Panasonic Announces 12-35 f/2.8 OIS

If anyone wants to learn (I use the term loosely) about the theory of depth-of-field equivalence on Micro 4/3 cameras I would direct them to visit the Micro 4/3 forum at DPReview. There they can find many long and drawn out threads on the topic. After doing so they will probably want to throw their computer out the window and scratch their eyes out, so I would also recommend they proceed with caution. That forum contains a healthy population of individuals (who seemingly don't even use Micro 4/3 cameras) that will happily and repeatedly dispense the theory with or without provocation.

The strangest thing about depth-of-field equivalence is that in the EOS forum here at POTN which is represented by users of Canon DSLRs of varying sensor sizes, the topic seems to be strangely quiet. This is in spite of the fact that there is a larger difference in sensor size between a 5D and a 7D then there is between a 7D and an E-M5. I gather that the Micro 4/3 format has obviously crossed some kind of magical threshold where DOF equivalence suddenly becomes a point of contention.

The other thing to note is that it is not hard to find images taken by Micro 4/3 cameras that contain blurry, "bokehlicious" backgrounds. To me this goes to show that rather than obsessing about a supposed lack of shallow depth-of-field capability, the average Micro 4/3 user is happy just to get on with the job of taking photographs.

Nope, it showed up a lot previously still showing up once in a while. There is nothing wrong discussing system or crop factor behaviours.

Luckypenguin wrote in post #14549086
The strangest thing about depth-of-field equivalence is that in the EOS forum here at POTN which is represented by users of Canon DSLRs of varying sensor sizes, the topic seems to be strangely quiet. This is in spite of the fact that there is a larger difference in sensor size between a 5D and a 7D then there is between a 7D and an E-M5.

Luckypenguin wrote in post #14549086
If anyone wants to learn (I use the term loosely) about the theory of depth-of-field equivalence on Micro 4/3 cameras I would direct them to visit the Micro 4/3 forum at DPReview. There they can find many long and drawn out threads on the topic. After doing so they will probably want to throw their computer out the window and scratch their eyes out, so I would also recommend they proceed with caution. That forum contains a healthy population of individuals (who seemingly don't even use Micro 4/3 cameras) that will happily and repeatedly dispense the theory with or without provocation.

As usual, POTN is a better place. I happen to own a 5D as well as a m4:3 body. I like my Panasonic GF-1, and I tend to use the 20/1.7 lens with it a lot.

But from direct experience I can tell you that the 20/1.7 is capable of somewhat thin DOF on the panny, about the same as what I can achieve with my 24-105/4 lens on the 5D.

That's right.....f/1.7 on the m4:3 format is a lot like f/4 on my 5D Mark III, both for DOF and for low light work (since the 5D3 is usable at higher ISO levels IMO).

I like my m4:3 camera, but I am also aware of the differences and limitations of it compared to larger formats. I see no value in glossing over these.

You must have missed a huge number of threads on this very topic. I'd also say that I did notice a DOF difference when I personally moved from a 1.6X body to FF, and I even can notice differences (however subtle) when I go back and forth between 1.3X and FF.

On the topic of 1.6X and FF, what I noticed was that where I often found f/2.8 zooms to restrict what I wanted to do on DOF, once I got to a FF body I find this aperture is quite often as thin as I ever want.

On the same tack, I used to shoot very fast primes wide open a lot on 1.6X, and I do so less often with FF. My use of fast apertures tends to move to ever wider focal lengths on larger formats. I love the 24L on FF for example.

I don't know what to make of this comment overall. As I said, I can certainly blur a background with my GF-1 and 20/1.7 provided the subject is close enough, just like I can blur a background with my 24-105/4L on the 5D when the subject is close enough.

The m4:3 camera will always be more portable. It will also never be able to take the kind of shot that I can take with the 5D3 at 16mm and f/2.8 or 24mm and f/1.4. That is a clear difference.

And so while a $1300 12-35/2.8 would be a usable lens on m4:3, it is not the same thing as a 24-70/2.8 on a FF dSLR.

Luckypenguin wrote in post #14549086
the topic seems to be strangely quiet.

DarthVader wrote in post #14549135
still showing up once in a while.

Dare I say that these two statements are in fact, equivalent

Nope, they are not but 12 f/2 on a MFT is definitely equivalent to 24 f/4 on FF. f/4 man .

Luckypenguin wrote in post #14554273
Dare I say that these two statements are in fact, equivalent

The way i see it is this:

This isnt a lens for those of us who are using m4/3 as a second system, This is for those photographers who are using m4/3 as their primary system, this lens gives them a good fast zoom thats still nice and small, Sometimes you need a zoom and the basic zooms for m4/3 while optically pretty good are only f/3.5-5.6 at best... Sometimes you might need more speed for low light...

But of course its a compromise, Panny had a couple choices, They probubly could make an f/2 zoom for m4/3 (There were f/2 zooms for 4/3 after all) However, it would likely be fairly large, and in terms of depth of field you're going to be at f/4 equivalency, Also from what I can see there might just be a point of diminishing return to the m4/3 size advantage in terms of making smaller lenses (ie at a certain focal length/aperture you just arent shaving much off a FF design) and f/2 design would likely be about 50% bigger all around and probubly be fairly close in size/weight to say, my 15-85, Which while an excellent well-balanced lens on my 7D would be fairly big for a m4/3 body...it also would very likely be well over $2000, a price even m4/3 primary shooters might choke a bit at...

They picked f/2.8 because it gave the best mix of speed, size, and price

Comparing it to other systems.. Well.. I dont know, Is it really a relevent question to ask? As i said, This is a lens thats meant for people who are invested into m4/3 as their primary system, Those folks arent interested in FF or APS-C or else m4/3 wouldnt be their primary system, a nice m4/3 camera with this lens is still going to give a very measureable weight/size savings over a DoF-equivalent setup in other formats after all (IE a D800 + 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 VR, 60D + 17-50 f/2.8) and it will have a slight DoF advantage over an NEX with an 18-55 OSS

If you're using m4/3 as a second system, Then most folks are trying to keep the costs of their second system down, and they're usually looking for the absolute smallest package possible, So most m4/3 second system owners go with the nice selection of primes...which give you excellent shallow depth of field and low light performance at the cost of flexibility, this isnt the lens for you in other words....

Me? I've never been a huge fan of 28-80s, So id pass (Also pass on that new 24-85 VR, Cool lens, Just not my cup of tea)

KenjiS wrote in post #14593548
The way i see it is this:

This isnt a lens for those of us who are using m4/3 as a second system, This is for those photographers who are using m4/3 as their primary system, this lens gives them a good fast zoom thats still nice and small, Sometimes you need a zoom and the basic zooms for m4/3 while optically pretty good are only f/3.5-5.6 at best... Sometimes you might need more speed for low light...

Or for those of us who sometimes want to travel light, but do not want to compromise on quality, weather sealing, and so on. I see my MFT kit as complementary, but not necessarily second tier - the GF2, yes (quality's just not quite there), but the E-M5 is an extremely powerful picture making tool for my style of shooting (candids, landscape, travel, available light photograph. Little to no action), and much as I love primes, a good quality standard zoom is just the ticket.

It's a 24-70 equivalent, crop factor of 2x - since my 24-105 is the one zoom lens I consistently use a lot, this seems like a no-brainer.