DP Review posts preview of 35-100/2.8

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by twalker294, Oct 2, 2012.

  1. twalker294

    twalker294 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    543
    Aug 18, 2010
  2. Kiwi Paul

    Kiwi Paul Mu-43 Top Veteran

    729
    Aug 15, 2011
    Aberdeen Scotland
    Thanks for the link, looks like the lens will be a good one :)

    Paul
     
  3. arad85

    arad85 Mu-43 Veteran

    477
    Aug 16, 2012
    Yup. Thanks for the link. I'm looking forward to this lens
     
  4. twalker294

    twalker294 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    543
    Aug 18, 2010
    Wish it was in my budget right now...
     
  5. strang

    strang Mu-43 Veteran

    287
    May 7, 2012
    [​IMG]

    Wow
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. jnewell

    jnewell Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 23, 2011
    Boston, MA
    Can't wait for the carping to begin. Folks are still howling about the price of the 12-35/2.8, and this one starts $200 higher. :rolleyes:
     
  7. arad85

    arad85 Mu-43 Veteran

    477
    Aug 16, 2012
    Yes. This lens (and the 12-35) is why I switched completely to :43:. And people worry about a few mm on the body :wink:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. addieleman

    addieleman Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 5, 2010
    The Netherlands
    Ad
    Looking through all the samples this looks like a superb lens. I'd have no reservation to use it wide-open and bokeh is very nice IMHO. Flare doesn't seem to be a problem, the high-contrast pics are really, really punchy. Only thing that makes me think again: it's "only" 100mm at the long end, I'm sure I'll miss the longer range of my 45-175mm. Yeah, I know, expensive, but personally I think this premium optic will be worth the money.

    On another note, I wasn't impressed with the noise I saw in the sky in the E-M5 pics, to me that didn't look much better than the GX1. Well, maybe I'm comparing apples to oranges, I'm not a sensor expert.
     
  9. alans

    alans Mu-43 Veteran

    340
    Feb 28, 2010
    It's 1/4 the weight of the Canon, soooo, it should be 1/4 the price, right? That makes it a 500-600 dollar lens!!!!:biggrin:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. shepx13

    shepx13 Mu-43 Regular

    196
    Aug 7, 2012
    Tyler, TX
    Ken
    I can't get over how goofy it looks when mounted to a gf body. ;-)
     
  11. meyerweb

    meyerweb Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 5, 2011
    If only it worked that way.....
     
  12. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
    Of course now if you put that Canon 70-200 on a MFT body, you're seeing 140-400 instead of the Lumix 70-200 full frame equivalent. :smile:
     
  13. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that the 35-100/2.8 will be quite a bit better than the 12-35/2.8 optically. It's just a much easier focal length to design for.

    DH
     
  14. shizlefonizle

    shizlefonizle Mu-43 Veteran

    372
    Apr 21, 2012
    It can if it was 1/4 in quality too :biggrin:
     
  15. meyerweb

    meyerweb Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 5, 2011
    Of course. I think most of us realize the size advantage of lenses, especially tele lenses, is due to the crop factor. The size of a lens of any given focal length is largely determined by physics. A 100mm f /2.8 requires an aperture diameter of 36mm no matter what format it's for, and that largely determines the diameter of the lens. The length of a telephoto lens is largely determined by the optical formula and focal length, not the format.

    But it is undeniably true that you can get the same FOV from a much smaller lens on m43 than on FF.
     
  16. jnewell

    jnewell Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 23, 2011
    Boston, MA
    I'm too pressed for time tonight, I mean lazy, to look up the MTF graphs published by Panasonic, but IIRC they were in fact better than the 12-35/2.8, which (if my recollection is right) is probably not surprising - as you note. Of course, there's a lot more to a good photo, even just a good file, than MTF, but it's a start. :wink:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. strang

    strang Mu-43 Veteran

    287
    May 7, 2012
    Anyone notice that "Zoom" is "Internal" as per DPR's specifications?

    I've brought this up before, in a different thread, about the possibility of the 35-100 being an internal zoom like the 70-200s before it. Looks like my wish is granted or DPR made an error.
     
  18. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    It is an internal zoom. At least, all the mockups and samples so far have been. Makes sense considering that they want it to compete with the 70-200/2.8 models.

    DH
     
  19. jnewell

    jnewell Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 23, 2011
    Boston, MA
    Plus one. The pics that show it zoomed in and out confirm that. :thumbup: