curious80 wrote:
I dont think Panasonic has announced the price yet, so we don't even know if the $1300 number is correct.
Plus looking at SLRGear review of this lens it is clear that the panasonic zoom is appreciably better wide open then Canon 17-55mm and Sony 16-50mm. The Nikon 17-55mm doesn't equal the wide-open performance of the panasonic zoom even if you stop down the Nikon by 2-3 stops. The canon costs $1100 and the Nikon costs $1450. The Sony is definitely a bargain though it doesn't match the Pany in performance. And that too in a much smaller and lighter package. I think thats highly impressive!...Show more →
The pre-production lens does look to perform impressively on the 16MP m43 sensor, which does need to be taken into consideration. For instance, would the Sony 16-50 outperform this lens/ sensor combo when used on the 24MP a77?
Pixel Perfect wrote:
This is the lie of m4/3 (and I now own one), small lenses at FF prices.
I think that a big deal of R&D is necessary to get a 24-70 equivalent in a small size to get very sharp results at f2.8 in a sensor with a pixel pitch of a >50-60 MP in FF.
You might not consider it a f2.8 from DOF perspective, but it is a f2.8 lens for all the other purposes.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The pre-production lens does look to perform impressively on the 16MP m43 sensor, which does need to be taken into consideration. For instance, would the Sony 16-50 outperform this lens/ sensor combo when used on the 24MP a77?
The higher density sensor in the A77 will put even higher demands on the sony lens. While it is true that the overall resolution will increase, it is also likely that the difference between center and corner sharpness will be even greater with the A77.
Having read through this wonderful thread now, I feel cheated that I didn't hire a 35mm film shooter to take awesome wedding portraits with only the tips of my eyelashes in focus...
It's not the same as a 35mm system. It's not trying to be. It's trying to be a good 4/3 lens.
I'll be buying one. But so as not to offend anyone, I promise to not take any "professional" images with it.
But Joseph, really there is a big problem here. If it had been F/2.0 you could have used the lens in the $16,000 challenge. As it stands, why are you even bothering to purchase it?
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I don't really get the F 2.8 maximum aperture in combination with the small m43 sensor combo when used for a "Pro" lens either. Already, by 5.6 the format is starting to hit diffraction issues ...
I haven't been able to see any diffraction issues until after F/16 on µ4/3 - with the 12mpx sensors. Are the 16's so much worse?
But anyway I see Panasonic is at their rip-off game again overpricing their plastic junk by 2 and 3 times. If yall wanna compare this Panny to something relevant how about the Nikon AF 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D IF?
$1400 or $1300 is truly ridiculous for this lens. I think $500 is about right on the high side. $800 would still be a terrible rip-off IMHO.
I haven't been able to see any diffraction issues until after F/16 on µ4/3 - with the 12mpx sensors. Are the 16's so much worse?
But anyway I see Panasonic is at their rip-off game again overpricing their plastic junk by 2 and 3 times. If yall wanna compare this Panny to something relevant how about the Nikon AF 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D IF?
$1400 or $1300 is truly ridiculous for this lens. I think $500 is about right on the high side. $800 would still be a terrible rip-off IMHO.
Unless someone could explain how is the Nikon 17-55mm at $1450 less of a rip off then this lens, I just don't understand this comment. Sure it is more expensive than I would like but it is by no means any different from other manufacturers. As for the 24-85mm, it is a fairly average lens whereas this pany zoom seems much higher quality. Not a valid comparison at all, unless you think that the Sony E-mount 24mm 1.8 should be priced at $250 since the Sony DT 35mm1.8 sells for less than $200.
I haven't been able to see any diffraction issues until after F/16 on µ4/3 - with the 12mpx sensors. Are the 16's so much worse?
But anyway I see Panasonic is at their rip-off game again overpricing their plastic junk by 2 and 3 times. If yall wanna compare this Panny to something relevant how about the Nikon AF 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D IF?
$1400 or $1300 is truly ridiculous for this lens. I think $500 is about right on the high side. $800 would still be a terrible rip-off IMHO.
You must be kidding right? The 24-85/2.8-4D is a poor performing lens - I've tried to buy three of them, but each one on my D700 was just plain poor anywhere near wide open. Based on the early lens test of the Panny 12-35/2.8 it looks like it's in a completely other league than the 24-85D.
curious80 wrote:
Unless someone could explain how is the Nikon 17-55mm at $1450 less of a rip off then this lens, I just don't understand this comment. Sure it is more expensive than I would like but it is by no means any different from other manufacturers. As for the 24-85mm, it is a fairly average lens whereas this pany zoom seems much higher quality. Not a valid comparison at all, unless you think that the Sony E-mount 24mm 1.8 should be priced at $250 since the Sony DT 35mm1.8 sells for less than $200.
The 17-55 is a 2.8 dx-1.5 crop lens (f/4-ish equivalent for fullframe dof/noise)
This is a 2.8 m43 crop lens (f/5.6-ish equivalent for fullframe dof/noise).
And comparing a 24mm with a 35mm...? really?
The m43-brigade is out in numbers in this thread. Enjoy your small cameras, I sure do with my nex-7, but stop trying to drag more people into the "IT IS JUST THE SAME IMAGE QUALITY WISE!!!!"-trap. It isn't.
kwalsh wrote:
Keep in mind everyone that the 7-14 started at like $1350 and is now a bit under $1000. We'll have to see what price really ends up being. Also, it may get kitted with a GH3 at a significant discount ($300-$350 off would not be unusual based on the 14-140 GH1/GH2 kits). Panasonic gives big breaks for kits (which is sort of annoying to their established customers).
Ken
If it indeed will be the case I might be tempted. The SLRgear Review is very impressive.
ulrikft2 wrote:
The 17-55 is a 2.8 dx-1.5 crop lens (f/4-ish equivalent for fullframe dof/noise)
This is a 2.8 m43 crop lens (f/5.6-ish equivalent for fullframe dof/noise).
And comparing a 24mm with a 35mm...? really?
The m43-brigade is out in numbers in this thread. Enjoy your small cameras, I sure do with my nex-7, but stop trying to drag more people into the "IT IS JUST THE SAME IMAGE QUALITY WISE!!!!"-trap. It isn't.
Of course it's not "THE SAME". In some areas the smaller formats consistently win (many have already been mentioned in this thread, but I'll add uniformity across the frame), and in other areas they'll always lose. If resolution and thin DOF are your thing, cost and convenience deemed moot, then large format is your system. But very few people actually find large format their sweet spot, because they're mixing other criteria into their selection.
Also there isn't a stop difference between 4/3" and DX. Closer to half a stop, with slightly over a stop for "equivalency" between DX and 135.
olyacme wrote:
In some areas the smaller formats consistently win (many have already been mentioned in this thread, but I'll add uniformity across the frame), and in other areas they'll always lose. If resolution and thin DOF are your thing, cost and convenience deemed moot, then large format is your system. But very few people actually find large format their sweet spot, because they're mixing other criteria into their selection.
/Acme
Some of the "differences" in image quality are largely related to skewed test criteria. When I hear things like "u43 has more noise but better uniformity across the frame", it can be pretty sure that this test is made with different DoF as well. If we stop down the lens in the larger system, we will see that everything "comes togehter". The DoF gets equal, the noise gets very close, and the uniformity across the frame gets very close. Of course you have to raise the ISO on the larger sensor to get the same shutter speed. But people don't want to do this, because they want to use the sane ISO on both camera systems. When I ask why, I get irrational answers like "habit".
alundeb wrote:
Some of the "differences" in image quality are largely related to skewed test criteria. When I hear things like "u43 has more noise but better uniformity across the frame", it can be pretty sure that this test is made with different DoF as well. If we stop down the lens in the larger system, we will see that everything "comes togehter". The DoF gets equal, the noise gets very close, and the uniformity across the frame gets very close. Of course you have to raise the ISO on the larger sensor to get the same shutter speed. But people don't want to do this, because they want to use the sane ISO on both camera systems. When I ask why, I get irrational answers like "habit". ...Show more →
Certainly there is truth to that, but there is also a component of cake having and also eating. If one improves performance by stopping down the larger system's lens then one's negated the supposed speed advantage. Conversely, the wide open uniformity can be improved by designing a lens with an even larger image circle, or by accepting more corner softness. But then either cost and size went up, or resolution went down.
