1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

New X Zooms Constant f/2.8?

Discussion in 'Micro 4/3 News and Rumors' started by Biro, Nov 15, 2011.

  1. Biro

    Biro Mu-43 All-Pro

    May 8, 2011
    Jersey Shore
    43rumors.com is reporting a rumor that the new 12-35 and 35-100 X power zoom lenses will be a fixed f/2.8:


    The thread below the rumor is very interesting. There are a lot of people who have very unrealistic expectations and no knowledge of lens design... demanding a compact zoom at a fixed f/2.0... for less money than Oly's current 14-54 and 12-60 for four thirds.

    Frankly, if the rumor proves true I'm mildly surprised at the fixed f/2.8. I expected more like f2.8-3.5. But I suspect the price tag will be more than I can afford right now.
  2. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Legend Subscribing Member

    Feb 19, 2010
    Love that site. Admin knows the game -- if he catches the slightest whiff of controversial statements, he posts it, because he knows he can generate sometimes 300+ replies. However, I don't think a lot of that is unique visitors, so I'm not sure if he's getting a lot f ad revenue hits, but perhaps it's working for him. Good entertainment, if not much more than hot air.
  3. Linh

    Linh Mu-43 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Apr 14, 2009
    Maryland, US
    i just want that 35-100 to be under $1500 and I think I'd be happy.

    Alternatively, someone come out with a 75/2 OIS lens, and I'll be just as happy =) 2nd alternatively, a 75/2 non OIS and oly come out with something like a G3, heh.
  4. yottavirus

    yottavirus Mu-43 Regular

    Aug 13, 2011
    The 35-100 shouldn't be too hard to make, it's in a much easier focal length. I would not expect f/2 at all, as even the primes barely beat that, and I'd be happy with a constant 2.8 or 3.5 for less than $700.
  5. Djarum

    Djarum Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Dec 15, 2009
    Huntsville, AL, USA
    The 12-35 they were talking about would satisfy 90 percent of my needs.
  6. Linh

    Linh Mu-43 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Apr 14, 2009
    Maryland, US
    hard to make and how they market it will be two different things though, heh. if it's under a grand and constant f2.8, I'll pre-order it instantly. I'll even give them the money to hold, heh.
  7. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    I think all of your cost expectations are a bit ... um ... optimistic.

    Look at the 4/3's lens lineup - regular, HG, SHG. This lens will be targeting the same market as the HG lineup, or even higher. Also, look at what the other "premium" lenses (Oly 12, PL25, PL45) cost. I think $1500-$2000 is where these would come in, and I would pay that for a lens f/2.8 or faster.

    Now, if they are f/2.8-3.5, it's a different story, and now price really comes into play as you're competing in the "Standard to HG" market now. Personally, I would be hard pressed to justify much >$1000 for a lens slower than f/2.8.

    But, I am still hoping they do something like an f/2.0(or faster!)-2.8 variable and bring it in that $1500-2000 price range, but with the video advantages of constant aperture, I think it will probably be constant f/2.8.
  8. phrenic

    phrenic Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 13, 2010
    I really have to wonder if there's a market for the future high grade lenses if they are that expensive. Even at the main mft enthusiast forums there seems to be many who would love to pick up the panaleica 25 or the voigtlander 25 but are a bit hesitant at those prices. I'd love a fast zoom..but not sure if I could justify a lens worth 10x that of the bodies I own!
  9. chrith

    chrith Mu-43 Regular

    Nov 12, 2010
    They could be aimed at the gh2/af100 and future video systems crowd who would pay a premium for a nice native cine friendly lens. They have an entire different market they could pander to with these lenses. i know a few people who wouldnt hesitate to drop 1500+ on a 2.8 constant. but hey this is all anecdotal
  10. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    The Panasonic Leica DG Summilux is way less expensive than the D (regular non-Micro 4/3) version. Half the price. I think it's a real possibility that we'll see f/2.8 zooms come in at under $1000 each.
  11. John M Flores

    John M Flores Super Moderator

    Jan 7, 2011
    I'd imagine that a large part of the cost of fast zooms goes to creating multiple, large, high-quality lenses. The Pentax DA* 16-50 F2.8 and 50-135 F2.8 are designed from the ground up for APS-C sensors. Their Nikon and Canon equivalents (24-70 and 70-200 F2.8 IIRC) were designed for FF and are thus larger and much more expensive. Much much more expensive. My Pentax DA* 16-50 F2.8 was a third of the price of the Nikon equivalent 24-70 F2.8. Now you can argue that the Nikon has better IQ, but certainly not 3x the IQ. The relative expense of the Pentax zooms is what lured me to them from Nikon.

