Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Official - Panaleica 12mm f/1.4 ASPH
#1
http://www.panasonic.com/uk/consumer/cam...x012e.html

#2
EPZ was quick to put it to the test. Somewhat odd results there if you ask me.

 

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/panas...view-29473

#3
And yes, the price: $1300. My enthusiasm has successfully evaporated. For the price, I might as well keep the Canon - I can't sell it for more than $1000~1100 anyway.

#4
$1300 for a 24mm f2.8 FF equivalent... Nice. And to think that the FF Sigma 20mm f1.4 Art costs $900.

#5
Quote:$1300 for a 24mm f2.8 FF equivalent... Nice. And to think that the FF Sigma 20mm f1.4 Art costs $900.
 

It still is a 12 mm, even if 24 mm equivalent, and it still is a F/1.4 even if F/2.8 DoF equivalent.

 

In addition, micro 4/3 lenses need to be a lot sharper than, e.g., FF lenses, and are produced in much smaller quantities.

 

And being such small lenses, with the increased precision required, and the above, just makes these lenses pricy.

 

You can't compare them with FF or APS-C lenses, but even then, Fuji lenses f.e are not cheap either, for exactly the same reasons.

 

Regards, Wim

Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#6
Quote:It still is a 12 mm, even if 24 mm equivalent, and it still is a F/1.4 even if F/2.8 DoF equivalent.

 

In addition, micro 4/3 lenses need to be a lot sharper than, e.g., FF lenses, and are produced in much smaller quantities.

 

And being such small lenses, with the increased precision required, and the above, just makes these lenses pricy.

 

You can't compare them with FF or APS-C lenses, but even then, Fuji lenses f.e are not cheap either, for exactly the same reasons.

 

Regards, Wim
 

Did I write that the price is crazy and based on nothing? No, just pointed out that the price is very high for a 24mm f2.8 FF equivalent (in regards to the 24mm f2.8 from Canon for instance). The Canon uses less elements, which also is part of that equation.

Small elements are cheaper to produce than large elements. The Sigma I mentioned has much bigger glass, and a similar amount of elements. It still is considerably cheaper.

 

So, a bad deal for MFT users.
#7
Quote:Did I write that the price is crazy and based on nothing? No, just pointed out that the price is very high for a 24mm f2.8 FF equivalent (in regards to the 24mm f2.8 from Canon for instance). The Canon uses less elements, which also is part of that equation.

Small elements are cheaper to produce than large elements. The Sigma I mentioned has much bigger glass, and a similar amount of elements. It still is considerably cheaper.

 

So, a bad deal for MFT users.
 

 

I actually quoted your post to reply to and then went on to add replies to others as well, which were not quoted, that's all.

 

Whether it is a bad deal is for any propective buyer(s) to decide. Whether you find it a bad deal is irrelevant, especially as you are not a fan of micro 4/3. Besides, as I already pointed out elsewhere, an F/1.4 is an F/1.4, whether it is a FF F/2.8 equivalent or not. I really wonder at times what axes you seem to have to grind with anything that is not to your liking or does not conform to yoru ideas or opinions, to be very honest. I just don't understand your way of thinking.

 

HTH, regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#8
Quote:I actually quoted your post to reply to and then went on to add replies to others as well, which were not quoted, that's all.

 

Whether it is a bad deal is for any propective buyer(s) to decide. Whether you find it a bad deal is irrelevant, especially as you are not a fan of micro 4/3. Besides, as I already pointed out elsewhere, an F/1.4 is an F/1.4, whether it is a FF F/2.8 equivalent or not. I really wonder at times what axes you seem to have to grind with anything that is not to your liking or does not conform to yoru ideas or opinions, to be very honest. I just don't understand your way of thinking.

 

HTH, regards, Wim
You may have written that f/1.4 is f/1.4, but that remains as meaningless as it ever was. F/1..4 merely means focal length divided by 1.4 = aperture size. If the f is different, f/1.4 != f/1.4.

 

f1.4 with ISO 100  Velvia != f1.4 with agfapan APX 400.

Using a different size aperture is just as valid a thing as using a different ISO setting. 

 

A famous Leica photographer said that a photographer only has two tools to determine the look of the image, aperture for DOF and focal length for FOV. To control exposure, that is what ISO and exposure time are for. Another famous Leica photographer only varied aperture to get an adequate exposure. That illustrates well the possible different ways one can look at the tools available.

 

Whether I am a fan of MFT or not is very not important in any way. It does not change a thing. I have had the same discussions about APS-C vs FF, FF vs APS-C, Nikon 1 vs APS-C, FF versus 6x9 MF.

 

Why I said it is a bad deal: mirrorless, and MFT in particular, have been supposed to have a weight and size advantage. With this particular lens, it does not have a weight, nor a size advantage. Nor does it have a price advantage. That you do not understand "that way of thinking" says a lot about you, not so much about me...
#9
Haha... can we please have a special thread/board to rehash all this stuff over and over again without getting in the way of discussing particular lenses? One thread devoted to this lens has already been ruined (to the point that Klaus has locked it), and you guys are on a fast track to getting the second one done in for the same reasons. Smile

 

That said, I'm no longer curious about this lens (any more than I would be curious about any next lens, anyway) because I've seen the price. If I ever want to play a mirrorless game in this area, I'd rather look at the Fuji side of things.

#10
right  Smile

  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)