It's fundamentally a question of where a shooter draws his/her cost/convenience/performance sweet spot. In many areas the smaller formats have crossed the threshold of being "good enough" for even serious shooters, such that the natural advantages of the format win the day. For other areas (thin DOF; ultra high ISO), other shooters see differently.
ulrikft2 wrote:
The 17-55 is a 2.8 dx-1.5 crop lens (f/4-ish equivalent for fullframe dof/noise)
This is a 2.8 m43 crop lens (f/5.6-ish equivalent for fullframe dof/noise).
And comparing a 24mm with a 35mm...? really?
The m43-brigade is out in numbers in this thread. Enjoy your small cameras, I sure do with my nex-7, but stop trying to drag more people into the "IT IS JUST THE SAME IMAGE QUALITY WISE!!!!"-trap. It isn't.
Its not about being m43-brigade. I have owned and used m43, NEX, Sony DSLRs, Nikon DSLRs, Canon DSLRs. I have enjoyed each of them and have no brand loyalty.
Its just that even though m43 is very close in size to APS-C, somehow all these "DOF equivalent" calculations apply only to m43 and not to APS-C. No one comes up and says that the Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 should sell for $500 because it is 26-84mm f/4.3 FF equivalent . Why is it that it is accepted as being a "2.8 zoom" and worth $1500 despite being "only f4.3 equivalent"?
The size factor between m43 and Nikon sensor is only 1.3x so its not that we are talking about a huge format difference AND as per the SLRGear results the Panasonic completely trounces the Nikon in performance. So yes out of the two, the Nikon is the one which seems more ridiculously priced.
curious80 wrote:
Its just that even though m43 is very close in size to APS-C, somehow all these "DOF equivalent" calculations apply only to m43 and not to APS-C. No one comes up and says that the Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 should sell for $500 because it is 26-84mm f/4.3 FF equivalent . Why is it that it is accepted as being a "2.8 zoom" and worth $1500 despite being "only f4.3 equivalent"?
The same argument has been around concerning APS-C, and has caused so much controversy that we have mostly given up. In the Canon forum you have a large contingent of informed people who mention it from time to time. On this board, people are even more informed, what makes a discussion possible. We agree on the facts, as one cannot have his own facts, but our perspectives are different.
It's a simple trade off, you trade IQ and the possibility of shallow DOF for a much more compact system. However it's by no means a cheaper way as I can buy a D700 + 24-70 (more or less at least, used) for the same amount as a OM-D + this lens. That is two different worlds in IQ.
The problem for m4/3 is when the full frame EVIl cameras will hit the market, then they can't charge these prices since you can get much better IQ and more or less the same compact size. But for now I believe there are a few customers willing to pay premium to reduce the size of their system.
jhinkey wrote:
You must be kidding right? The 24-85/2.8-4D is a poor performing lens - I've tried to buy three of them, but each one on my D700 was just plain poor anywhere near wide open. Based on the early lens test of the Panny 12-35/2.8 it looks like it's in a completely other league than the 24-85D.
Agreed. I never understood why Nikon kept the f2.8-4D around and killed the much better & much smaller 24-85 f3.5-4.5G AF-S
I haven't been able to see any diffraction issues until after F/16 on µ4/3 - with the 12mpx sensors. Are the 16's so much worse?
I saw the effects of diffraction softening going from F5.6 to F8 when using the Panasonic 14/2.5 on the GH2 myself. If I was concerned about getting the most technical detail out of the sensor and lens on m43, I would really not stop my lens down past 5.6 (given the lens is optically up to it. Even F4 could be technically optimal believe it or not on m43). This makes sense given that even on 24MP FF a900 (not to mention the 36MP D800), diffraction becomes really obvious by F8/F11 with a good lens...and those are larger pixels. So, all this indicates that in an IDEAL world, m43 manufacturers would be taking more advantage of creating much faster lenses for their relatively small format. All of this is not to say of course that great photography cannot be created with m43 + slowish lenses for the format + diffraction robbing apertures.
BTW, I don't mean this as a slam, as a fan of your $16,000 Challenge.
That's a huge difference! I somehow don't think the extra 4mpx is worth losing 3 stops of DOF for!