you raise ISO by 4 stops (same sensor), DR is gonna fall which you can't get back by just downscaling.
A single photocell does not determine image quality, all the photocells combined do.
A 144x96mm sensor with the same number of pixels as a 36x24mm sensor would collect the same number of photons per pixel at iso 1600 as the small sensor at iso 100. Why do you think larger sensor camera's have settings for much higher iso's?
The fact that larger sensors usually have higher pixel counts is a different issue and not necessarily a downside. The sony nex 7 though actually has more pixels than the canon 5d mk3.
Not a post about making pictures. A post about arguing a case for something else - something you like. Enjoy!
Just leave the equivalence trolls to their own delusions to justify all the extra weight and bulk they have to carry around (and all the extra money they have to spend). The rest of us can just get out there and enjoy shooting with an E-M5 with its excellent DR, noise performance, resolution and (especially) superior colour together with this lens, which looking at the reviews so far has superior optical performance across the zoom and aperture range to any standard zoom available on larger formats. Or if you want something pocketable (or cheaper), use a 14-42X instead. If you prefer to get out and shoot to trolling camera fora, it is a very good time to be a photographer, and a Micro 4/3rds user in particular. This is really turning into a great system, suitable for all but the most demanding
"this lens, which looking at the reviews so far has superior optical performance across the zoom and aperture range to any standard zoom available on larger formats."
You cannot be serious with this? If you want the best according to your definition of superior optical performance then get a phone camera, they have even higher lp/mm resolution on the sensor. Their image resolution is quite poor though but why would that matter?
Have you actually read the reviews? As far as I can see, there isn't a single area of performance where it doesn't at least match the best FF standard zooms, and it comfortably exceeds them in many.
You are basically claiming only panasonic can make decent lenses and canon and nikon are manufacturing crap by saying that. It takes an optical design with double the accuracy to equal the performance of full frame on m43.
All I am saying is stop basing your opinions on dogma, and start basing them on objective facts. The reviews speak for themselves, and I didn't write them. Besides, 4/3rds zooms have always outperformed FF zooms - once again, read the reviews. The 4/3rds format was designed for maximum optical performance on digital.
"Besides, 4/3rds zooms have always outperformed FF zooms"
This confirms you are talking about lp/mm resolution which i commented on two posts ago. I have read tests of m43 lenses before and even the ones considered to be very good have far inferior resolution than full frame lenses, even being beaten by cheap ones.
What will it take to get it through your skull? I am talking about overall optical performance, as judged by independent reviewers. You can't judge them on maximum resolution alone, as this heavily effected by the camera body (AA filter and MP count, which are usually higher on larger formats, hence giving them an advantage).
As a Panasonic owner I'm a bit disapponted that most of the samples are taken on the Olympus - maybe Panasonic are too! Also the choice of aperture seems to be rather inappropriate in quite a few of the samples. Are you DPR guys being deliberately perverse here?
Landscapes with massive depth of scene are not going to be that useful to assess edge to edge quality when shot at f/3.5, even allowing for the smaller sensor's greater depth of field. Similarly angled shots of buildings or vehicles at f/2.8 are only useful for assessing image quality at the focus point - the rest of the shot is un-informative blur when viewed at the size needed to assess lens performance.
Unless you are interested in the characteristics of the bokeh.
There are plenty of more appropriate subjects in this collection for assessing bokeh other than the types of shot I mentioned - for example the flower pictures and the portraits. Very few of the samples provide an opportunity to assess lens performance across the frame - that is really what I'm complaining about.
There has been no official pricing for US from Panasonic. Amazon sets their own price. PhotographyBLOG has the price @ $999.00 and I think that will be more realistic.
Just to get a idea of the size/weight
Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 ----------------------------------- 900g NO IS FF
Canon 24-70mm f2.8----------------------------------- 950g NO IS FF
Tamron SP 24-70mm F2.8 DI --------------------------825g (has IS/VC) FF
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS II ------------------200g APS
Sony E 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS------------------------194g APS
Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM------------------ 565g APS
Panasonic 14-42mm f3.5-5.6 Power Zoom pancake- 95g u4/3
Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-42mm f3.5 -5.6---------- 165g u4/3
Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8----------------------------------305g u4/3
Sorry, but $1300 is WAY too much.
You get what you pay for. I would expect very good performance from this lens.
Here is ephotozine:
-Excellent sharpness, especially in the centre
-Low distortion
-Weather sealed build
-Fast focusing
Constant f/2.8 aperture
-Image stabilisation
-Compact size
Only CON: Although the high price is typical of pro spec f/2.8 zooms, it may put this lens beyond the reach of many
Actually, we're not sure what the US price will be yet.
That said, the Nikon 17-55/2.8 is $1500+ and as I recall, the Canon one listed at $1900 but with current street price of $1100 because it's been around for more than 10 years.
You are not sure? Why? Have a look at amazon, they have it at $1300.
What is the point to compare it with FF Canons and Nikkors, they have much more (as in quantity) of the expensive glass, much more surfaces to precision-polish and coat etc.
Panasonic marketers simply set the price where the sales volumes will be low, hence the fixed cost per unit will be high. :(
Until somebody else enters the same segment with much more reasonably priced zoom, they will keep the unit margins sky-high.
No it isn't.
This looks like a pro-quality lens. Possibly the only truly pro lens for m4/3. The fast Olympus primes are close but I don't think they are truly pro build quality despite their otherwise outstanding optical performance.
$1300 is fair for a pro-quality lens of this capability.
The church of equivalency has many followers this days.
Correlates well with poor math scores in US.
At least I see no other explanation why many people here can't grasp meaning of the simple math term like "ratio."
Once it becomes a fact, it no longer requires faith. Thus there is no religion required.
Since you seem to be fond of ratios, which is larger, 70/2.8 or 35/2.8? How about 50/2.8 or 35/2.8
The church of the m43 is fond of larger sensors and their benefits when comparing their cameras to point and shoot cameras. But if someone compares a m43 to APS-C or FF, then we are all zealots who can't do math.
That's probably the same what the MF folk thinks about the unwashed kleinbild format masses. What's the point of FF if Mf is o much better?
> Once it becomes a fact, it no longer requires faith.
Math is a science. Science doesn't require faith. Science by definition is based on observable facts - not facts established by "faith." With the "faith" thing, please seek help of either priest or psychologist.
> Since you seem to be fond of ratios, which is larger, 70/2.8 or 35/2.8? How about 50/2.8 or 35/2.8
"Larger?" Trick question. What metric precisely you use to define the "largeness"?
If you are talking about the f-numbers, then all f/2.8 lenses have an equal f-number. 2.8 == 2.8. Kind'a stating obvious (that's even more primitive than math) but, well, you asked.
> The church of the m43 is fond of larger sensors and their benefits when comparing their cameras to point and shoot cameras.
Never heard a single m43 user claiming that P&S/compacts suddenly have f/20 or f/25 lenses. Not even once.
Science takes for granted that our phenomenal experiences correlate with the numenal, and therefore is a method of implicit faith in reality as we know it.
"Correlates well with poor math scores in US.
At least I see no other explanation why many people here can't grasp meaning of the simple math term like "ratio.""
Actually if you havent noticed it is the majority that follow your logic, it is also the majority that are very poor at math.
I actually had this exact same reason in mind for why so many people are failing to understand equivalence, it takes abstract reasoning just as math in general does.
The church of measurebators is also alive and well ...
Looks superb.
M4/3 is really becoming a serious contender with optics like this.
My EP-2 has been languishing lately (I'm normally a Nikon DX shooter) but if I could have one of these babies to put on the front, it would see a lot more action.
Looks great on the EM-5 too.
I've made some "equivalence" comments here but when you get down to it you have to look at this as a m43 customer. No it doesn't look like f2.8 on FF. But it gives a 1-2 stops better DOF control and shutter speed than an f4-5.6 zoom on m43 will, and that's all that's been available.
It's probably a little expensive for what it is would be main complaint, but again if you compare within mirrorless offerings, it's about what you'd expect.
Interestingly, it's not that much smaller than the Oly 4/3 14-54mm Mk II. The Panny is .25" smaller in diameter and .5" shorter in length. I had been hoping for more compactness, it makes the $1,000 price a little more problematic for me....
It's both smaller, faster and wider, guess there's no pleasing some people! :)
this combination is begging to be taken outdoors
Being a user of both a m43 system and a 24x36 mm system, I'd say this is certainly a nice lens and an improvement to the m43 lens array, but surely there will always be reason for m43 users to "envy full frame L glass" - at least until they bring out a 12-35 f/1.4 lens - and if they do, then what will be the point of using m43 anyways? It would likely be larger than a "full frame" 24-70 f/2.8.
