Lens of the Year: Panasonic 14-150

[Razr]

POP PHOTO Lens of the Year:


Panasonic Leica D Vario-Elmar 14-150mm f/3.5-4.5 ASPH (ED)

Panasonic hasn't had a new D-SLR since last year's DMC-L1, but its soon-to-be-released zoom -- no bigger, amazingly, than the existing Leica 14-50mm f/2.8-3.5 -- is the Four Thirds digital system's answer to 35mm's all-in-one 28-300mm zoom. Unlike most of its full-frame counterparts, though, it has built-in optical image stabilization (Panasonic's Mega O.I.S.), a valuable asset for sharp handheld shooting at its longer focal lengths. With 15 elements, including four aspherics and one ED, the 14-150mm is also the first Leica D lens to incorporate built-in ultrasonic focusing (XSM, for Extra Silent Motor). That aids stealth with the low-profile Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1 or Leica Digilux 3. Close focusing to under 20 inches permits reproduction ratios as high as 1:3. Yet for all its modern advantages, this winning lens has an old-fashioned manual aperture ring.
The beginning of the 4/3rds lens "explosion", this one with built-in image stabilization. at least 8 more 4/3rds lenses will appear by spring of 2008.

[BBPhoto]

Sounds cool. I have to do a little more reading on the 4/3rd system.

[fionndruinne]

I have my suspicions that the 4/3 lens "explosion" may be something along the lines of *poof*.:rolleyes:

[Razr]

I have my suspicions that the 4/3 lens "explosion" may be something along the lines of *poof*Then again, if you don't own or use the 4/3rds system, eight new lenses wouldn't register at all on you-correct?

[Rooz]

there are that many lens/ camera of the year awards in so many different categories that eveything's bound to win something at one point or another.

[Ray Schnoor]

POP PHOTO Lens of the Year: Panasonic Leica D Vario-Elmar 14-150mm f/3.5-4.5 ASPH (ED)

The beginning of the 4/3rds lens "explosion", this one with built-in image stabilization. at least 8 more 4/3rds lenses will appear by spring of 2008.
Is this the same lens that POP PHOTO said:

The Leica D Vario-Elmar 14-150mm/F3.5-5.6 ASPH./MEGA O.I.S. lens will be available in March 2007 for a retail price of $999.95 (http://www.popphoto.com/photonews/3915/pma-panasonic-and-leica-announce-107x-zoom-lens.html).

DPReview (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07083009leica40150.asp)now lists the release date for "around" November. No price yet, though, but I can't imagine that it will be anywhere near what POP PHOTO listed.

Ray.

[fionndruinne]

Eight new lenses, always nice, yes? I believe Nikon just announced a similar amount of new AF-S lenses in conjunction with the D3/D300. They look pretty sweet... but are all very expensive. If the majority of these 4/3 lenses are pricey as well ($999 is kind of up there), it's not going to make much of an impression on the folks who use a E-300 or E-500 because of the value price they got it for.

[Razr]

Eight new lenses, always nice, yes? I believe Nikon just announced a similar amount of new AF-S lenses in conjunction with the D3/D300. They look pretty sweet... but are all very expensive. If the majority of these 4/3 lenses are pricey as well ($999 is kind of up there), it's not going to make much of an impression on the folks who use a E-300 or E-500 because of the value price they got it for. There are those like myself, to whom $999 is a rather "modest" sum for what we want to use. The E-3 will make the new 4/3rds lenses worthwhile.

In the same vein, we must agree that not all Canon DSLR shooters use "L" lenses or EOS 1 DSLR bodies.
Nor will all (not even most) Nikon shooters ever hope to own a D-3 DSLR.
There are tens of millions of EOS shooters using various models of the EOS starter DSLR "Rebel" bodies with cheap “kit” lenses, as do the vast majority of Nikon shooters use cheap Nikon "kit" or lesser third party lenses.

We must also remember the 4/3rds system is still "new" and must, as did the EOS system, grow its lens repertoire.
I own an E-500 and E-510 and anticipate the release of the E-3.
In anticipation, I also bought the 35-100 f/2.0 zoom and plan to purchase the 14-35 with the E-3 as a “kit”.
I prepared for the Evolt system the past three years by dumping EOS bodies and a plethora of “L” lenses, as have more than a few owners of EOS and Nikon “Pro” gear.

