New lenses from Panasonic/Leica a big mistake?

[DoofClenas]

For those that think the 7-14 f2.8 is large:
A. You probably never owned the original Olympus 7-14 f4.
B. Are shooting on a body without a grip of some sort.

Frankly, I was shocked at how small and light the lens is, for what it is...a constant f stop that's weather sealed and that I can shoot close up with. Just because it doesn't have a filter ring, doesn't mean that I can't use filters.

 

[heli-mech]

For those that think the 7-14 f2.8 is large:
A. You probably never owned the original Olympus 7-14 f4.
B. Are shooting on a body without a grip of some sort.

Frankly, I was shocked at how small and light the lens is, for what it is...a constant f stop that's weather sealed and that I can shoot close up with. Just because it doesn't have a filter ring, doesn't mean that I can't use filters.

I think a lot of people when referring to the 7-14mm 2.8 or 40-150mm 2.8 as large are doing so strictly in relative terms to other lenses in the m4/3 line up. As a perfect example the 7-14mm 2.8 weighs only 530g which is hardly heavy but it is 70% (535 vs 315) more than the new Panasonic 8-18mm which is a significant difference.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

(for those that don't know the old Olympus 7-14mm f4 was around 750g, thats the difference from mirrorless to slr and software correction vs telecentric design.)

 

[ijm5012]

Really! Should all of us that have taken millions of photos indoors with f/2.8 lenses just throw them away?

Absolutely.

 

[ijm5012]

For those that think the 7-14 f2.8 is large:
A. You probably never owned the original Olympus 7-14 f4.
B. Are shooting on a body without a grip of some sort.

Frankly, I was shocked at how small and light the lens is, for what it is...a constant f stop that's weather sealed and that I can shoot close up with. Just because it doesn't have a filter ring, doesn't mean that I can't use filters.

The 7-14 f/2.8 isn't large by itself. It's when you have to carry around a filter adapter, filter holder, and slot-in filters that it becomes large. Compared that to the 8-18, which is not only 200g lighter, but also accepts screw-in filters.

It's a smaller and lighter package in total. For those who don't shoot with filters, it probably doesn't matter. But for those that do shoot with filters, the ability to accept screw-in filters is very welcome.

 

[davidzvi]

If you want constant aperture then you go for the many f2.8 zooms they already have available and , in some cases for Panasonic, recently refreshed. The P12-35 f2.8 and 35-100 f2.8.
If you want cheap but with a little more reach and a smaller size you get the kit 3.5-5.6 versions 12-60, 14-140, 45-150; or the tiny 12-32 and 35-100.
If you want great build , weather sealing, the Leica 'pop' and up to a stop faster than the kit versions but still a reasonable size then you get this series.
They're the middle ground between the short ranged or (in Oly's case) large constant F2.8's and the cheap, slow kit lenses.
Making them constant f2.8 would have been:
- large for the 8-18. Some people already complain about the Oly 7-14 f2.8 but it's faster and longer than the P7-14 f4 and can take filters
- redundant for the 12-60 since they already have the 12-35 and 35-100
- Really large for the 50-200. People love the O40-150 f2.8 but size is a frequent complaint.

Constant F4 would have had even more howls of 'too slow' etc w/o the benefit of the O12-100's versatility. But if u need constant F4 , esp for video you can get it. None of the kits lenses can do that.

It's all about having them fill a particular niche in the full spectrum of the MFT lens lineup.

They really could be constant f/4s but marketing would shoot the developers. @CyVan is absolutely correct, these are about having mid pro grade, feature rich options. And it's the one thing I've always thought was missing from m4/3. Fuji and Sony both released these mid pro options before they had f/2.8s. Canon has had them for years and it took Nikon until about 5 years ago to finally release a set of f/4s. If you need f/2.8s and can afford them, great, buy them. If you can't, don't need to, etc then what option did you have? Now you do. These are on my wish list.

 

[PakkyT]

Is it just me who thinks that this line of lenses with a variable aperture is a total mistake? It's such a disappointment to see that the 2.8 f-stop is available ONLY at the widest angle... With the limitations of the sensor, I feel that m43 really doesn't need yet another bunch of zooms with poor light gathering abilities...

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't we talking about only two lenses and the only ones in those ranges (standard zoom and telephoto zoom) that Panny is selling under the Leica brand? While I am not sure what the "Leica" brand gets you for these two lenses not available in the other "Panny sans Leica" models, it would seem for those people who are inclined to buy Leica over anything else, we are talking about having only two choices available. As someone else mentioned above, clearly these are not marketed towards photographers like yourself, but I bet there are Leica fans out there that are thrilled.

 

[davidzvi]

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't we talking about only two lenses and the only ones in those ranges (standard zoom and telephoto zoom) that Panny is selling under the Leica brand? While I am not sure what the "Leica" brand gets you for these two lenses not available in the other "Panny sans Leica" models, it would seem for those people who are inclined to buy Leica over anything else, we are talking about having only two choices available. As someone else mentioned above, clearly these are not marketed towards photographers like yourself, but I bet there are Leica fans out there that are thrilled.

Actually there are 5 primes and 3 zooms with a 4th to be released later this year that are Co-branded Pan/Leica. And the easiest to compare would be the pair of 12-60s.

Lens configuration: 14 elements in 12 groups (4 aspherical lenses, 2 ED lenses) vs 11 elements in 9 groups (3 aspherical lenses, 1 ED lens)
Nano coating vs not
Metal vs plastic
9 aperture blades vs 7 blades
Etc
It's more than just the name.

 

[wolfie]

It's really only a mistake if the lens performance is rubbish - it's extra choice and if the market doesn't like it then the bargain hunters win out when the discounting begins. Win, win for the consumer.