So lets enjoy what m43 offers in terms of small size and not pretend that it is a replacement for larger apperture lenses.
not everyone relies on shallow dof.
deniz, with FF they also have an edge in IQ
You'd think FF owners would "envy m43 glass": constant aperture zooms, affordable & available f/0.95 primes, and huge size and weight advantages.
Why does one want super fast primes? Normally for shallow DOF and low light shooting. Larger sensors give you better performance in both those areas so shooting f1.0 on m4/3 is very much like shootng f1.4 on APS-C or f1.8 on FF.
Why would a FF shooter envy $1000 25mm f0.95 when they can just buy a 50mm f1.8 for $200 and shoot similar photos with AF?
I am not saying these lenses are bad, it is just hard to see the lenses go for much when their equivalent performance in FF or APS-C is considerably cheaper. Granted FF bodies are expensive, but the lenses are what we are talking about here.
Having previously owned a mountain of L glass, it's because there are massive size and weight advantages to m43 glass.
And it's because the fast primes are image stabilised (on many bodies), so there's another size and weight advantage of not having to carry a tripod in many lower shutter speed situations.
If m43 glass was simply f/2.8 primes and f3.5-5.6 zooms, then the size and weight advantage would mean much less. But m43 lenses include many fast primes and a number of constant aperture zooms.
If one believes size and wight and image stabilised primes mean nothing, then there's nothing to envy in m43 that isn't available in FF.
Fast primes, for low-light and shallow DOF are almost a must on m43. That said, I recently added a Sigma 30 2.8 to my collection, and the lens is quite good, and more than useable. I knew before buying it that wide-open was it's sharpest aperture so really it's perfect for many uses. Is it as nice to use as the 20 1.7 or 45 1.8 or the excellent 25 0.95? No. But it's a nice focal length for me, a slightly long, sharp normal lens for a low price. Fast, quiet AF, great for stills and video, much like this new 12-35 2.8 will be, only this zoom will be a much more versatile one-lens solution albiet at 6X's the price. It won't replace fast primes for me, but it's nice to begin to see some faster zooms in m43.
Faster shutter speeds or MORE DOF are often good reasons for such lenses.
Macro for instance - never heard a macro photographer positively rabbet on that HIS pics had 'too much' DOF ... what a joke.
Go an take your 'portrait head shots at f1.2. Then try to sell them to someone with an IQ greater than that of a dead plant..
Although I love my 20mm, I prefer the 14-42 with O.I.S. for video. I hope it's sharp because the 12-35 is a dream come true for movie making. No need to envy 5D users with L-glass. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
Hand-held or on a rig of course the O.I.S lens is better than the 20 1.7, but for everything else, and for shallow DOF which is almost impossible on the 14-42, the 20 1.7 rules.
GH2 films made with the 20 1.7, 25 1.4 or the ultimate, the Voightlander 25 0.95 just look better, more cinematic, IMHO. That's why GH2 video shooters use fast Nikkors. 5D users have a much easier time getting shallow DOF with f2.8 zooms. m43 shooters don't have that luxury. Still think the 12-35 2.8 will be useful, but there is still plenty of reason to envy fast L-zooms. The fastest m43 primes equalize things vs APS-C and FF HDSLR shooters and DOF for m43 users. This new Pansonic zoom get's you closer, but not all the way there.
Seems counter-intuitive to test a lens with the ISO at varying levels. Should have stuck to one setting.
One differentiator for M43 is short flange distance, allowing to make small cameras with still large sensor. This zoom eliminates all that and does not make sense. I strongly prefer set of fix focus prime lens. Going to street-shooting, I pick 14mm F2,5 wide or 20mm F1,7 normal. Portraits are done with either 20mm or 45mm Leica glass.
Portability and discreet form factor is very important for me.l
You like a set of bright primes, while some may like to have a zoom like this; it's good we have options on m4/3.
Hate to be *that* samples criticizer guy, but IMO the portrait taken at ISO 2000 had appropriate focus to really see how sharp it is as a portrait lens, but marred by the fact that it was ISO 2000 (pretty darn good however for ISO 2000). The base ISO 200 shot however clearly only has a nose and forehead in focus.
So I just wondered what happened there to Oly face detection? or was it S-AF point focus? Or manual focus? CDAF is touted for being more accurate, but clearly I hope the face detection did not just detect a face, work the motor til a nose was in focus, and confirm focus from there.
In particular I know CDAF overall can be more accurate, but at the same time for shallow DOF shots is CDAF in current generation camera's still up to task. Just random questions I have as I wonder why a broad daylight portrait shot isn't so well-focused. Most people would not want their forehead + nose to be the most well-defined parts of their portrait.
In combination with S-AF Face Detection on the E-M5 focuses on the S-AF focus point instead of the face when the face is not detected _before_ the shutter is half-pressed (because of shallow DOF). And it mostly focused on the nose (middle of the face frame) when it doesn't detect the eyes before focusing.
Add to that that it doesn't detect faces when eyebrows are covered or lacking contrast (blond hair), sometimes when part of the mouth is covered and when a head it turned around (seeing face from the side). Sometimes it sees faces in object that don't even closely resemble a face.
My Fujifilm X10 shows none of these problems so it is possible to implement better Face Detection than what the E-M5 offers.
I wonder how much larger it would have to be for constant f/2.0 (or faster) across the range - I'm sure they've drawn up a chart, and I suspect a small gain in speed would mean a large gain in size and weight, but it would give the system even more of a USP. Now they need a 35-100mm - perhaps they could make them white, too ;)
A f/2.0 would have made much more sense as a serious lens and I wish they had done that. It couldn't be more expensive than the Olympus 4/3 version and people were willing to pay for that.
f2.0 makes it bigger and probably 3-4x more expensive that just using f2.8 on APS-C. It seems everyone wants to defeat the whole purpose of the m4/3 system.
@tkbslc: for many this is the only system they own. While the compact lenses are great for travel, it would not hurt to have some higher level lenses even if they are big. The issue at this point not so much reduction is size or weight, as having to use (and store, transport) two systems instead of one.
Olympus makes a four-thirds f/2....it's the 14-35 and it weighs 2 lbs. costs $2,300 and is roughly the size of the 24-70 2.8 from Canon and Nikon; it's supposed to be an awesome lens and gives you the same depth of field isolation as an f/2.8 in APS but it once again proves that in optical physics there's just no free lunch.
Olympus also makes an f/2 35-100 for 4/3ds mount. It is also a $2300 beast. The question is whether they'll bring it out in micro 4/3ds mount.
Except that the sensor area difference between m4/3 and APS-C is not 1 "stop", it's more or less 0.5 stop depending on manufacturer.
Do you think Olympus and Panasonic would like to see another entity join micro 4/3rds or that they discourage it. Unlikely for Canon or Nikon; Sony and Samsung have already committed to APS-C. Leica, Fuji and Ricoh also seem to have struck out on their own. What about someone like Casio offering a micro 4/3rds to expand its product line? Sure would have been nice for a more universal mount to expand its reach. Maybe, that Sexton article isn't so far feached??
Casio is not a big player in photography. It might join if the compact P&S market faded out but until then, I don't expect Casio to move up market.
Canon is going to come out with something soon and I think Nikon and Pentad will resize their sensor as the EVIL/mirrorless market took off.
I like all the big players and wish all of them will be with us for a long time.
Nice, but I´m still waiting for a lightweight 45mm to complement my 14mm.
How much lighter than the 116g Olympus M.ZD 45mm F1.8 do you really need?
It's only for portrait :)
A 45mm from Panasonic, that is.
I still don't quite understand. The Olympus 45/1.8 is tiny, lightweight, cheap, and optically superb. It works flawlessly on Panasonic bodies - that's the whole point of Micro Four Thirds. Why deny yourself the opportunity to use such a lovely lens just because it doesn't say Panasonic on the barrel?
It propably needs to be a "Semi-Leica".
Zuiko is crap for real photographers :D
It lacks image stabilization.
Yes, the Olympus seems very nice. But a silver lens is not a beauty on a black body.
It only concernes lenses with f/1,4 and better.
Actually, according to the graphs, the corrections take off at 2.8. Meaning, any faster and the advantages are not completely there. Although I guess they could make it f/2.0-f/2.8 without making it any larger or heavier, with some corner softness at f/2.0 (still would be useful in some situations).
Doesn't apply similarly to the OM-D E-M5. There is no measurable loss at f/2.0, only 0.12 EV at f/1.4 and a minimal 0.26 EV at f/0.95, which can be easily measured with the Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95.
This is another area where m43 punches above its weight.
