12-35 and 35-100 x

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by xdayv, Sep 7, 2011.

  1. xdayv

    xdayv Color Blind

    Aug 26, 2011
    Tacloban City, Philippines
    Dave
    why as of now is it hard to confirm the max aperture? is it still in the stages of the rumor mill?

    F/2 or F/2.8? it would be interesting to have F/2. :smile:

    can't wait for more news...
     
  2. Markb

    Markb Mu-43 Top Veteran

    532
    Jun 9, 2011
    Kent, UK
    Mark
    They're still vapourware. We'll all just have to wait until there's a real one in someone's hands. f2 zooms for :43: would be a real step forward especially if they manage to be anywhere near as good as the Olympus 4/3 versions of the same ranges.
     
  3. carpandean

    carpandean Mu-43 Top Veteran

    827
    Oct 29, 2010
    Western NY
    Seems like Panny saw what Sony was releasing for bodies (NEX-7, NEX-5N) and thought "we better remind customers that lenses are more important." So, they leaked them without actually having finished them.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. shnitz

    shnitz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    989
    Aug 25, 2011
    Austin, TX
    The problem is the same thing that's happening a few posts down, in the "Where's that &$%#* 45mm f1.8?" thread. Information travels so fast today that we're hearing about products earlier and earlier. While in the past you would hear about a product from an announcement, today sites like 43rumors comb through patent applications, giving us very early knowledge of products coming to market. Everyone is demanding earlier and earlier knowledge of the cutting edge. However, it still takes development time for a product. So, I recommend not sitting and fretting over the exact specs of a new lens. If it interests you, then preorder it so that you will get it while all of the initial orders inevitably go to the early birds. For example, there's a guy in the for sale forums selling an E-P3 without the kit lens for $720, while its new price is $900 with lens. Basically, he is paying nothing for owning the camera for a few months. Otherwise, go shoot with what you have, and in a few months come back and take a look at the product.
     
  5. jimr.pdx

    jimr.pdx Mu-43 Veteran

    342
    Dec 5, 2010
    near Longview ~1hr from PDX
    Jim R
    Speaking entirely for myself (always a good approach :smile:), f/3.5-4.5 with Pana OIS is fast enough for me. I'd prefer 2.8-4.0 but I really want these lenses to remain compact, which is where :43: shines. I am not into f/2 myself (other than my 24mm Vivitar!) and want to be able to afford both 12-35 and 35-100 in the same year.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    Jimr.pdx pleas delete your post before someone at Panasonic or Olympus see it.

    We need fast lenses, there are plenty of slow options for you out there already!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. nickthetasmaniac

    nickthetasmaniac Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 11, 2011
    I'd have a stab and say at this point its quite possible that even Panasonic doesn't know...

    To be honest I'd be quite happy with either f2 or f2.8, although the cost of an f2 concerns me...
     
  8. Bokeaji

    Bokeaji Gonzo's Dad O.*

    Aug 6, 2011
    Austin, TX
    Amen tc!

    I'd like a fast option. Even if it means it's bigger n pricey. Just give me a slow cheap small option as well :)
     
  9. hkpzee

    hkpzee Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 5, 2011
    Hong Kong
    Patrick
    Absolutely agree. We need fast zoom lenses for m4/3, so that I can stop lugging those heavy Oly 4/3 zoom lenses around... (they also focus too slowly on my E-P3!)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. FastCorner

    FastCorner Mu-43 Veteran

    310
    May 28, 2011
    If the 12-35 comes out as a constant f2, there's nothing saving my wallet from immediate ligthening...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    I sit and fret over the specs of the next legacy lens I want to add to my collection, lol. This information on lenses that have been around for decades can be harder to find on the internet then specs on a lens that doesn't even exist yet.
     
  12. Markb

    Markb Mu-43 Top Veteran

    532
    Jun 9, 2011
    Kent, UK
    Mark
    :biggrin::biggrin:
     
  13. bongestrella

    bongestrella Mu-43 Veteran

    404
    Sep 2, 2011
    Mechanicsburg, PA
    If it's f2 and is $1000-$1200, and is atleast decent especially compared to Oly 12, panny 20, and Oly 45, then I'll be in heaven. None of these will probably be true.
     
  14. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    Well, this is why we have so many primes in Micro Four-Thirds... They're sharp, fast, compact, and inexpensive. Everything that makes Micro Four-Thirds special.

    So why do we need top-pro constant aperture f/2 zooms at this point in time? How about starting with some super-tele primes, then worry about the zooms when the prime selection is complete? Don't get me wrong... I'm not just a fan of primes. The fantastic fast zooms of the Zuiko Digital lineup is what brought me into the Four-Thirds fold in the first place. For that system, fast zooms are the bomb... for the micro four-thirds system, fast primes are the bomb. In my opinion, the fast primes collection for :43: is not complete yet (we can't go longer than 45mm without going into a cheap, slow-as-molasses zoom), but the fast zooms in the Four-Thirds collection is pretty darn close to complete.
     