So while the cost of any new gear might be problematic for many, for some of us, we are fully poised and prepared to make the move to 4/3rds without undue fiscal trepidation.

Some have said the 4/3rds 35-100 is “too large” and expensive, them pointing out the 35-100 is larger and more costly than my EOS 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens.
I delight in pointing out my 35-100 only cost $500+ more for one full stop of extra light (f/2.0 Vs. f/2.8). Besides, the 510 and the upcoming E-3 have in-body image stabilization. Even better, many LEICA 4/3rds lenses have image stabilization built into the lens, the import being when used on a PANSONIC-OLYMPUS image stabilizer body, both stabilization systems (body-lens) work together.

4/3rds also has the ability to shoot Pentax screw mount lenses, Pentax “K” mount (all), Nikon, Canon FD & EOS and some nine other lens mounts, including LEICA.
The 4/3rds system is not as “handicapped” as others like to pretend, especially since any 4/3rds body can shoot all those other mounts.

So any present “handicap” in the small number of 4/3rds lenses is easily enough made up by us shooting Pentax Takumar 500mm, f/5.6 lenses or their Pentax SMC 250-600 f/5.6 “Pro” zoom.

I take huge delight in knowing my lowly E-510 can easily enough mount and shoot my Canon FD 50mm f/1:1.2 asph. lens, at least until LEICA-PANASONIC-OLYMPUS get around to making a similar uber-fast 4/3rds lens.

The best thing about those cheap 4/3rds bodies? They too can shoot all those lens mounts: imagine: a $40 50mm Canon f/1.4 (FD) on an E-volt 300 or even 330:
YUM!

[fionndruinne]

Right; I'm just pointing out that a large amount of the current 4/3 following may be those who have strict budgets in mind.

[r3g]

both stabilization systems (body-lens) work together.

How exactly do they make that work? Seems like 2 IS systems would just confuse eachother while trying to correct camera shake. Just wondering.

[Prospero]

The two IS systems do not work simultaniously. If you mount an IS lens, one of the systems will switch of. Two IS systems indeed cannot work together, as R3G said they would confuse each other.

And another thing, these mount adapters are available for the other systems as well, so they are not an advantage of the four-thirds system. Also, since these adapters do not allow for autofocus, this seems to me as hardly a practical sollution.

As to the 35-100 f/2; it is no doubt a great lens, which is indeed faster than the lenses of the competition. The smaller image circle of the system means that lenses this fast are much easier to design. The only disadvantage of the lens is that at 100mm and f/2, it still provides more DOF than a 70-200 f/2.8 on a full frame dSLR.

By the way, PopPhoto awarded the 14-150 with their lens of the year award, but did they actually test it???

[Razr]

How exactly do they make that work? Seems like 2 IS systems would just confuse eachother while trying to correct camera shake. Just wondering.
As I understand it, when there is a 4/3rds IS body with a LEICA IS lens mounted, the LEICA lens is defaulted to operate in mode 1, (or 2)-I forget which.
Someone can correct me here if I have the default setting wrong.

[Razr]

The two IS systems do not work simultaniously. If you mount an IS lens, one of the systems will switch of. LEICA IS lenses will default by switching off one of its modes.
Not so for IS LEICA lenses. [quote]And another thing, these mount adapters are available for the other systems as well, so they are not an advantage of the four-thirds system. The mount I was referring to has no glass elements, thus the mounts themselves are thinner than most lens adapters.
And at $175 each, that particular line of adapters has more 4/3rds models than for any other mount, which definitely gives 4/3rds a lensmount/adapter (4) advantage.
Also, since these adapters do not allow for autofocus, this seems to me as hardly a practical sollution. I would point out there are millions of us “old school” shooters to which that is no disadvantage at all.
Maybe for the tens-hundreds of millions of those who have never held an all manual camera that could be a serious impediment to their enjoyment of the craft, but for us whiskered folks, manual focus operation is our “Briar Patch”.
I would remind you you overlook the fact there are few third party adapters or tele-converters which allow autofocus in any case.

What you also overlook is that many autofocus lenses used with the $175 adapters do work.
As to the 35-100 f/2; it is no doubt a great lens, which is indeed faster than the lenses of the competition. The smaller image circle of the system means that lenses this fast are much easier to design. You say that as if the one full stop of light gained is a bad thing?
The only disadvantage of the lens is that at 100mm and f/2, it still provides more DOF than a 70-200 f/2.8 on a full frame dSLR. Not true, at least not for my 35-100 f/2.0.
And you are repeating the pure gossip (scurrilous slander) being promulgate against the 4/3rds system by non-owners.
What you say is what has been erroneously concluded by those who have never even seen a 35-100, less more shot or tested the lens.
99% of the BS being slung about the 4/3rds system is being done by non-4/3rds system owners.

As for f/2.0 vis-à-vis f/2.8: surely you know my 35-100 f/2.0 will have better DOF overall than any f/2.8, including my 35mm DOF champ, the EOS 70-200 f/2.8?
By the way, Pop Photo awarded the 14-150 with their lens of the year award, but did they actually test it??? Right back atcha: have you or any 4/3rds system naysayers on these DCR forums tested the 14-150?
Will (non-4/3rds system owning) naysayers test the POP PHOTO 14-150 thesis when a 14-150 comes to your neighborhoods?

I think not!:p:D

[Ray Schnoor]

As to the 35-100 f/2; it is no doubt a great lens, which is indeed faster than the lenses of the competition. The smaller image circle of the system means that lenses this fast are much easier to design. The only disadvantage of the lens is that at 100mm and f/2, it still provides more DOF than a 70-200 f/2.8 on a full frame dSLR.

Not true, at least not for my 35-100 f/2.0.
And you are repeating the pure gossip (scurrilous slander) being promulgate against the 4/3rds system by non-owners.
What you say is what has been erroneously concluded by those who have never even seen a 35-100, less more shot or tested the lens.
99% of the BS being slung about the 4/3rds system is being done by non-4/3rds system owners.

As for f/2.0 vis-à-vis f/2.8: surely you know my 35-100 f/2.0 will have better DOF overall than any f/2.8, including my 35mm DOF champ, the EOS 70-200 f/2.8?
Which is it, True or Not True? In your 1st paragraph, you say Not true, but in your 2nd paragraph you go right ahead and contradict yourself by saying it will have better DOF. Which is it?


By the way, PopPhoto awarded the 14-150 with their lens of the year award, but did they actually test it???

Right back atcha: have you or any 4/3rds system naysayers on these DCR forums tested the 14-150?
Will (non-4/3rds system owning) naysayers test the POP PHOTO 14-150 thesis when a 14-150 comes to your neighborhoods?

I think not!:p:D
Is this your way of saying, no they have not tested it. Since POP PHOTO is a review site, they sometimes get cameras/lenses prior to release for testing. That is why the question was asked. In your own round about way, I guess you have said no they did not. And to answer your question, since it is not available yet, no one on these forums has yet tested it.

Ray.

[ander75it]

Well, it's maths. Using DOFMASTER, we find that a subject at 5 m, shot with a 100 f/2 on a 4/3 has a DOF of 14.7 mm, whereas a subject shot with a 200 f/2.8 on a FF camera has a DOF of 10.2 mm. So what you claim, Razr, is false. The 4/3 has a lot of advantages, but DOF is NOT one of them. You should have a f/1.4 lens to have the same the same DOF... In other words, digital FF has two stops of advantage over 4/3 as far as DOF is concerned.

[TheObiJuan]

Nothing like shooting at a cropped field of view of 200mm at f/2 and have everything in focus for 10ft.

I don't understand why the lens is given so much attention, it's not really wide or fast; the quality is questionable?
The AF speed and accuracy is unknown?

But for those that cling to LEICA, it's a great thing!

I'm eager to see the reviews and actual user opinions.

