Terry
New member
http://www.photographyblog.com/news/panasonic_2010_micro_four_thirds_lenses/
100-300mm f/4-5.6 OIS
8mm f/3.5 fisheye
14mm f2.8
100-300mm f/4-5.6 OIS
8mm f/3.5 fisheye
14mm f2.8
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Panasonic's 2010 lens roadmap
- Thread starter Terry
- Start date
P
pac72
Guest
That 100-300 is a very nice addition! I will certainly buy it if it is good.
I hope faster zooms such as ~14-35 f/2 or ~50-200 f/2.8 will eventually come.
I hope faster zooms such as ~14-35 f/2 or ~50-200 f/2.8 will eventually come.
T
tripper
Guest
" I wonder when will they come out with a fast zoom. "
Is a fast zoom e.g 50-200 f/2.8 feasible within the size constraints of M4/3rds ?
tripper
Is a fast zoom e.g 50-200 f/2.8 feasible within the size constraints of M4/3rds ?
tripper
JBurnett
Well-known member
As the sensor sizes of 4/3 and m4/3 are the same, I'm not sure a good m4/3 lens in this range would be TOO much smaller than the existing Olympus 50-200 f/2.8-3.5 for 4/3. That lens is 157 x 86mm, 995g.
Compare that to the existing Panasonic 45-200 f/4-5.6 for m4/3: 100 x 70mm, 390g. I own the 45-200 and, frankly, I don't think I'd want to put too much more weight/size up front on a m4/3 body, especially handheld. If I remember correctly, 700g was the upper limit recommended for the Panasonic G1, without using a tripod collar.
This kind of size difference between an f/4-5.6 and f/2.8 lens of equivalent range is not unusual. For example:
Canon EF 70-200 f/4 IS: 172 x 76mm, 760g
Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS: 197 x 86mm, 1590g
OTOH, a slightly reduced range and m4/3-specific design might yield a good compromise. Consider the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 (140 x 76mm, 780g), revamped for m4/3.
M
milapse
Guest
If only it was a 14/1.8!!
The 8 should be sweet.
The 8 should be sweet.
R
Ranger 9
Guest
That's starting to look like a fairly persuasive roadmap.
In my view, the main missing piece now is a longer, wide-aperture lens for portraiture, indoor sports/theater, etc.
A 50/1.7 plus the 20/1.7 would be a nice two-lens outfit. And if they could wiggle Mega OIS into the 50, that would be nicer yet. (I'm willing to get by without IS on a 20mm lens, but it could be useful on a longer one.)
Or maybe Olympus could root around in the blueprint drawer and dust off the design of the Pen F's 60mm f/1.5...
In my view, the main missing piece now is a longer, wide-aperture lens for portraiture, indoor sports/theater, etc.
A 50/1.7 plus the 20/1.7 would be a nice two-lens outfit. And if they could wiggle Mega OIS into the 50, that would be nicer yet. (I'm willing to get by without IS on a 20mm lens, but it could be useful on a longer one.)
Or maybe Olympus could root around in the blueprint drawer and dust off the design of the Pen F's 60mm f/1.5...
petermcwerner
Member
John,
This is quite important when using 3rd party tele or macro lenses (or even the 9.8mm Kinoptik weighing 1400g)
I wonder where this information comes from. I heard 1000g (from a pre-release of the G1 manual that was only available for download) but have not seen any official statement since.
This is quite important when using 3rd party tele or macro lenses (or even the 9.8mm Kinoptik weighing 1400g)
JBurnett
Well-known member
Please don't trust MY memory of the limitation (after all, memory IS my limitation -- or, at least one of them). :shocked:
I agree it would be best to have an official specification; I don't expect that the pre-release figure of 1000g would have changed. Do you still have that document?