 

[PakkyT]

Actually there are 5 primes and 3 zooms with a 4th to be released later this year that are Co-branded Pan/Leica.

Well to be clear, this thread was about variable aperture through the zoom range, so I purposely didn't include the primes. So then only three zooms, correct?, with this perceived issue of the original poster? And I see now the third is a wide angle zoom, so again only one choice per category for those inclined to purchase Leica branded stuff.

 

[exakta]

Let's not forget why variable aperture zooms were developed in the first place...to make possible lenses that would be difficult or impossible to make otherwise. In other words, they would be too big, too expensive or both.

Before TTL metering was commonplace, all zooms were fixed aperture because calculating the exposure was too difficult. The flood gates opened in the late 1970s when suddenly we had wide angle zooms, wide to tele zooms (what we now call "kit lenses") and compact long zooms.

Mfrs found that most users are willing to accept variable apertures so they have continued with them. Personally, I hate them and I also dislike "trombone" zooms but that's what we have today so I grin and bear it.

 

[davidzvi]

Well to be clear, this thread was about variable aperture through the zoom range, so I purposely didn't include the primes. So then only three zooms, correct?, with this perceived issue of the original poster? And I see now the third is a wide angle zoom, so again only one choice per category for those inclined to purchase Leica branded stuff.

I included the others only because i seemed your comment was more general than just what the OP had commented on. That these would be for those that want the Leica branding or inclined to buy Leica. As I pointed out with the pair of 12-60s, the Leica branded options offer a number of upgrades over their Lumix equivalents. Are the upgrades worth the extra? That answer may not be the same for all of us.

 

[kawhona]

I'm on the list for the 8-18 just because I can easily use filters

 

[Clint]

Absolutely.

Was that you going through my trash this morning?

It was not there - it was my camera bag for an indoors shoot this morning!

 

[ijm5012]

Was that you going through my trash this morning?

It was not there - it was my camera bag for an indoors shoot this morning!

Drats. I'll have to keep on digging.

 

[Turbofrog]

Considering how popular the Olympus 50-200 f/2.8-3.5 and the 12-60mm f/2.8-3.5 is, it is clear that there is a market for these lenses. The problem Panasonic are going to have it that the price of this lens will need to be equal or less than the 40-150 f/2.8 for people to consider it. With the latest Panasonic bodies stabilisation is no longer an issue and I'd probably plump for a constant f/2.8 up to 150mm over variable up to f/4.0. I can always put the TC on to get slightly beyond 200mm at f/4.0 if I needed that reach. Personally it will depend on size and price, and I do have an interest in this lens. The Panasonic 12-60 f/2.8-4.0 is the same size, but feels smaller, than the Olympus 12-40; this gives me hope that the 50-200 will feel a little bit more manageable.

I see a variable aperture 50-200 as an ideal compromise, because its functionally the same as the 40-150/2.8 and the 1.4x TC all in one lens. Just a little slower than without the TC and a little faster with it.

I think it will end up weighing less than the Olympus pair, and certainly be much more convenient.

 

[pake]

I see a variable aperture 50-200 as an ideal compromise, because its functionally the same as the 40-150/2.8 and the 1.4x TC all in one lens. Just a little slower than without the TC and a little faster with it.

I think it will end up weighing less than the Olympus pair, and certainly be much more convenient.

And it's probably sharper at 200mm than the Olympus with 1.4x TC. To be honest, I'm tempted to trade my beloved 40-150mm to the Panasonic one if it delivers (and why wouldn't it).

 

[SkiHound]

I see a variable aperture 50-200 as an ideal compromise, because its functionally the same as the 40-150/2.8 and the 1.4x TC all in one lens. Just a little slower than without the TC and a little faster with it.

I think it will end up weighing less than the Olympus pair, and certainly be much more convenient.

As to the overall content of this thread, I simply think these variable aperture zooms give use another choice. We're free to choose a larger, heavier, constant f/2.8 zoom, or a smaller and lighter f/2.8-f/4. Different compromises. As to the 50-200, that's the lens in which I'm really interested. I've nearly purchased the 40-150, and still might, but at least on paper, the 50-200 seems like it may be a better option for me.

 

[Jonathan F/2]

I like the big lenses for M43. They're still smaller and cheaper than FF equivalent glass and in some cases sharper. Olympus Pro lenses for example are really punching above their weight. I shoot M43 and FF side-by-side almost daily, and I can see the strengths of both formats when working. Saying that, I don't really mind the variable aperture lenses. Panasonic already offers the compact 12-35 and 35-100 2.8 lenses and a bunch of fast primes, so I don't really see the point of contention.

Also M43 makes so much more sense from a design perspective over Sony. Sony tries to compete with FF DSLRs, with no size constraints and they build these big lenses, while marketing still expects tiny bodies. It's such a hodgepodge!

 

[Listener]

We need a forum just for armchair photography. It is clear that some people here are passionate about it.

 

[Greg Lehey]

A bit late, but: I sold my Oly 12-40/2.8 and bought a Panaleica 12-60, although I also have an Oly FT 12-60 (which has marginally wider apertures at mid-focal lengths). I also considered the Oly 12-100.

Why? Size and speed, mainly. I must confess that I was turned off by the f/4 of the 12-100. But for general use, the Panaleica does the job. If I want wider apertures I can use a prime or the 14-35 or 35-100 f/2, but they're so big that I hardly use them. I don't regret the decision: I had had the 12-40 for years, and I almost never used it because it was too short. The 12-100 was just too big. About the only thing that irritates me is that the zoom ring moves in the opposite direction.