Panasonic "pro" quality f/2.8 zooms for Micro Four Thirds

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
43rumors.com has posted some details and an image of two proposed new
Panasonic X lenses for Micro Four Thirds to be released in 2012.

There will be a 12-35mm f/2.8 (24-70mm full frame equivalent) and a
35-100mm f/2.8 (70-200mm equivalent). I have had much the same
information as the original poster from an authoritative UK source -
possibly the same source.

Note, however, that a 12-35/2.8 on m23 is a 24-70/5.6 equivalent on FF, in
terms of both DoF and photons per pixel (assuming similar pixel counts, of
course).

Similarly, a 35-100/2.8 is functionally equivalent to a 70-200/5.6.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"David J. Littleboy" writes:

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
43rumors.com has posted some details and an image of two proposed new
Panasonic X lenses for Micro Four Thirds to be released in 2012.

There will be a 12-35mm f/2.8 (24-70mm full frame equivalent) and a
35-100mm f/2.8 (70-200mm equivalent). I have had much the same
information as the original poster from an authoritative UK source -
possibly the same source.

Note, however, that a 12-35/2.8 on m23 is a 24-70/5.6 equivalent on FF, in
terms of both DoF and photons per pixel (assuming similar pixel counts, of
course).

Similarly, a 35-100/2.8 is functionally equivalent to a 70-200/5.6.

Nonsense. We've been over this over and over again. Your position is
technically accurate but photographically absurd.

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
"David J. Littleboy" writes:

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
43rumors.com has posted some details and an image of two proposed new
Panasonic X lenses for Micro Four Thirds to be released in 2012.

There will be a 12-35mm f/2.8 (24-70mm full frame equivalent) and a
35-100mm f/2.8 (70-200mm equivalent). I have had much the same
information as the original poster from an authoritative UK source -
possibly the same source.

Note, however, that a 12-35/2.8 on m23 is a 24-70/5.6 equivalent on FF,
in
terms of both DoF and photons per pixel (assuming similar pixel counts,
of
course).

Similarly, a 35-100/2.8 is functionally equivalent to a 70-200/5.6.

Nonsense. We've been over this over and over again. Your position is
technically accurate but photographically absurd.

Huh? You think f/5.6 is fast enough for low light? You think f/5.6 is wide
enough for shallow DoF portraits?

There's no 35mm photographer who has ever though those things.

But the m43 folks have you bamboozled into arguing them. ROFL.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
"David J. Littleboy" writes:

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
43rumors.com has posted some details and an image of two proposed new
Panasonic X lenses for Micro Four Thirds to be released in 2012.

There will be a 12-35mm f/2.8 (24-70mm full frame equivalent) and a
35-100mm f/2.8 (70-200mm equivalent). I have had much the same
information as the original poster from an authoritative UK source -
possibly the same source.

Note, however, that a 12-35/2.8 on m23 is a 24-70/5.6 equivalent on FF,
in
terms of both DoF and photons per pixel (assuming similar pixel counts,
of
course).

Similarly, a 35-100/2.8 is functionally equivalent to a 70-200/5.6.

Nonsense. We've been over this over and over again. Your position is
technically accurate but photographically absurd.

It's correct in both respects, as Bruce comments.

David

Bruce writes:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" writes:
"Bruce" wrote in message
...
43rumors.com has posted some details and an image of two proposed new
Panasonic X lenses for Micro Four Thirds to be released in 2012.

There will be a 12-35mm f/2.8 (24-70mm full frame equivalent) and a
35-100mm f/2.8 (70-200mm equivalent). I have had much the same
information as the original poster from an authoritative UK source -
possibly the same source.

Note, however, that a 12-35/2.8 on m23 is a 24-70/5.6 equivalent on FF, in
terms of both DoF and photons per pixel (assuming similar pixel counts, of
course).

Similarly, a 35-100/2.8 is functionally equivalent to a 70-200/5.6.

Nonsense. We've been over this over and over again. Your position is
technically accurate but photographically absurd.


Why absurd? It's a valid point of view, in both cases - DOF and light
gathered per pixel. It is uncannily accurate when it comes to
explaining the broad differences in performance between systems with
differing sensor sizes.

Mostly people don't want to exactly duplicate what they have somewhere
else. And mostly people want more depth of field, not less.

--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

"David J. Littleboy" writes:

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
"David J. Littleboy" writes:

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
43rumors.com has posted some details and an image of two proposed new
Panasonic X lenses for Micro Four Thirds to be released in 2012.

There will be a 12-35mm f/2.8 (24-70mm full frame equivalent) and a
35-100mm f/2.8 (70-200mm equivalent). I have had much the same
information as the original poster from an authoritative UK source -
possibly the same source.

Note, however, that a 12-35/2.8 on m23 is a 24-70/5.6 equivalent on FF,
in
terms of both DoF and photons per pixel (assuming similar pixel counts,
of
course).

Similarly, a 35-100/2.8 is functionally equivalent to a 70-200/5.6.

Nonsense. We've been over this over and over again. Your position is
technically accurate but photographically absurd.

Huh? You think f/5.6 is fast enough for low light? You think f/5.6 is wide
enough for shallow DoF portraits?

Can be, at ISO 6400. I had to use it last Saturday, because my 400mm is
f/5.6 and I was shooting roller derby. Light wasn't THAT low, but was
low compared to the shutter speed needed.

f/2.8 was very workable at ISO 3200 (which is a speed I'm comfortable
using on my D700 without worrying much).