  15. shnitz

    shnitz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    989
    Aug 25, 2011
    Austin, TX
    I don't think that's it realistic to expect a zoom with the same aperture range as the prime lenses, you usually see them go down one stop at least. Also, it's highly unrealistic to expect a zoom to be as good as a prime. If you look at Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax, etc. then you will see this. I'd assume that it's f/2.8, which will save on size, weight, and price. You are starting to see that with the other players as well: Nikon, Canon, and Pentax users are opting for the f/4 zooms over the f/2.8, unless they NEED that extra stop. You are seeing that these f/4 zooms deliver photos that are just as sharp and saturated as the f/2.8, while giving people smaller kits. So, if you're hoping for an f/2.0 zoom, don't hold your breath.
     
  16. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    Huh? There isn't a single zoom out there faster than f/3.5 that either focuses like it should OR is as small as it should be. Adapted lenses are a stop-gap at best. For those of us who need the small size because of travel, a whole bag of primes is not an acceptable solution either.

    Why refer to the dinosaur companies as your reference? The advent of modern, powerful, effective software correction COMPLETELY rewrites these rules.

    That said, I would accept a SLIGHT tradeoff in aperture for constant vs variable (essentially trading off speed at the long end for speed at the wide end). Either constant f/2.8 or variable f/2-3.5ish would be OK with me.

    I've said it a million times, and I'll say it again in case anyone who matters is reading:
    I want fast zooms to make up for the inherent weakness of our smaller sensor. The only way to compensate for the laws of physics controlling BOTH DOF and ISO is aperture. I realize they will be larger than the current slower aperture zooms, and I'm OK with that. So long as the engineers do their job and the lenses are smaller than any other comparable mount system, they will be fine. I understand they will be more expensive, and I'm OK with that too.
     
  17. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    At least, within the same bracket of manufacturing... The Zuiko f/2 zooms are every bit as good as a prime in each focal length covers, but these zooms are very high-grade, high-resolving top-pro glass which is expensive, large, and heavy!
     
  18. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    :confused: I don't get what you're saying. You know I'm talking about fast zooms for the Four-Thirds system, not Micro Four-Thirds right?
     
  19. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    Yes, but even the "CDAF" 4/3 lenses focus too slowly OR are bigger than they need to be.

    We need native options that allow the m43 system to deliver on its promise of "same image quality in a smaller package".

    I think modern technology (software correction) and design advances will allow this without too much trouble. I ALSO hope is helps control the price a bit ... going from ~$1000 for a PL45/2.8 Macro to ~$2000 for a PX12-60 f/2-3.5 zoom is not too big a step ... going to a $3000 PX 12-35 f/2.8 will be a bit more bitter pill to swallow (but I will).
     
  20. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    I think you missed the point of my post, though. I never mentioned using CDAF 4/3 lenses on a Micro Four-Thirds body. I said that fast zooms suit the Four-Thirds system perfectly, while fast primes suit the Micro Four-Thirds system perfectly.

    The fast primes does suit the "high image quality in a compact package" ideal of :43: system, but although the collection is growing extensively (the Sony NEX system just put out their very first high-quality, non-soft prime lens, while we have about 9 good ones) it is still very far from complete, with no focal lengths over 45mm (in a native lens). I think if they add a couple telephoto primes (ie, a 150mm, 180mm or 200mm, maybe an 85mm in between or even going up to 300mm) then that would settle the usability of primes for the system enough to concentrate on some better zooms. Just because we have 9 good primes to choose from, doesn't mean that we can cover the effective range that a photographer needs yet!

    I don't think you need a bagful of primes to be effective, either. We just need enough to cover a decent range. A 50mm and 200mm pair for legacy lenses covers my needs quite well for a very compact carry-around that's still fast and sharp. For some people, a 12mm and 45mm might be more effective, or a 35mm and 135mm - there's an ideal range for everyone. We have a lot more zoom in just a few steps of our feet than we take advantage of, but this is the style of shooting with primes. We aren't losing the capability of taking photos at different compositions, we just need to see one focal length as covering a broader range with a few steps forward or backwards, instead of never using our feet for anything. When we go into a completely different focal range area (ie, from a scene to a portrait), then we need to switch lenses. A full-body portrait lens can still be used for headshots for instance... so we really don't "need" as many primes as we would "like" to have. I like to use my Zuiko 50-200mm for headshots and my Zuiko 14-54mm for full-body shots of models, but very often I just keep the 14-54mm mounted and step forward to get a headshot. Those headshots come out just as well, and save me a lot of time in switching lenses - just by moving my feet.

    That doesn't mean I don't think that they should start producing fast zooms for the Micro Four-Thirds system, of course! Sooner or later... I think the ideal standard fast zoom for the system would be one like the Zuiko 14-54mm. It was the ideal first standard zoom for the Four-Thirds system for a reason, and the current Four-Thirds version pairs up physically with the PEN system perfectly. For a lens of its specifications, it's very compact.