PDA

View Full Version : M.Zuiko f2.8 35-100mm


Paul19
20th February 2013, 04:00 AM
Does anyone know if there is any depth to the rumours that a M.Zuiko 35-100 with constant f2.8 will be released later this year?

Ross the fiddler
20th February 2013, 04:46 AM
Does anyone know if there is any depth to the rumours that a M.Zuiko 35-100 with constant f2.8 will be released later this year?

We can hope! :rolleyes:

Ian
20th February 2013, 08:27 AM
Would this be sensible in the wake of the Lumix version? How would you like an Olympus version to be different?

Ian

Bikie John
20th February 2013, 09:27 AM
f/2!

Ciao ... greedy and optimistic John

StephenL
20th February 2013, 09:34 AM
Would this be sensible in the wake of the Lumix version? How would you like an Olympus version to be different?

Ian

Probably wouldn't be commercially sensible, but I've always preferred the definition which Olympus glass gives. I'm sure there's no scientific reason for this, but there you are!

snaarman
20th February 2013, 10:21 AM
Probably wouldn't be commercially sensible, but I've always preferred the definition which Olympus glass gives. I'm sure there's no scientific reason for this, but there you are!

Off topic slightly, do I recall you have the Panny 12-35 lens? If so what do you make of it? I was wondering how much gear I would have to sell to buy one, and if it would be worth the pain??

Pete

Ross the fiddler
20th February 2013, 10:36 AM
Off topic slightly, do I recall you have the Panny 12-35 lens? If so what do you make of it? I was wondering how much gear I would have to sell to buy one, and if it would be worth the pain??

Pete

In Australia, one supplier has it for $1219.00 Not too bad really.

StephenL
20th February 2013, 10:44 AM
Off topic slightly, do I recall you have the Panny 12-35 lens? If so what do you make of it? I was wondering how much gear I would have to sell to buy one, and if it would be worth the pain??

Pete

Your recall has failed you this time, Pete! This lens is only vaguely on my radar. In fact, I only (currently!) own 3 zoom lenses - the kit 12-50, the m4/3 40-150, and the m4/3 9-18. Now being a poor pensioner without even a pension, the chances of me getting one is slim. However, I understand Woofmix among others has one and he rates it highly.

snaarman
20th February 2013, 10:52 AM
Your recall has failed you this time, Pete! This lens is only vaguely on my radar. In fact, I only (currently!) own 3 zoom lenses - the kit 12-50, the m4/3 40-150, and the m4/3 9-18. Now being a poor pensioner without even a pension, the chances of me getting one is slim. However, I understand Woofmix among others has one and he rates it highly.

I understand the poor pensioner thing, I see it on the horizon.

Even though I am still waged, I'm not sure I can thoil the money for the 12-35, because I would want it's longer brother to make a matching pair. Hmm

Maybe I will win this Postcode Lottery I hear so much about.

Pete

StephenL
20th February 2013, 10:55 AM
Maybe I will win this Postcode Lottery I hear so much about.

Pete
I have just changed my postcode. You know what they say about changing lottery numbers .... :(

Ross the fiddler
20th February 2013, 11:18 AM
I understand the poor pensioner thing, I see it on the horizon.

Even though I am still waged, I'm not sure I can thoil the money for the 12-35, because I would want it's longer brother to make a matching pair. Hmm

Maybe I will win this Postcode Lottery I hear so much about.

Pete

The recommended price here for the 12-35 is $1599 with $380 off with this one supplier, but the long one, 35-100 is at $1799 with no discounting (yet). I might live the life of almost being retired but when I want something, it is a good incentive to get stuck into the jobs (instrument repairs) that have been hanging around longer than they should to get some more cash (taxable income) in again.

Good luck on your lottery. :rolleyes: ;)

Paul19
20th February 2013, 09:26 PM
How would you like an Olympus version to be different?

Ian

Hi Ian, It's the bulk of the Lumix (probably caused by the image stabiliser - redundant for Olympus users) that I would like to see reduced and with Zuiko Super Pro glass that only Olympus can produce. Paul

Graham_of_Rainham
20th February 2013, 11:27 PM
How would you like an Olympus version to be different?