LOL. poor lens. how did a simple preview turned out to be a big debate/lecture on our favorite topic: equivalence.
on a more on-topic note: im curious how this lens would perform against the 4/3 14-54 2.8-3.5 mk2. both are weather-sealed and are cdaf optimized. its slower on the long end but its significantly longer. it's bigger and requires and adapter but its also almost half the price.
regardless, its a great day for m43! and that e-m5/12-35 looks sexxxxy!
As one data point, at 35mm the old 14-54 is at f/3.1. Not constant, but you're only down a third of a stop. I like my 14-54 a lot...
@ ZAnton :
What do you suggest for a APS-C camera and zoom to get a similar size and weight ? I'm a bit curious...
Nikon 3200 + Sigma 17-50 = 1070 gram, 13.6 Stops DR, low light ISO 1180, 599€+ 593€=1192€
Pana GH2 + Pana 12-35 = 730 gram, 11.3 Stops DR, low light ISO 655. 1315€+1000€=2315€
Oly M5 costs the same, but DXO has no info on IQ.
Anyway, double price for 300 gram weight advantage, but 2 Stops worse DR and 1 Stop worse high ISO? Seriously?
Maybe for some people Pana enlarges some body parts instead, I don't know.
Firstly, I put it to you that using 3rd party glass in your example is cheating somewhat, you should have used the Nikon 17-55 at €1300.
Secondly, you overpriced the GH2, its €900. Funny, that makes both camera/lens combos €1900...
Thirdly, you have disproved your own point... "neither smaller and lighter"? Eh, yes, both actually!
Sorry I took the kit price for GH2, not body.
Also Olympus M5 body costs 1100 €.
Price and IQ difference is still immense.
Why using Sigma/Tamron is cheating? Because it doesn't enlarge body parts? That is sad.
ZAnton, we're being a bit selective with our comparison, aren't we?
First, you need to find a better place to shop. The GH2 can be had for €814 on Amazon.de (Nikon is listed at €599).
Second, actual sales prices to the public for the Panasonic lens will only be known when on the shelves and there is almost always a difference between what the Mfg. suggests and the retailer sells for. If you intend to use the Manufacturer's suggested price, then do the same for the Sigma (which I believe was €879).
So now, price wise (using one of the most expensive MFT cameras) you have Nikon close to €1500 and MFT at around €1800 - still an important difference, but nowhere near the extremes you try to represent).
Now let's go on to size/weight. You've picked the biggest MFT you could find. But if you put the combo up against a G3 or GX1 you end up with G3 weighing 40% less and the GX1 42% less. And you ignore size. Length of camera+lens:
Nikon = 169mm
GH2 = 150mm
G3 = 121 mm
GX1 = 113 mm
So you are false, it is not the same weight. Do you really think it is a similar size ?
My question was only about size and weight.
But please, check the GH2 price. You made a "small" error of about 90% (you can get it for less than 700 euros taxes included). With so big mistake, it is not easy to compare...
So perhaps it is not useful to be impolite with panasonic users. I don't know.
About the Pana price - I've already told that I took wrong price from amazon.de.
@ Fiacre
Yes, Pana GH2 + Pana 12-35 are 300 gram lighter, and ~600€ more expensive, and has 2 stops worse DR, and 1 stop worse ISO.
Read my message again please. I said "In this combination.."
which means Oly EM5 + Pana 12-35. Since DXO doesn't have Oly EM5 results I took the best in terms of IQ Panasonic camera.
Also, please tell me where you can find Pana GH2 for 700Euro with taxes.
I am not intended to use MRP. I look what you can buy at this moment (or in the nearest future in case of Pana lens). Pana lens will be cheaper one day. Maybe in a year, maybe in 1,5 years. But we don't know how much will Sigma/Tamron/Nikon cost in that time. So lets speak about the moment when Pana 12-35 will be availible, which is probably 1-2 monthes.
Second, if you take G3 and other super slim and cheap cameras, then the IQ penalty is even higher.
But again, to be precise, I wrote "This combination..."
@ Zanton: The review and previews I have read about this lens have said that it is an excellent lens. The OM-D is an excellent cam. And for excellence and a small size/weight you pay. If size is not that important to you and weight isn't, you can buy a DSLR. If I have to lug large cams with large lenses, I go for a FF cam as this indeed does give clearly better performance than an APS-c sensored cam does.
Finally: between according to dpreview GX1 the GX1 is better than any other m43 when it comes to IQ (now bested by the OM-D). GX1, G3 and GH2 are very close. So no: with the smaller G3 and GX1 you do not get noticably worse performance.
In this combination m4/3 neither smaller and lighter, nor cheaper than conventional APS-C cameras, but with serious penalty for IQ, especially DR and ISO. So what is the sense? Another toy for crazy techno-geeks?
Its in fact much smaller and lighter, if you'd check the specs. The lens weights only 305 grams.
Serious penalty for IQ? You think 2.8mm in vertical direction makes much difference in sensor resolution? Difference between APS-C and MFT is not very large at all, and much smaller than between APS-C and so called full frame.
Please show me a comparable APS-C 24-70mm equivalent lens, with constant f2.8, weather sealing, and similar weight and dimensions.
ZAnton--We are still waiting for you to give us a example of a smaller and light APS-C camera.
Pana is making crap lenses. They assume that CA , vignietting and distortion are "easily" removed in postprocessing and make lenses with no optimisation on that things at all. After that they charge double price for that crap. Sigma, Tamron and Tokina produce way better lenses than pana, say nothing about Canon and Nikon.
Gentlemans, I invite you to continue our discussion 1 post higher.
@ DarkShift
Theoretically it is not, but I have Oly EPen1 - 12 MP, Canon 350D - 8MP (and now Canon 5Dmk2)
And I can say that ancient 350D + Tamron 17-50 nonIS just destroys Oly EPen1 + Kit in terms of everything (except weight and size).
Ok, I have OM-D and 5d mkII.
OM-D has practically the same DR than 5D2, lags maybe one stop behind noise levels, except for dark noise which is much more uniform than ugly pattern noise with 5D2.
The 5D2 has better detail level depending on the lens and aperture, but the OM-D kills the latter in speed and usability IMHO.
Ah more digital correction sillyness. Fact is a) digital correction is built into the lens ROM so is a feature of the lens and b) these lenses with digital correction applied automatically give a better end result than optically only corrected lens. Every single time anyone argues these lenses are inferior I ask for an example of an optically corrected lens that can beat a Panasonic lens in the same class, and so far no-one has *ever* been able to suggest one.
There's several Nikon and Canon high speed primes that produce CA and LOCA near wide open apertures. Some Nikkors even at center of image.
Why don't you complain about those?
Zanton: it is clear that m43s is not for you and it is nice that we have a choice. I have never come across a weathersealed f2.8 lens at 24-70 mm equivalent and this weight. I guess the closest would be 450-500 gram or so, but I wonder if that is weahtersealed.
Most of us are into m43s because of the size and weight with (very) good IQ. We are not sure if the 12-35 will deliver of course, but we'll see. The review of the OM-D over here shows that current m43 sensors are as good as the best APS-c or at least that good that you need an FF to get superior IQ.
So I guess it is not so bad and for most of us it is good enough, for some it won't be. Nice to have a choice I think.
"Pana is making crap lenses. They assume that CA , vignietting and distortion are "easily" removed in postprocessing and make lenses with no optimisation on that things at all.."
You really write anything... And you don't know how it works.
It is not "esay", it is automatic, you can't see the picture without the distorsion correction, exept with very poor RAW converter. In Lightroom for example, it is not a lense profile but a correction automaticaly applied, the informations for this correction are written in the RAW file. The goal is to get a lense with a better sharpness because this point cannot be corrected by software. So i don't see the problem, you get very good result and i can confirm Panasonic make very good lenses. Please, check some lense tests before writing theses stupid things...
I wonder if my GX1 will need a firmware update to take full advantage and provide in-camera corrections?
No, it won't.
The correction data is stored in the firmware ROM in the lenses themselves. So the moment you attach the lens, the camera reads the lens ROM via the camera mount contacts.
Smart design, like that.
That is nice. I didn't know that's how the lens info was passed to the camera.
It's all well and good, it's a great lens it seems. It's also £1000. I own a G2 which is about the limit my pocket could afford, and it seems that Panasonic focusses all it's efforts on lenses that are massively expensive. They think everyone will have £1000 plus to spend on a lens that's a useful focal range, when a lot of people bought in to m43 for the small size interchangeable lens system. They could surely spend some time working on less costly stuff too.
But there are countless cheap zooms around for you. Are you suggesting they not make great glass for the system, because great glass costs money. And you have the most options going for you, cheap zooms and reasonably priced primes (there are several). What are you complaining about... this will bring people to the system, meaning higher demand and lower prices later on anyway.
? This is the first zoom that is expensive. All other zooms are cheap (7-14 being the exception). What are you talking about. Do you think with the D800 Nikon thinks everyone can shell out 3000 dollar or so? No. If you can't, you can buy a D3200 and who knows the D600 that is a FF at half the price. If you do not have that kind of money, you can use the 14-45 lens (buy it) which is really good. Use your 14-42 kitlens etc.
Panasonic don't make an affordable wide zoom. the 7-14 is a grand. The 100-300 is not especially cheap, but it's ok price wise. The 14-42 isn't really wide. That leaves Olympus helping out wit the 9-18 or whatever it is, or Samyang (except they make a fisheye).
As someone who doesn't have bottomless pockets, my point is valid. I don't expect everyone to agree, as plenty have way more money to invest in their interests than I do.
I think hopes lay with 3rd parties.
Great lens, but what about the news of the pentax 50 1.8 launch ?
The lens is almost perfect on the spec sheet and must be the best M43 zoom so far, however, I can't still justify real world performance from those image samples.
My very honest impression is all the sample pictures may lack micro contrast and 3D-ness, although nothing wrong with the sharpness and bokeh.
Looks like a great lens at a good price. Light gathering??? It's a 2.8 lens. Just like all other 2.8 lenses. Don't listen to the silly people. If you shoot m4:3 it's a lens you might find to be very, very good. So far I haven't gotten any lenses that weren't good performers from Panasonic.
So you also consider a 2.8 lens on a tiny sensor compact to be equal to a 2.8 lens on full frame?
Malcolm82- there's no "Full frame" switch on a light meter. f2.8 is f2.8.
Do you even know what that means? Divide the diameter of the lens by the focal length- that's what an f-stop is. It's not some magical light-making orifice.
Right, so we should all just use phone camera's with a f2.8 lens then.
The important spec is the aperture size for a given field of view lens and not the aperture number, yes this means an f2.8 lens on m43 is only as 'bright' in terms of full sensor exposure as an f5.6 lens on full frame.
No malcolm82, it would be f5.6 if you used the f2.8 m4/3 on a FF camera, which you can't. The actual *hole* in the lens relative to both focal length and form factor is what makes for the f number. However, the f5.6 would relate to DOF and diffraction. But not in speed, no.
This is getting really annoying, i scrolled down the comments and saw others getting in the same discussions. This will never go away it seems, most humans are simply incapable of doing anything more than collecting basic facts.
With this level of ignorance it seems the best move for manufacturers would be to switch to compact camera size sensors and then sell some cheap ultra compact f/2.8 lenses for $1000. I can see Nikons reasoning now with their 1 series, they just havent taken it far enough yet.
For the amount of light it gathers this is not a compact lens at all. The new canon 24-70 f/2.8 gathers 4 times as much light and is only 113mm long. If this lens had the same size in proportion to its sensor size it should be only 57mm long not 74mm. This is also a simpler design with only 14 lens elements instead of 18 for the canon which should make it even more compact. It just goes to show how much worse these small sensor lenses are compared to full frame lenses.
so this lens should have been 2cm shorter, but Canon is asking a lot of money for this new 24-70... compromise as we understand
As though DPR has posted the IQ tests and even haven't gone to weight and price. Additionally, if you're not aware of the IQ of Sigma's Neo lens line for m4/3's, you could also easily dismiss it as fat and pointless.
Are you really saying this lens is "worse" than a full-frame 24-70 lens because it is all of 17mm longer than you think it could possibly be?
In the size of the lens you forgot to tell that the sensor to lens distance in canon is 44mm... while in m43 land its 20mm so the lens is smaller than we should expect by halfing sensor size...
from 70-200mm shallow DOF is what you want but from 24-70 its just the low light and if it will be used for group shots and such in weddings f2.8 is the minimum for I would try at say.. 20mm or 25mm (40mm to 50mm equiv.)
Oh boy, another armchair engineer telling us like it should be.. I'm sure the real people who came up with this had no idea what they were doing or only put a little bit of effort into this, probably threw it together over 2 or 4 meetings and to hell with it, say what? It's not perfectly half the size of the FF? Weeeeell we could do that but naaaa
You fool
"For the amount of light it gathers this is not a compact lens at all. The new canon 24-70 f/2.8"
weights almost 3 times as much and not even stabilized.
Well the volume of the lens elements should logically be about 8 times larger so the weight difference is no surprise...
"In the size of the lens you forgot to tell that the sensor to lens distance in canon is 44mm... while in m43 land its 20mm so the lens is smaller than we should expect by halfing sensor size..."
You would have a valid point for tele lenses but not for wide angle to normal. Just compare the prime lenses for the m43 systems with the leica primes which are also close to the sensor.
To genthenderson,
Whatever the reason is the m43 lenses are very big for their aperture size and poor value for money, this is just stating facts, i dont see the need for personal attacks.
To compositor20:
Actually you may have a valid point after all, in the forums someone suggested the manufacturers simply adapt the slr lenses for the mirrorless systems as the reason they are so big, meaning they are retrofocal and have an unnecessarily long lens barrel because of simple neglect. I dont know if this is true or not though.
Native m4/3 lenses are much smaller than similar f-number lenses for other formats. Also much smaller than Nex lenses or other dedicated APS lenses. Sigma 30mm/2.8 for Nex & MFT is ridiculously large for its speed on MFT.
Poor value for money? I think Zuiko 45/1.8 has huge value price/performance ratio.
@malcolm 82, "four times more light". Where on earth are you getting these numbers? F2.8 is F2.8, not matter what the size of the sensor.
You are exposing a sensor that is 4 times the size with the same amount of light per unit area so clearly you get 4 times as much light. You only need to compare the aperture size of the two lenses, the full frame lens goes from 8.5mm to 25mm while the m43 lens goes from 4.25mm to 12.5mm, the extra light passing through that aperture isnt simply disappearing you know... And in fact it is used just as efficiently as the light going through an f1.4 aperture on an m43 system would be. Yes an f1.4 lens collects 4 times as much light as an f2.8 lens.
To DarkShift: I compare the size of lenses for their aperture size and not F number.
I dont know the zuiko 45/1.8, there may be exceptions but all the lenses i have looked at for nex and m43 systems are badly overpriced compared to the full frame lenses.
@malcolm82 "same amount of light per unit area ", so F2.8 is F2.8. But based on bigger aperture size are you saying that when you use a FF lens on a micro four thirds body you would have to use faster shutter speeds for the same exposure because it is letting in more light? What does it matter as the resolution of the image is not going to be different. With re: to the micro four thirds lenses being bigger than they need to be, I am just curious how you know that they need to be smaller, do you manufacture lenses? Maybe the FF lenses are bigger and far more expensive than they need to be. With re: to cost of lenses, why would you think grinding and polishing optical elements that are smaller would be any less expensive if you wnat to manufacture good quality optics?
What does it matter in the end if the micro four thirds lenses are bigger than they need to be, they are still smaller than FF and APSC lenses and if the optical quality is good then there is nothing wrong in them being charged as much as a similar performing FF/APSC lens. A good example is the 25mm 1.4 lens. It is as good if not better for resolution and contrast compared to a canon 50 1.4, so why should it be cheaper. The depth of field is shallow enough that it does not bother me that it is only the equivalent of FF 2.8. If it bothers you then don't buy the system, stick with your massive system. Since I gave up my APSc system (have owned both Canon and Pentax), I have taken a lot more pictures because I don't have back breaking equipment so I carrry my GH2 and lenses everywhere.
"But based on bigger aperture size are you saying that when you use a FF lens on a micro four thirds body you would have to use faster shutter speeds for the same exposure because it is letting in more light?"
No, if you use a ff 50mm f1.4 on m43 it functions exactly the same as an m43 50mm f1.4 would, which means both would be equivalent to 100mm f/2.8 on full frame. Whenever you crop you increase both the equivalent iso and equivalent aperture together.
"With re: to the micro four thirds lenses being bigger than they need to be, I am just curious how you know that they need to be smaller, do you manufacture lenses? Maybe the FF lenses are bigger and far more expensive than they need to be."
The size of the optical design is in proportion to the aperture size, so since the aperture of an m43 lens of the same f-ratio is half the size of a full frame lens the lens should also be half the size. Similarly the lens sizes for a given sensor size system should also scale in proportion to the smaller apertures for higher f-numbers, you can clearly see this with the size of leica's primes and also by the fact that large format f5.6 primes are only about the same size or smaller than full frame f1.4 primes. The aperture is about the same size and so is the lens, an f1.4 on large format would be huge.
With re: to cost of lenses, why would you think grinding and polishing optical elements that are smaller would be any less expensive if you wnat to manufacture good quality optics?