    Now take that logic and apply it M43. Can the lenses be smaller still? Can the quality be smaller as well? I don't know.
  12. Linh

    Linh Mu-43 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Apr 14, 2009
    Maryland, US
    I think we should start a mu-43 pool. any of the sponsors want to throw a fun freebie out.. I am reserving $1350 =D
  13. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    Yes, and that's why I'm in m43 - if the engineers even remotely do their job, lenses for m43 should be significantly smaller than APS-C or FF.

    Unfortunately, cost is rarely related to price. Sure, if it costs more to make, one would expect the price to be higher, but Id be willing to bet there is far more "variation" in how much margin the manufacturer wants than how much the lens costs. It's all about marketing and where they want to position the brand and product.
  14. John M Flores

    John M Flores Super Moderator

    Jan 7, 2011
    True that marketing and product positioning come into play as well, but the other side of the coin or so I've been told is that Panasonic in particular is cramming more and more pixels in the the M43 sensor, which makes the pixels smaller, which demands tighter tolerances on the glass, which makes the glass - even if it is physically smaller - more challenging (expensive) to make. I've never shot larger than 35mm film, but I've read that larger formats can get by with less "perfect" glass because the negative size is greater thus making the enlargement ratio smaller.

    Sorry for the run-on sentences. You wins some, you lose some.
  15. Linh

    Linh Mu-43 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Apr 14, 2009
    Maryland, US
    they need to stop cramming more pixels then =)
  16. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Exactly. People keep quoting the size (and price) of 4/3 lenses, but the thing is, 4/3 is hamstrung by two things - a lack of competition (sales of high-end lenses are so minute that Olympus doesn't have any incentive to be reasonable on pricing) and the use of over-designed 'SHG' lenses (the 14-35 and 35-100 are in essence modified FF designs).

    Panasonic should be able to do significantly better. The 35-100/2 should be no larger than Canon's 70-200/4, and the 12-35/2 should be substantially smaller than a FF 24-70/4, itself smaller than existing 24-105/4.

    So far we've done pretty well with the primes. It would be nice to have some quality zooms to add in, particularly if they include a 12-50/2.8-3.5 and 50-200/2.8-3.5 at some point.

  17. Christopher

    Christopher Mu-43 Regular

    Oct 8, 2011
    i had a nikkor af-d ed 80-200 2.8 that was fantastic.. cant wait for a mu43 version to come. albeit, it needs to be price appropriately.. id rather not spend 3x the amount my body costs to get one... for 1500 i could pick up a used nikkor lens AND a d90 with change left over lol.
  18. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, USA
    A better comparison to Nikon is the 17-55 2.8. The lens has internal focus, metal barrel, ED elements and made in Japan. It's hovering around $1425.00 USD. I think Panasonic can build it smaller, use a durable plastic build and keep it smaller if the new X zooms are any indication. The 45-175 X gives me hope.

    But to be honest, I'd rather Panasonic make a nice fast aperture 105 f2 with OIS. :smile:
  19. meyerweb

    meyerweb Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Sep 5, 2011
    And once the Panasonic lens has been available for several years you'll be able to say the same thing about the 35-100 and a GH2. It's not exactly shocking that brand new equipment costs more than used.

    I'd like to see Panny release a high quality matched 1.4x and 2x TC to go with the new lens. Canon and Nikon both offer these, and they are very popular combinations.
    • Like Like x 1
  20. flash

    flash Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 29, 2010
    1 hour from Sydney Australia.
    In many cases, the high quality glass costs in multiples of the cost of the body. And realistically the top m4/3 body, the GH2, is really built like a midrange consumer camera. If Panasonic or Olympus bring out a true pro body it may be so expensive that a constant f2 lens doesn't seem so expensive.

    Every enthusiast wants a brilliant set of lenses that are "reasonably" priced. The problem is that when you build a lens to a price you must, by definition, compromise that build. We need a set of no compromise lenses in m4/3. I'd rather see a set of expensive f2 zooms that are as good as they can be. Why?

    Because that's what gives a system longevity. M4/3 needs a wow factor and a set of f2 zooms will do that. It removes any arguments about the "superiority of APSC. Additionally in time the development of these top end products bleeds down into the rest of the system. Over time the technology becomes cheaper or is introduced into lower tier products. Coatings, optics production technology and others are developed to feed the top end and then move down. Look at the development of Canons IS technology or the use of UD elements in lenses. You'll never get new technology in a "reasonably priced" lens range" You may not be able to afford it now, but in a year or two, when costs fall that technology will move into products you can afford.

    Finally you mentioned the cost of a used Nikon zoom. If Olympysonic build one for m4/3, in a few years you'll also see them available with similar savings on the used market.

    I, for one, don't want any compromises driven by price.

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.