Ian

"ZERO" Coated. f/2.0 would be absolutly brilliant, but that could well be seen as the end of support for the Top Pro FT E-System.

A lens hood included would be nice :rolleyes:

An announcement of its launch in time for folk to get one and have time to enjoy it before another metorite turns up and ends it all... :eek:

crimbo
20th February 2013, 11:31 PM
Problem is that the faster glass is big... And doesn't fit the m4/3 idea... And no tele-converters yet

Ross the fiddler
21st February 2013, 03:23 AM
A lens hood included would be nice :rolleyes:

Now you're hopin'! *laugh

Ian
21st February 2013, 11:51 AM
Problem is that the faster glass is big... And doesn't fit the m4/3 idea... And no tele-converters yet

A Micro Four Thirds 35-100 f/2.0 would be significantly smaller than the Four Thirds one, but it would still be large.

Ian

Bikie John
21st February 2013, 03:04 PM
That's interesting Ian. Why would it be smaller? I can see why wide-angles would be smaller for m43, because with no mirror to get in the way there is no need to use retrofocus designs which add weight and complexity. But even at the short end (35mm) we are way past that. I would expect the main reason for size+weight to be the need for a big slab of glass to give f/2 at 100mm, and that doesn't change.

Ciao ... John

Pierre L
21st February 2013, 04:48 PM
I wonder... The 43 sensor and the m43 sensor are the same size, but one is rather closer to the back of the lens. Could that be why m43 lenses are usually smaller?

David M
21st February 2013, 05:20 PM
Not with fast telephotos, they need a large diameter. That's why the m4/3 telephoto zooms are so slow.

peak4
21st February 2013, 08:57 PM
That's interesting Ian. Why would it be smaller? I can see why wide-angles would be smaller for m43, because with no mirror to get in the way there is no need to use retrofocus designs which add weight and complexity. But even at the short end (35mm) we are way past that. I would expect the main reason for size+weight to be the need for a big slab of glass to give f/2 at 100mm, and that doesn't change.

Ciao ... John

Even at 35mm I would have thought we were in retrofocus territory as the 4/3s flange distance is 38.67 mm, then the actual lens is still further forward due to the electrical gubbins etc. The front element diameter would still have to be the same of course. It might also be that, since M4/3 uses CDAF, the moving elements need to be smaller and lighter than they needed to be for PDAF, leading to a different direction in lens design.

David M
22nd February 2013, 12:36 AM
There's also the telecentric design to consider. Olympus made a big deal of their telecentric designs for 4/3 lenses. I don't know if their m4/3 lenses are telecentric as I haven't been paying attention to them.

Bikie John
22nd February 2013, 09:38 AM
Good points, David and Bill both. I will be interested to hear Ian's reasoning.

John

Greytop
22nd February 2013, 01:53 PM
I don't find either the 12-35 or 35-100 to be bulky (even in relative terms) when mounted on the OM-D.
With part one or two of the grip fitted they are a great size and aesthetic match (to my eyes at least).
Build really is top quality and performance pegging with HG glass and the 12 to 100 mm constant f/2.8 is very nice with a pair of zooms. Shame Oly doesn't make them really.

Kiwi Paul
22nd February 2013, 01:58 PM
Off topic slightly, do I recall you have the Panny 12-35 lens? If so what do you make of it? I was wondering how much gear I would have to sell to buy one, and if it would be worth the pain??

Pete

I have have the 7-14, 12-35 and 35-100 Pany lenses and I'm very pleased with all three.
The IQ isn't as spectacular as the SHG 4/3 versions but it is still very good. I'd rate them as good as the 12-60, 50-200SWD lenses at least.
The lenses are well built and the 12-35 and 35-100 are weather proof too.

The 3 lenses make a very compact set and I carry mine in a small Lowepro shoulder bag along with the G5.

I can certainly recommend them it just depends if you are prepared to pay the premium price for them.

Paul

Kiwi Paul
22nd February 2013, 02:05 PM
Hi Ian, It's the bulk of the Lumix (probably caused by the image stabiliser - redundant for Olympus users) that I would like to see reduced

The 35-100 Pany lens isn't very large, I'm surprised you think so. I don't think the OIS plays much part to the size of it. I really don't see how a m4/3 35-100 f2.8 lens can be any smaller.

Paul