Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by twalker294, Oct 2, 2012.
Thanks for the link, looks like the lens will be a good one
Yup. Thanks for the link. I'm looking forward to this lens
Wish it was in my budget right now...
Next rev: Panasonic LUMIX G X VARIO 35-100mm F2.8 Review | PhotographyBLOG
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.
Yes. This lens (and the 12-35) is why I switched completely to :43:. And people worry about a few mm on the body
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.
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!!!!
I can't get over how goofy it looks when mounted to a gf body. ;-)
If only it worked that way.....
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:
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.
It can if it was 1/4 in quality too
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.
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.
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.
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.
Plus one. The pics that show it zoomed in and out confirm that.