The Nikon 70-200 on my m43 wasn't a tempting solution, no; ISO 3200 is
not workable on the EPL-2.

On the other hand, at ISO 200 on both, the results are very comparable,
and the lens gives a much narrower angle of view.

There's no 35mm photographer who has ever though those things.

But the m43 folks have you bamboozled into arguing them. ROFL.

Has nothing to do with m43, goes back to crop-sensor DSLRs like the Fuji
S2 and Nikon D200 for me.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Bruce writes:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Bruce writes:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" writes:
"Bruce" wrote in message
...
43rumors.com has posted some details and an image of two proposed new
Panasonic X lenses for Micro Four Thirds to be released in 2012.

There will be a 12-35mm f/2.8 (24-70mm full frame equivalent) and a
35-100mm f/2.8 (70-200mm equivalent). I have had much the same
information as the original poster from an authoritative UK source -
possibly the same source.

Note, however, that a 12-35/2.8 on m23 is a 24-70/5.6 equivalent on FF, in
terms of both DoF and photons per pixel (assuming similar pixel counts, of
course).

Similarly, a 35-100/2.8 is functionally equivalent to a 70-200/5.6.

Nonsense. We've been over this over and over again. Your position is
technically accurate but photographically absurd.


Why absurd? It's a valid point of view, in both cases - DOF and light
gathered per pixel. It is uncannily accurate when it comes to
explaining the broad differences in performance between systems with
differing sensor sizes.

Mostly people don't want to exactly duplicate what they have somewhere
else.


That's true. Otherwise I would not have bought a Panasonic G3. But
that doesn't mean that all comparisons are invalid.

David Taylor has made exactly the same point as David Littleboy in the
past. On hearing it, my first reaction was the same as yours. But if
you think about it, their argument is quite compelling. It certainly
explains why smaller sensors have proportionately greater problems
with noise.

That was never a mystery. Physical pixel size affects noise a lot.

And mostly people want more depth of field, not less.

I agree. Working in retail has taught me that, for most people, the
more DOF they have, the better.

I have lost count of how many people have complained about out of
focus shots having changed from a p+s or superzoom digicam to Micro
Four Thirds or APS-C. If someone has never valued the control over
depth of field that larger formats give them, they certainly aren't
going to welcome it when their snapshots are out of focus!

For that matter, the thing that view cameras were famous for was being
able to manage the depth of field to get everything in focus.

But for those of us who do value control over depth of field, it is
important to know just how much control you give up by changing to a
smaller format. Or, to put it another way, just how much wider (in
terms of f/ number) your lenses need to be on Four Thirds compared to
full frame to get the same level of control.

If I can't get enough depth to include all my subjects, then I don't
have control of my DoF! And I hate that.

In most practical situations, I can't throw the background out of focus
ENOUGH to get rid of distractions, even at f/1.4, so I've mostly stopped
looking for that to solve my problems.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
I would love to see the results of a portrait shoot with a 55mm lens
on a Micro Four Thirds camera at a focusing distance of 48 inches.

Why, are you a fan of nose hairs?

:-)

Trevor.

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote:

I have lost count of how many people have complained about out of
focus shots having changed from a p+s or superzoom digicam to Micro
Four Thirds or APS-C. If someone has never valued the control over
depth of field that larger formats give them, they certainly aren't
going to welcome it when their snapshots are out of focus!

For that matter, the thing that view cameras were famous for was being
able to manage the depth of field to get everything in focus.

As you probably know, you can do that with dSLRs; both Canon and Nikon make
tilt/shift lenses (FWIW, the new Canon 24TSE is an amazing lens, but the old
Canon and new Nikon 24mm ones aren't). It's not a panacea; the plane of
focus is still a plane, it's just not parallel to the film plane. The
hardest part of it (other than the price of the lenses, sigh) is learning to
spell and pronoince "Scheimpflug", though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheimpflug_principle

But for those of us who do value control over depth of field, it is
important to know just how much control you give up by changing to a
smaller format. Or, to put it another way, just how much wider (in
terms of f/ number) your lenses need to be on Four Thirds compared to
full frame to get the same level of control.

If I can't get enough depth to include all my subjects, then I don't
have control of my DoF! And I hate that.

FWIW, for a given pixel count, the maximum DoF* achievable by any digital
camera is the same regardless of the size of the sensor. There's no
landscape DoF advantage to smaller format cameras. (That max DoF occurs at a
wider f stop in smaller sensor cameras, but the number of photons reaching
each pixel per unit time will be the same as the larger format dcam with the
smaller f stop.)

*: The DoF at the smallest f stop such that you find diffraction
unacceptable at the next smaller f stop.

For people who like to shoot at wider f stops, the fact that most fast
lenses are funky at or near wide open, means that you are quite unhappy
using them at or near wide open on smaller format cameras, since the image
is enlarged more when viewed at the same size.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

As you probably know, you can do that with dSLRs; both Canon and Nikon
make tilt/shift lenses (FWIW, the new Canon 24TSE is an amazing lens, but
the old Canon and new Nikon 24mm ones aren't). It's not a panacea; the
plane of focus is still a plane, it's just not parallel to the film plane.
The hardest part of it (other than the price of the lenses, sigh) is
learning to spell and pronoince "Scheimpflug", though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheimpflug_principle

Note that the above is an example of Muphry's Law, which has its own wiki
page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan