Panasonic Announces 12-35 f/2.8 OIS

http://www.dpreview.co​m …oom-for-micro-four-thirds

http://www.dpreview.co​m/previews/panasonic_1​2-35_2p8

Looks great, Theres a few samples on Panasonics site... the only kicker on it is the price... $1300...which is pretty high sounding... Keep in mind in terms of DoF you're looking at f/3.5 in APS-C terms or f/5.6 in FF terms, its pretty small however, much smaller than say, a 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM or especially a 24-70 f/2.8L II....

DOF equivalence...now there's a can of worms! I tend to think that f/2.8 is f/2.8. If the early test results are anywhere near accurate and if this can be priced at or below the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 it could be considered to be comparitively good value (albeit still expensive).

Luckypenguin wrote in post #14477186
DOF equivalence...now there's a can of worms! I tend to think that f/2.8 is f/2.8. If the early test results are anywhere near accurate and if this can be priced at or below the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 it could be considered to be comparitively good value (albeit still expensive).

At least from the sounds its built better than the 17-55 f/2.8 IS...

I wish they would have made this lens f2

At least at f/2.8 I have a hope of affording it

At about the same size as the 18-55 IS, this is the first lens that seriously has me considering taking up m4/3...

The thing on a wide angle, DOF is of limited use. On wides, unless your subject is really close, everything is going to be in focus, even wide open, and often softer than need be. The speed is nice though, and I wish Sony had something like it.....

Croasdail wrote in post #14531187
The thing on a wide angle, DOF is of limited use. On wides, unless your subject is really close, everything is going to be in focus, even wide open, and often softer than need be. The speed is nice though, and I wish Sony had something like it.....

The only issue is that the Sony equivalent would be VERY big compared to this, this is roughly the same size as the 18-55 OSS i believe

The NEX equivalent would be a 16-45mm f3.5. So that's not a huge lens by any means.

Luckypenguin wrote in post #14477186
DOF equivalence...now there's a can of worms! I tend to think that f/2.8 is f/2.8.

I don't understand how 'DOF equivalence' or whatever you want to call it can be discounted. Everyone knows that if you use a camera like an S100, you will use much shorter focal lengths for any type of shot than when using, say, a 5D. The effect of these very short focal lengths means that any given aperture will deliver much greater DOF (equal framing and equal perspective). Just because a m4:3 or 1.6X camera falls in between a compact digital and a FF digital does not suddenly make these two formats the same as FF.

In fact, this lens IMO illustrates this point quite well. The new 12-35 lens for m4:3 is obviously selected because it gives the same field of view as the ever popular 24-70 range on a 35mm camera.

But obviously, 12-35 f/2.8 isn't going to give the same DOF as 24-70 f/2.8 when used to take the same shot on different formats, and in order to get the 24-70 on FF to give the same DOF one would have to stop down to f/5.6.

So I think it is perfectly applicable and easy to understand that the 12-35 lens on m4:3 will perform for DOF much as a hypothetical 24-70/5.6 would on a 35mm camera.

SLRgear charts for this lens look really good:

http://www.slrgear.com …t.php/product/1​518/cat/69

DoF equivalence only matters up to a point. 2.8 remains 2.8 in the area that most matters - light gathering. The smaller sensor cams won't give me the same look my 5DII can in terms of DoF, and I'm OK with that. They make up for it in portability.

JeffreyG wrote in post #14542312
I don't understand how 'DOF equivalence' or whatever you want to call it can be discounted. Everyone knows that if you use a camera like an S100, you will use much shorter focal lengths for any type of shot than when using, say, a 5D. The effect of these very short focal lengths means that any given aperture will deliver much greater DOF (equal framing and equal perspective). Just because a m4:3 or 1.6X camera falls in between a compact digital and a FF digital does not suddenly make these two formats the same as FF.

In fact, this lens IMO illustrates this point quite well. The new 12-35 lens for m4:3 is obviously selected because it gives the same field of view as the ever popular 24-70 range on a 35mm camera.

But obviously, 12-35 f/2.8 isn't going to give the same DOF as 24-70 f/2.8 when used to take the same shot on different formats, and in order to get the 24-70 on FF to give the same DOF one would have to stop down to f/5.6.

So I think it is perfectly applicable and easy to understand that the 12-35 lens on m4:3 will perform for DOF much as a hypothetical 24-70/5.6 would on a 35mm camera.

I don't see why there is this constant need to "educate" people about DOF equivalence as though shallow depth-of-field was the holy grail of photography. Just have a look at at least 50% of the comments that follow every DPReview news release. Why should I be so concerned as to compare my camera to another type of camera that I don't even care about?

Luckypenguin wrote in post #14544103
I don't see why there is this constant need to "educate" people about DOF equivalence as though shallow depth-of-field was the holy grail of photography. Just have a look at at least 50% of the comments that follow every DPReview news release. Why should I be so concerned as to compare my camera to another type of camera that I don't even care about?

Am I educating or are you obfuscating?

Keep in mind that a large number of people buying or considering NEX or m4:3 systems are currently using dSLR systems now. I see no downside in understandind how working within different formats affects DOF whether you want it shallow or deep.

And you can downplay shallow DOF all you want, but a lot of people spend a lot of money on fast lenses to have this ability. Anyone who thinks the 12-35 on m4:3 will behave like a 24-70 on their 5D with regard to DOF is going to be surprised.

Luckypenguin wrote in post #14544103
I don't see why there is this constant need to "educate" people about DOF equivalence as though shallow depth-of-field was the holy grail of photography. Just have a look at at least 50% of the comments that follow every DPReview news release. Why should I be so concerned as to compare my camera to another type of camera that I don't even care about?

You are on a forum that is primarily about sensors that are not 2x crop m4/3 size. So for the rest of us, it helps put things into relatable terms.

What I can't understand is the incessant need to act like it doesn't matter for 4/3 (see the other 50% of comments on dpreview news releases). We don't do that here on the Canon forum when comparing APS-C and FF cameras. We don't act like f2.8 is the same on all sensor sizes.