«

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.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/cam3q4j
or:
http://www.43rumors.com/ft3-from-unk...tant-aperture/

On Nov 17, 8:47*am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/cam3q4j
> or:http://www.43rumors.com/ft3-from-unk...g-x-zoom-lense....

Be good if the 35-100mm comes in at about 1/2 the price of the 4/3rds
Olympus 35-100mm f2.0 ($2700?).

"David J. Littleboy" <> writes:

> "Bruce" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> 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.

RichA <> wrote:
>On Nov 17, 8:47*am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/cam3q4j
>> or:http://www.43rumors.com/ft3-from-unk...g-x-zoom-lense...
>
>Be good if the 35-100mm comes in at about 1/2 the price of the 4/3rds
>Olympus 35-100mm f2.0 ($2700?).


There is every reason to believe that the Pana 35-100mm will cost a
lot less than that lens. The availability of a wide selection of
lenses at various price points, including some truly excellent glass,
is the foundation for the future success of Micro Four Thirds.

Not all the excellent Micro Four Thirds lenses will be expensive; for
example the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 is an excellent buy.

On Nov 17, 10:51*am, "David J. Littleboy" <davi...@gol.com> wrote:
> "Bruce" <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:...
>
> > 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.

That nonsense again.
1. Not all sensors have the same number of pixels so to say 4/3rds =
1/4 of FF only applies to the surface area and not the resolution.
The angle of view is all that is proportional.
2. Noise control in cameras is vastly divergent, so speed equivalents
mean absolutely nothing in this context unless you've tested the
specific sensors. A Nikon 70-200 at f5.6 on a Nikon D3s I'd wager is
= 35-100mm at f2.0 on the best m4/3rds sensor, from what I've seen.

On Nov 17, 11:29*am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 17, 8:47*am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> >>http://preview.tinyurl.com/cam3q4j
> >> or:http://www.43rumors.com/ft3-from-unk...g-x-zoom-lense...
>
> >Be good if the 35-100mm comes in at about 1/2 the price of the 4/3rds
> >Olympus 35-100mm f2.0 ($2700?).
>
> There is every reason to believe that the Pana 35-100mm will cost a
> lot less than that lens. *The availability of a wide selection of
> lenses at various price points, including some truly excellent glass,
> is the foundation for the future success of Micro Four Thirds.
>
> Not all the excellent Micro Four Thirds lenses will be expensive; for
> example the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 is an excellent buy.

Compare to what, a Nikon 50mm f1.8? No. And please don't say it's
the same on m4/3rds as a 100mm f2.8 is on a Nikon or something along
those lines, because now we have 3 Nikon interchangeable lens sensors
sizes. The cost to produce a 45-50mm f1.8 Nikon is going to be in the
same ballpark as for Olympus, Pentax, etc, provided the lens is
constructed with roughly the same materials and attention to quality.
Nikon's 50mm f1.8 is about $220. The Olympus 45mm f1.8 is $400.
Nikon's new 50mm f1.4 is $440.00. Olympus's 4/3rds 50mm f2.0 macro
lens, clearly a top flight lens is only $485.00.

Bruce <> writes:

> Not all the excellent Micro Four Thirds lenses will be expensive; for
> example the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 is an excellent buy.

Ctein agrees in his review on The Online Photographer yesterday
<http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/11/olympus-45mm.html>
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-; 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 Dyer-Bennet <dd-> wrote:
>Bruce <> writes:
>
>> Not all the excellent Micro Four Thirds lenses will be expensive; for
>> example the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 is an excellent buy.
>
>Ctein agrees in his review on The Online Photographer yesterday
><http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/11/olympus-45mm.html>


Ctein is infatuated with Olympus.

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-> wrote:
>"David J. Littleboy" <> writes:
>> "Bruce" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> 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.

"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-> wrote in message
news:...
> "David J. Littleboy" <> writes:
>
>> "Bruce" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> 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