Well i can only compare the lenses that are out there, look at the larger canon lenses like the 85mm f/1.2 or 300mm f/2.8 compared to lenses with smaller elements, compare the 70-200 f/2.8 with the 70-200 f/4. With leica's primes the price also goes up a lot with larger apertures and with large format primes the same thing is obvious. It just makes sense that the price should scale roughly with the surface area of the lenses.
"if the optical quality is good then there is nothing wrong in them being charged as much as a similar performing FF/APSC lens. A good example is the 25mm 1.4 lens. It is as good if not better for resolution and contrast compared to a canon 50 1.4, so why should it be cheaper."
Because it is equivalent to a full frame f2.8 lens not only in how it behaves but also in the size of the optical elements and therefore should cost about the same as those instead. I had seen previously that the canon 50 f1.4 is actually cheaper than panasonic's 40 f/1.7 while performing significantly better at all equivalent apertures and having a much larger maximum aperture. This is just the most obvious example and shows why i consider m43 lenses to be very poor value.
"The depth of field is shallow enough that it does not bother me that it is only the equivalent of FF 2.8. If it bothers you then don't buy the system, stick with your massive system. Since I gave up my APSc system (have owned both Canon and Pentax), I have taken a lot more pictures because I don't have back breaking equipment so I carrry my GH2 and lenses everywhere."
I agree with you and i personally have no interest in having full frame f2.8 zoom lenses or f1.4 primes, what i would like is a mirrorless full frame system with a compact 3x zoom with an average aperture close to f5.6 and some primes at around f/2.5 like the small leica primes. Of course they should be priced in proportion to their much smaller sizes or im not buying them.
What bothers me is that many people would actually consider the lower f-ratio lenses on m43 to be superior to the higher f-ratio lenses on full frame. This lack of understanding just leads to manufacturers producing inferior products.
20 (40 1.7) and canon 50 1.4. Would love the link which shows a direct comparison of the two and which shows that the 50 1.4 is better at every equivalent aperture. I haven't used the 20 1.7, so can't comment on that, but I have used the canon 50 1.4, and 50 1.8 both of which were horribly soft at wide open apertures. In fact the 50 1.8 was a tad sharper than the 50 1.4 but with terrible AF. I can compare them to the 25 1.4 and I can tell you that this a phenomenal lens which is super sharp at 1.4. I don't have direct comparisons, but the fact that the 25 is tack sharp at 1.4 tells me that this is a better lens. Do I have a problem paying the $200 more for the pana 25 1.4, absolutely not. The 20 1.7 is 10 bucks cheaper than the 50 1.4 by the way.
But one thing you fail to take into consideration is almost all of the pana lenses are video optimized, which is a huge value for me as I shoot a lot of video as well. Even if optimizing lenses for video may not add extra cost at the manufacturing level, it is still added value for these lenses which to me at least is worth more.
At the end of the day, the micro four thirds lenses are cheaper than the equivalent lenses in most cases. the lens in question is cheaper than the canon 24-70 version. It remains to be seen what its performance is like.
How can you have a problem with the size and cost of the micro four thirds lenses while you don't seem to care that much about the stupidly priced leica lenses. I would love to see an 8X10 print from an equivalent leica lens that resolves more detail than my 25 1.4. Leica is made for a bunch of nostalgic idiots who seem to live in this delusional world that thier optics are out of this world. They haven't made a single decent digital camera that would AF in less than ten seconds, and how much do they charge for their cameras?? You should really be getting upset at them, and not at micro four thirds.
Again as I mentioned in a different section, micro four thirds manufacturers never claimed this system to be a cheaper alternative, just a smaller alternative (how small is small is subjective). It is small enough for me, AF on still subjects is as good as the best PDAF system and nothing beats my GH2 and my "video" optimized lenses for Video. No system is perfect and the only people who can answer your questions as to why the system is larger and more expensive than it needs to be (according to you, I am fine with their offering, pricing and size) are the panasonic and Olympus people. Try contacting them. Our discussion here is pointless as (at least) I don't work in a camera design or manufacturing dept. For the time being, the system is here, deal with it. You are not going to get a FF mirrorless from these guys, get the Leica if you can afford it.
By the way what systems do you own and have used. I am trying to figure out where your frustration is coming from.
I simply compared the tests on this site:
Bigger sensors inevitably lead to higher resolution, it takes much higher quality lenses on small sensors to equal the image quality of cheap lenses on large sensors. This could be part of the reason why m43 lenses are bigger and more expensive than equivalent full frame lenses.
"At the end of the day, the micro four thirds lenses are cheaper than the equivalent lenses in most cases. the lens in question is cheaper than the canon 24-70 version. It remains to be seen what its performance is like."
As i said it should be compared to a 24-70 f5.6 for price. A lens like that would not be considered anything special and would be much cheaper.
I agree with what you said about Leica, they are very overpriced and i would not even consider their camera even at 1/4th the price.
I use the spec sheets of their lenses as a reference to get an idea of what a mirrorless system could be and to see what the size would be of a full frame system with symmetric prime lenses. It is generally accepted that full frame means big but this is simply not the case and their lenses prove that.
It is not the fact that it is a Leica that makes the 35mm f2.5 (my best example for a compact prime) special, it is simply the optical design and this same design or a better one can be made by other manufacturers for much lower prices and this is what i look forward to get in the future.
I dislike the general fixation for lower f-numbers, with many people looking to get f/1.2 or f/1.4 primes on m43 systems while an f/2.5 or f/2.8 on full frame would be far superior and be judged as 'slow' by the same people. It is not the f-number that matters but the size of the aperture, hence the importance of understanding equivalence.
I think this is the lens you mentioned, this one also stood out for me because it is practically the same size as the leica 50mm f/1.4:
Again it seems they may be using a much bigger design to compensate for the inevitable resolution loss that comes with using a smaller sensor.
I can understand your choice for this system, there simply are no better alternatives right now. But if they actually designed the systems the way they should and priced them at a sensible level the difference would be huge.
"By the way what systems do you own and have used. I am trying to figure out where your frustration is coming from."
I am still using a compact camera, i do not want a dslr as they are too large and will become obsolete in the not too distant future and i dont consider any current mirrorless system to be worth investing in.
A properly designed mirrorless system has yet to be released and it seems likely that it will be a long wait still.
if at a given focal length at F2.8 you are using the same shutter speed for both the lenses then those are the lenses that need to be compared, not the 24-70 5.6.
get the canon G1X then, or the panasonic gf3 with the x kit lens. you can find one on ebay for $500. Since you don't care about fast lenses (or wrongly perceived fast lenses according to you), it shouldn't matter that the tiny kit lens is 5.6. Don't get the lens by itself, you will find it too expensive.
I can't believe you spent so much time arguing about a system that you don't own and have probably never used. I should have known this before so I ddin't have to spend this time. You need to use one to know the how much more value this system offers over compact point and shoots and in some cases the advantages it offers over DSLRs.
Good luck in getting your dream camera of a tiny body with a full frame sensor with a 24-1000 zoom f 5.6 that is the size of the panasonic x lens for 200 dollars or whatever currency you use.
You are right, forums are a huge time waster and somehow i keep forgetting it. Maybe i will remember it this time :)
My 14-140mm rubber zoom ring had gotten loose 3 times already and I had to send the lens to replace the rubber. I just hope it doesn't happen to this 12-35mm lens.
Same here. My Panasonic Lumix 14-140 rubber zoom ring is constantly slipping, and the lens isn't all that sharp anyway. Plus the GH1 that it is mounted on has really disappointed me with spontaneous non-functioning of manual focus and super over exposure of the metering. Absolutely no reason for any of it considering how I baby my cameras. All to say that I've come to have a low opinion of Panasonic stuff. I hope Pany gets it right with the new 12-35, but I doubt I'll buy any more Panasonic camera equipment.
Does anyone know the part number for the rubber ring? I just discovered my dad's 3 year old 14-140 rubber zoom ring is loose.
Believe it or not. It is awesome.
Am I being a stickler for insisting that this is a constant f-ratio lens, not a "constant aperture"-lens? Either way, this looks like a great lens. Good price (if the optics work, and they seem to do) and great size for the system. I have to figure out if the advantages of the zoom outweighs the loss of 1 or 2 stops of depth of field control and exposure, but for people looking for an upgrade to their kit zoom this is a no-brainer. I expect Panasonic to sell a lot of these!
Constant f-number lenses are always referred to as "constant aperture" lenses, is there anywhere that doesn't call a constant f-number lens "constant aperture"?
No, good sir, you are not. ƒ-numbers are not apertures. Variable ƒ-number zooms are closer to being fixed aperture lenses than fixed ƒ-number zooms.
Would this lens really be worse off as a ƒ/2-2.8, as it possibly could have been?
More importantly, from an operation point of view, constant F number zooms have only one reason. With manual or non-TTL auto flashes, constant F zooms make flash work easier. TTL flash removes this last reason. In the end money is spent to make something appear more prestigious.
Constant ƒ-zooms are a waste of glass at the short end. If you have problems with the ƒ-number changing while zooming, use aperture priority mode to set it at the minimum ƒ-number on the long end.
Constant ƒ-zooms are not a waste of glass and yes this lens would be worse off if it were 2-2.8. If you want to zoom when using the camera's video mode, it's useful to not have your shot go dark half way through your shot.
It's a "fly by wire" lens with a stepless (or at least something silly small, like 1/30 stop) electronic aperture. They could have made it f2 at the wide end, and had the aperture compensate in video mode. Set f2.8, and as you zoom, the aperture automatically adjusts to maintain f2.8.
So called "constant aperture" lenses are technological dinosaurs. (And I own three of the best, LOL).
Arenas: Do you understand the principie of aperture priority mode?
@arenas: modern electronically controlled variable aperture lenses hold the f-stop constant during zooming, so long as the needed f-stop is in range. So with video of off-camera metering on a f/2-2.8, your problem is solved by just not going below f/2.8, which leaves you no worse off that when the lens prevents you from doing that.
Thank you for illustrating why people who still believe in the superiority of constant aperture zooms are basing that belief on out-dated information.
P. S. I would pedantically call them constant minimum f-stop zooms, but ...
P. P. S. Sorry for overlooking that two others made the same point!
@Cax: Do you understand the effects of changing shutter speed when shooting video?
GH3 is coming closer!
Is it prelude for it?
i think so
My dealer does not like the ergonomics of the OMD. He writes: "it is rather small in my opinion. The buttons and layout are a little cramped in comparison to other m4/3 that I know will be out later this year (one in June & the other in October)."
Now he is under non-disclosure. So I don't know what these bodies are. Or whether they are Olympus or Panasonic. But based on what should be coming out, one would expect these to be the replacements for the G3 and GH2. And based on past releases (the G3 was announced in May and the GH2 was announced in September) I'm hoping that the G3 replacement is the first one. Though the G3 is one year old, and the GH2 is two years old. So the GH2 replacement could be first.
@Don Wiss
1. Dealers do not get NDA covered advanced notice of products to be announced five months into the future, so he is blowing smoke in your eyes, or gullibly accepting rumors as fact.
2. The OM-D is meant to be small! That is a key feature of "compact system cameras" like m43! If he can't handle the concept of small system cameras, he should get a grip. (Puns intended.)
WE Really Really REALLY need to know how it works on the EM-5.
Pretty please?
Any in camera software distortion required?
It will work exactly as well as every other Panasonic m4/3 lens does on an Olympus camera, i.e. identically except no automatic CA correction.
1. Too bad that O.I.S only makes it more expensive, larger and heavier and still doesn't help you with your OMD. It would be interesting how cheap/small the same lens without OIS would be.
2. What would the aperture have to be on APS-C for FOV equivalence? This is of course a bright zomm, no doubt! But I'm interested in NEX7 or OMD and I want to know which system would be more interesting for FOV photography. Especially with the available and affordable lenses!
O.I.S very much helps with Panasonic cameras so there's no way Panasonic would leave it out, I'm sure Olympus will release a native fast zoom at some point and you can always use the extremely well regarded (tho large/expensive) Four Thirds lenses.
As for FOV (FOV photography?) the m4/3 system gives you high quality lenses ranging from 14mm to 600mm equivalent, don't think any other mirrorless system has quite that range yet
It has an OIS switch on its barrel, so it should work with EM-5.
Using both IS systems at the same time is not wise though.
There's no such thing as "equivalent aperture", Paul. F2.8 is always f2.8, be it full frame, four thirds, APS-C or whatever.
Yes as an Oly user there is that slight niggle that the lens is bigger and more expensive because of the O.I.S but i'm still impressed.
As for going for NEX or OMD... hmm, basically, if you don't mind manual focusing legacy lenses that may or may not give you great results (wide apertures often give soft results, different focal lengths don't work well), go for the NEX, it has a slightly better sensor. If you want a complete system that is designed and built well with good bodies and good lenses, go for the OMD.
If I were a NEX user i'd be pretty annoyed that stiiiiiiill they have the lens crisis.
@ ManuelVilardeMacedo
If you take that opinion you also need to apply it to focal length, there is no such thing as "equivalent focal length" 12-35mm will ALWAYS be 12-35mm, be it full frame four thirds, APS-C or whatever
The problem and confusion is dpreview putting the equivalent focal length(24-70mm) right next to the unequivalent aperture.
The fact is this lens would look identical to a 24-70mm F5.6 on full frame, yet there is a constant misinformation campaign waged by the micro 4/3rds crowd to confuse people.
Now you may say well aperture is used to determine exposure and if you "convert" the aperture you get a incorrect assumption of light intensity. Well that would be a good point if it wasn't for the fact that aperture is not a measurement of light transmission(T-stop is).
The fact is F/stop is more useful for determining depth of field than exposure so it's totally reasonable to "convert it" if you are already doing such with the focal length.
Really? Then a f2.8 FF lens should magically become two stops faster while attached on MFT. I think not...
Take a light meter reading through f2.8 lens for MFT and FF, and tell us what you did found.
While the aperture is physically larger on FF, the imaging area is also around four times larger. So the light intensity is the same for same area.
ManuelVilardeMacedo, do you also have trouble understanding what people mean when they say "equivalent focal length"?
Focal length, ƒ-numbers, and ISO sensitivities are not really measurements of anything interesting, they only have meaning for a given sensor size. To compare between systems you need to correct for the sensor size, and the 36x24mm has been chosen as the default.
There is an "equivalent focal length", and "equivalent f-number" and an "equivalent ISO sensitivity". So far, most people understand the focal length part, just some of the journalists have started to understand the ƒ-number part (but only when it can be used as a negative), but nobody understands the ISO sensitivity part. And you really need to translate them all to keep the correct ratio between them. I wish this would sink in with the journalists soon.
Bradley, that's just not true. Aperture is an optical property of the lens that's not sensor-related. Crop factor is an entirely different thing altogether. A 20mm focal length (in 35mm FF terms) will be 40mm equivalent when mounted on a 4/3 camera, and 30mm on a Canon APS-C. Aperture, however, remains the same whatever the sensor the lens is going to work with. I repeat, there's no such thing as "equivalent aperture". Otherwise it'd be as if someone's visual acuity would vary according to the size of the brain!!!
And Cax, your findings are firmly placed on the realms of fantasy. They are not sustained by any evidence.
Because f-number is calculated as following: focal length of the lens / diameter of aperture.
Where did you find anything that relates to sensor size in that equation?
Yes, but is it the ƒ-number you are really after, or are you after the amount of light that hits the sensor? For a given ƒ-number and a given sensor size, a given amount of light hits the sensor. This amount is your photograph. This is what you care about. If you change your sensor size you need to change your ƒ-number to get the same photograph, in response to changing the focal length because the sensor is a different size.
The ƒ-number does not mean anything on its own, that's the point. You can not say anything about a photograph by knowing just the ƒ-number.
Here we go again.
"Aperture equivalence" is an unecessarily confusing way of explaining DoF equivalence. DoF changes with sensor size, aperture does not.
Funnily enough, DPReview do a pretty decent job of explaining this, yet there are *still* people on the forums who are peddling utter rubbish in the form of "explanations".
@Cax - if you're going to get scientific, can we get properly scientific? The same amount of light *per mm* is still hitting the sensor. The amount of light hitting the sensor *in total* can be inferred from the resulting exposure but is essentially irrelevant photographically speaking.
The light hitting the sensor in total is THE ONLY THING that is relevant. Photography is catching light. Don't talk to me about science, you do not have a scientific education.
You see, we are not interested in focal lengths, we are interested in angles of view, and to infer an angle of view from a focal length, we must know the sensor size.
We are not interested in ƒ-numbers, we are interested in the amount of light gathered, and to infer the amount of light gathered from an ƒ-number, we must know the sensor size.
We are not interested in ISO sensitivities, we are interested in image noise, and to infer the image noise from an ISO sensitivity, we must know the sensor size.
Until someone propagates the use of degrees as a measure of angle of view, some sort of total light transmission index as a measure of amount of light, and some sensor size independent measure of light in an exposure, you bozos are just going to have to take our word for it: you can translate these three obsolete photographic measurements to correct for variations in sensor size. 12mm, ƒ/2.8 at ISO 400 on µ4/3 IS THE SAME as 24mm, ƒ/5.6 at ISO 1600 on a 36x24mm system.
And why is it the same? Well, because it has THE SAME angle of view, THE SAME aperture, and therefore THE EXACT SAME LIGHT is hitting the sensor. It is just spread over a different size area.
Cax, you are not understanding what the review is referring to as equivalent aperture, it has nothing to do with the intensity of the light hitting the sensor. The f-stop is the ratio of entrance pupil diameter to focal length and is a measure of the intensity of the light hitting the sensor. Longer focal length lenses spread the light more as the cone of light heads towards the sensor but the f-stop takes this into account by the lens using a larger hole and thus more total light gets through but it is spread more. The sensor size plays no role in this as the f-stop is measuring light intensity not the total amount of light.
When they are referring to equivalent aperture in terms of DoF, what that means is that as the sensor becomes larger for a given distance and subject size, the focal length of the lens being used is increased. This longer focal length for a fixed camera to subject distance and fixed subject size results in less DoF
"Equivalent aperture" in terms of depth of field is exactly the same as "equivalent aperture" in terms of amount of light. The thing is, if you have, say, a 5cm aperture on a 100mm lens and on a 200mm lens, and the sensor on the camera with the 200mm lens has twice the diagonal of the one with the 100mm lens, they will both have the same angle of view and the same aperture and the same depth of field. The photographs would be exactly the same, as light from the same angles would be gathered over the same area, that is the 5cm aperture. Yet, the ƒ-numbers will be different, ƒ/2 and ƒ/4.
There is no way, for a given angle of view and distance to the subject, to separate between depth of field and amount of light hitting the sensor in total (except by using a filter). That is because they are both results of the same factor: the aperture. And since amount of light (not intensity) is linked to noise, depth of field and noise, which are two interesting things, are linked together, regardless of sensor size.
Let me say it again: Sensor size has nothing to do with depth of field. ƒ-numbers, focal lengths and ISO sensitivity forces you to consider sensor size, but the actual depth of field, angle of view and image noise is not related to it.
You're wrong. If you used two film cameras with exactly same film on both cameras, the f4 lens would produce 2 stops darker image than f2 lens regardless of format. The final image is spread over area 4 times larger, which means less light per same image area.
My bad... I missused FOV for DOF!
I am sick of this discussion... I wanted some answer to a question and some trolls come with the aperture is aperture joke... Lets say I want to make a portrait picture (in this case 50mm equivalent) with shallow DOF!
On a FF i would get the result with F2.8?
On a APS-C i would get the same result (with the same DOF) with 2? I dont know!
On a m4/3 i woud get the same result (with the same DOF) with? 1.4?
So the question is --> What would (DOF equivalent) the APC-C pendant to this lens be? 17-55 F3.5? Or even higher aperture?
You understand? I want to know which F Number Lens i need for this shallow DOF. And the smaller the sensor gets the smaller the F number must be!
For roughly equivalent DOF wide open, multiply by the "format factor"; the linear ratio of format sizes, as for FOV equivalence. Between 4/3" and Sony NEX format, the format factor is about 4/3, so compare to a Sony NEX 16-47mm f/3.7 lens (And compare IQ with that imaginary NEX lens used at about 2/3 stop higher ISO speed when you need to get equal shutter speed.)
Aside: if we play the game of FOV and DOF equivalence, we must also use "ISO speed equivalence". With "equivalent" lenses, the "equivalent ISO speed" scales by the square of the format factor, so for example 35mm format needs four times the ISO speed compared to 4/3" if both formats are used with "equivalent" lenses. Strangely, many "equivalence" buffs still compare IQ at equal ISO speed.
Darkshift: Sorry, but I know what I am talking about. I keep saying you need to transpose all the values, including the sensitivity. The ƒ/4 lens would produce an equally bright picture with ISO800 film as that of the ƒ/2 lens with ISO200 film. But that is just basic knowledge, and does not relate to the film format. Film is a bit different though, because of the grain size, it is not necessarily as easy to get the same results with different formats.
BJL is correct in everything she/he writes.
Again: if you are going to compare based on focal length, ƒ-number and ISO sensitivity, you need to translate ALL the values, just like BJL did.
So when someone writes "but this is just like ƒ/5.6 on a full format camera!", that is correct, but you need to remember that that also gives your $400 µ4/3 camera body the same noise as a full format camera with a ƒ/5.6 lens.
Cax, you are just repeating what all are trying to make clear to you. Exposure is the avg.number of photons in a given surface area. A FF lens does really catch 4 times more light. But it also has to illuminate a 4 times bigger sensor area.
Jep it would be really the same, if the 4times bigger sensor can get 4times higher ISO in same quality, but it does not! I think I will go for APS-C instead of m4/3 and wehen I go for APS-C then Sony.. I think ^^
zigi_S: I am just repeating what you don't want to hear: Light intensity is irrelevant, it only means something for an area. The FF lens and sensor gathers 4 times as much light on the same ƒ-number and ISO sensitivity, but at half the ƒ-number and 1/4 the ISO sensitivity, the 4/3 lens and sensor collect the same amount of light, get the same depth of field, and achieves the same signal/noise ratio. That's why we say a 4/3 ƒ/2.8 lens is an ƒ/5.6 equivalent, and that ISO200 on 4/3 is an ISO 800 equivalent, just the way we say 12mm on 4/3 is a 24mm equivalent. It is just a matter of translating the irrelevant values so that they represent irrrelevant values in a familiar system. Focal lengths, ƒ-numbers and intensities have no meaning on their own for a photograph, but angle of view, aperture and total amount of light does.
Don't assume I don't understand the basic stuff that you learned on a beginner's photography course.
Never had a photography course. Still understand the physics behind of it all. If you really need better tonality and DR then there is no way around FF or even MF. Trolling in this thread where most ppl aren't prepared to throw for a body alone at least 2500€ is pathetic. A master craftsmen doesn't talk about the best tool but the most suited. You clearly aren't one.
interesting addition , but I will have to wait for some real data from lens reviews and real field shoot to see how it goes. M4/3 lens, with their inherent way of optical design intentionally under - designed. Can be misleading just by looks.
Ah this sillyness about digital correction again. So far every Panasonic lens released with digital correction out-performs equivalent optically corrected lenses tested (even with the loss of sharpness through digital resampling). If you can find any example of an optically corrected lens of the same class beating a Panasonic lens please let me know :)
Andy pick any optically superior lens and apply the software correction to it. Those who buy optically superior lenses are not fools they can also apply software correction if needed.
How can they apply digital correction? Do you have any idea the exact specifics of the digital correction? No, you're going to best guess it in a PP program which won't be as good because 9/10 you'll over do it and 10/10 it won't be nearly as complex and specific. It's not quuuite as simple as you put it.
@zxaar name a single optically corrected lens /in the same class/ that can beat a Panasonic lens. Obviously you can spend 10x more on a Canon L lens that could beat a digitally corrected Panasonic lens, but show me a single lens in the same class that is sharper even before you apply extra digital corrections manually.
"How can they apply digital correction? Do you have any idea the exact specifics of the digital correction?" ----------- Manufacturers of these lenses have that. Anything else??
@Andy Crowe I am pretty sure my sony R1 Zeiss is better than the panasonic you mentioned even without software correction. And that is 24 to 120 mm lens. There may be many other examples in nikon and canon too. Further speaking of L, this lens is also not cheap.
Reviews are available showing that this lens has professional-lens quality. I won't post links because Google exists.
Suffice to say that it does not require digital correction more than any other high quality lens does. You can go ahead and apply it anyway if you want and your images will look even better.
""How can they apply digital correction? Do you have any idea the exact specifics of the digital correction?"
I'm not sure what you're actually talking about, but M4/3 lenses have digital corrections built into the lens ROM so they are part of the lens design.
Also the R1 lens is slower, non-removable (so can be closer to the sensor) and do you have any test results /showing/ it to be better? Still waiting for a lens in the same price class that can beat any Panny lens...
Suddenly, MFT has got a lot more interesting... :-)
I like the look of it, might sell my 12mm f2 prime to help pay for it, I can see the OMD + this lens combo being iconic, a bit like the old GF1 is still highly regarded. Slap the landscape grip on there and it's basically a go anywhere do anything camera!
A lens everybody will want, but nobody could justify.
It's something tangible we all can dream about.
In the end: still cheaper and more useful than the Leicas.
All very lovely, but this is'nt really an F2.8 lens is it, compared to APSC or FF?
What would be the equivalent APSC lens? A 17-50 I guess? And if my understanding is correct, would this 4/3 lens have to be a F1.4 to have the same light gathering as a F2.8 in larger sensors?
As said somewhere below, I don't think it is a simple as simply doubling the focal length to get a "FF equivalent" and keeping the max aperture the same.
I am not sure if this really a f2.8 as we know it. I am sure the people at DPR can clarify !
A lovely thing though I am sure, especially with an OMD EM5.
Light gathering wise (which is acutally the real meaning of F-stop) it is a 2.8. It will give you the same exposure parameters as a 24-70 F2.8.
Some people are talking about depth of field equivalence. In that sense, it is equivalent to 24-70 F5.6 on FF.
f2.8 is f2.8.
Are you trolling? Does your light meter have a "full frame" switch on it? Of course not- that's stupid. Do you even know what the "f-stop" actually is, and how it's measured? I'm guessing you don't.
No, you're getting aperture mixed up with depth of field (doF). 1/60th sec @ f2.8 is the same regardless of format. If you had a handheld light meter telling you to set 1/60th @ f2.8 its the same on m43, 35mm or medium format. To get the same depth of field on m43 as 35mm FF then yes, it would need to have a larger aperture.
Personally, I've had more difficulty in getting more DoF than shallow DoF for low light shots, m43 really helps here. But that's me.
The F-stop is the ratio of focal-length to the entrance pupil. A 24-70mm F/2.8 lens has a 8.5mm pupil at the wide end, and a 25mm pupil at the long end. The 12-35mm has a 4mm pupil at the wide end and a 12.5mm pupil at the long end. It is not equivalent to a 24-70mm F/2.8, but a 24-70mm F/5.6. The size of the pupil does not change, hence you can't just multiply the focal-length.
As for exposure, a 24-70mm F/2.8 on 135 does have the same light intensity as the 12-30mm, but it has 4 times the image circle, meaning that it gathers 4 times as much light in total. If used with a native sensor, one that utilizes that image circle, you gather 4 times as much light, making it 4 times, or 2 stops, better than a m43 12-30mm F/2.8.
A equivalent m43 lens to a 135 24-70mm F/2.8 is a 12-30mm F/1.4.
"...used with a native sensor, one that utilizes that image circle, you gather 4 times as much light, making it 4 times, or 2 stops, better than a m43 12-30mm F/2.8."
Sigh... Go take a photo with your full-frame CaNikon. Then take the same photo with your P&S, using exactly the same aperture, shutter and iso. The exposures will be IDENTICAL. It would still be identical if you used MFT, APS or Medium Format.
Try it, I dare you.
Of course the exposures will be identical. But the poster is still correct that four times the total light (not light per area) will be collected on an FF sensor in the larger image circle.
Of course that's what gives the better noise characteristics of the FF: total light.
So what needs to be disentangled are three things:
Depth of field: function of aperture, distance from subject, angle of view of lens and used image circle.
Total light: (and hence noise level): function of aperture, and used image circle (holding light levels and length of exposure fixed)
Exposure: function of aperture (holding light levels and length of exposure fixed).
Much of the discussion of these matters conflates the three.
Thanks for the sensible answer.
If only other people on this site could be so useful and insightful without getting so sensitive about a simple search for clarity.
Better noise may make sense only if using exactly 4 times larger photosites on a FF sensor. In practise tech advance makes this issue more complicated.
F-stop is focal length divided by aperture diameter. To keep it simple, f2.8 lens is the same regardless of format or imaging area. This is basic photography really.
Mr. Roboto is right. f2.8 is f2.8. It's a purely optical measure that doesn't vary with crop factor.
Let's see...
Trolling: unleashing one or more
cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander.
Sound like you are the only troll on this website. You think you have some justification to belittle other people asking honest questions. Get back under your bridge.
Okay, so, the total light is 4x greater for a 24-70/2.8 lens in 135-format. But... wait for it... the sensor is 864mm^2 vs. 225mm^2, (26%), so the *luminous flux per unit area of the sensor* is only 4% different - in fact, it's (slightly) in favour of 4/3.
Consdier this: if I cut a 17.3 x 13mm section out of a 24x36mm negative (yes, film), the exposure is (obviously) still the same. The degradation in image quality is related to other factors (relatively coarser grain structure, tonality, etc.), not "total light gathered". The difference in sensor tech makes such a direct comparison between different format (or manufacturer or generation) digital cameras a dubious exercise.
The only *real* difference worth worrying about for actual shooting comes from DOF considerations, which cannot be wangled away.
Those who keep insisting that f2.8 on m4/3 equals f5.6 on FF should take some photography classes.
2.8 is 2.8 when it comes to exposure.
2.8 is 5.6 when it comes to DOF at the same focal length, as compared with a 35mm sensor.
People talking about total light gathered are comparing apples to oranges. It's not like you gather a bunch of light, put it in a barrel, and then sell it at the market.
But it is exactly like that. An FX camera at f/5.6, 1/100s, ISO 400 gives approximately the same brightness, image quality and depth of field than a MFT camera at f/2.8, 1/100s, ISO 100. The FX camera (assuming a modern one like D800) will be still better in resolution but if we only are looking at tonal quality, color separation, SNR this kind of stuff, as well as depth of field then this equivalence holds. Thus you get more for your money by buying a Nikon 24-70/2.8 than this 12-35, greater resolving capability, more options for depth of field control, and more light => better image quality, but only pay about twice as much as this small lens. What you're doing essentially is paying extra for the small size of the 12-35. Which of course is a perfectly legitimate thing to do.
"An FX camera at f/5.6, 1/100s, ISO 400 gives approximately the same brightness, image quality and depth of field than a MFT camera at f/2.8, 1/100s, ISO 100. "
That would be true if the same FF lens was used on m43 and just wasted all the light around the sensor. But m43 lens concentrates the light (the same amount) on the smaller surface of the smaller sensor.
Thanks Ilkka, what a nice twisting of words from a true Nikon follower.
Half the money becomes suddenly more if not spend on holy Nikkor glass. :D Which I own too, but that doesn't mean its the right tool for every situation.
If you wish to compare at the "DOF equivalent" of f/5.6 in 35mm format, be sure to also compare with the 35mm camera used at four times the ISO speed, which is what that f/5.6 lens will need to give equal shutter speed. But doing so probably makes that 35mm format combo a bulky, expensive way of getting roughly the same IQ.
If instead you wish to compare at equal ISO speed, then you need to compare with an equally bright lens: f/2.8 all round.
This is so sweet. I can retire my soft cornered, boat anchor Nikkor. At last we have a decent small zoom for travel and leisure.
|Of Lupine & Balsam Root by mjhpdx
from Spring's in bloom
|Before the Catastrophic 2014 Ice Storm by Tomaz Ovcak
from Never Again
|Phoenix Rising by cjf2
from - Visions of a phoenix - (Black and White + A white Border)
Follow us


text:
May 4, 2016
Police said they caught the man they say opened fire into a car in the parking lot of an apartment complex.
Greenville Police arrested 19-year-old Tre'von Morgan Wednesday morning.
Police said Morgan was in an argument April 26th with people at a private party at the Kiwanis Club in Winterville, and the argument carried over to Greenvillle.
Police said Morgan pulled the trigger in the parking lot of the Sheraton Village Apartments on Landmark Street around 1 a.m. on April 27th.
A woman told police bullets went through her car and hit her in the legs. That victim was later treated and released from the hospital.
Morgan has been charged with assault with a deadly weapon and is being held under a $1 million bond.
Previous Story:
Police have released surveillance pictures of a vehicle used in a shooting ten days ago and are asking for the public in helping to identify the driver.
The shooting happened back on April 27th in the parking lot of Sheraton Village Apartments on Landmark Street in Greenville around 1:00 a.m.
Police say the victim was sitting in the back seat of a car when people in the other car began shooting in her direction. Bullets went through the car door and struck the woman's legs. Officers say they do not believe the victim was directly connected to any ongoing dispute with those in the other car.
Using the city's public safety camera system, police were able to identify the vehicle, a white Lincoln with a black man behind the wheel.
If you can identify the driver, call the Greenville Police Department at 252-329-4315.
Click Here to access the online Public Inspection File
Viewers with disabilities can get assistance accessing this station's FCC Public Inspection File by contacting the station with the information listed below. Questions or concerns relating to the accessibility of the FCC's online public file system should be directed to the FCC at 888-225-5322, 888-835-5322 (TTY), or email@example.com.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Faster, but don't get too excited as it sticks after you fall for the old rock trap trip!
Ropey wrote:Is there an echo in here? I did warn you. I would like that trap and also the power to jam peoples games.
Return to Alteil General Discussion
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests


text: The slouchy Fran pebbled leather shopper brings a subtle style to your wardrobe. The natural dipped center creates an "M" top, denoting MARC By Marc Jacobs signature shape. Details include detachable/adjustable shoulder strap, magnetic snap closure, plus lined interior with zip and cell pockets. Dimensions: 16"L x5 "W x11 "H 7" handle drop and 15 " shoulder strap drop.