[Razr]

Which is it, What “it”?
True or Not True? In your 1st paragraph, you say Not true,
Your argument is disingenuous. I said: “Not true, at least not for my 35-100 f/2.0.”, in response to the (unproven) suggestion that my 35-100 has more DOF than my 70-200 f/2.8 “L”.
You conveniently left off the balance of the context of my “not true”, and thus fabricated your equally disingenuous point.
will have better DOF. Which is it? What? Your question makes no sense.
Is this your way of saying, no they have not tested it. Again, you build a straw statement then compose a non-relevant question. And from what you’re asking, I never leave out anything in “what I am saying”.
Worse, due to an inability to follow my argument, you try, vainly, to put your question to me without (outside) my context. Why?
I never mentioned “testing” except in context.
Since POP PHOTO is a review site, they sometimes get cameras/lenses prior to release for testing. BINGO! Though they did not say they tested any LEICA lens in that (OP) announcement, it would be safe to assume, as you did "Test" and further, it is entirely possible they “tested” the 14-150 and did not comment on the test(s).
That is why the question was asked. No one (except you-here) asked me-directly any “testing” question about either the 35-100 or 14-150, though two people and myself mentioned “testing”.
In your own round about way, I guess you have said no they did not. BS. I am always direct and never go “round about”. I am certain what you’ve read, thinking all of what your read in this thread came from me or are my words or expressions. Fact of the matter is, your post here is a convoluted amalgam of misunderstood words, syntax and contexts. And I NEVER said “they”(POP PHOTO) did or did not do anything.
And to answer your question, since it is not available yet, no one on these forums has yet tested it. That question proves what I said before: you have been “bamboozled” by your own misunderstanding; you said: “it is not available yet, no one on these forums has yet tested it”. What “it” are you speaking of: the 35-100 or 14-150?
If the “it” referral is about the14-150, “it” has been in the hands of Beta testers (if not forum members) for many months, one or two (Beta testers*) may be here on DCR; one never knows.

[Razr]

Well, it's maths(SIC). Using DOFMASTER, You use the DOFMASTER, I used the actual lenses in question, being fortunate enough to have both in hand. And you should know depending on math charts is the very worst way to prove DOF in that it measures statistics, not actual lens performance.
we find that a subject at 5 m, shot with a 100 f/2 on a 4/3 has a DOF of 14.7 mm, whereas a subject shot with a 200 f/2.8 on a FF camera has a DOF of 10.2 mm. “Hmm” making invidious comparisons I see?
While you only have DOFMASTER to speak to your point, why not 10m; or 50m? Why not 400m? Are they constant in that regard?
_______________
A guy posted some DOF (Boekh) shots made by a Panasonic FZ20 here on DCR, shots made to disprove the old canard about “super-zoom” P&S cameras having too much something or another to produce “Bokeh”.
The gist of the comments mirroring your and others who say my 35-100 has more DOF than my 70-200, the inference being the same as those who insisted the 36-432mm P&S had too much DOF at any zoom range to produce good “Bokeh”: wrong on both counts.
______________________________
I think what you 4/3rds naysayers totally forget is 4/3rds is “full frame” within its own form factor and thus defies the old-35mm “full frame” rules.
Pure math might prove some things to your satisfaction, but not your erroneous (invidious) points-in the field; which is the only place it counts.
So what you claim, Razr, is false. WE can only take your and the DOFMASTER’s word for your invidious summation.
The 4/3 has a lot of advantages, but DOF is NOT one of them.
(SNIP)... In other words, digital FF Most hogwash, since “Digital FF (“full frame”) only has how many “FF” cameras: four? And you and the others are going to hang your digital reputations on only four-soon to be five “Full Frame” camera bodies?
…two stops of advantage over 4/3 as far as DOF is concerned. You guys!? You would do anything to disprove the worth of the 4/3rds SYSTEM-huh?
It just dawned on me you guys are fastening on one factor, and then pointing to extended DOF as it were a bad thing, when in fact, we who shoot 4/3rds mount our lenses and shoot, delighting in all its other attributes too: like superior lens speed and extended reach.
Strangely enough, my 4/3rds DSLR(s) feel and shoot just like my Canon EOS-1 bodies: one wonders why*?
*I know “why”: my 35-100 f/2.0 Olympus is one full stop faster than my 70-200 f/2.8 “L” lens, which means I’m still shooting with the Olympus 35-100 25 minutes after I've retired my 70-200 for the night.
**Besides that, my 35-100 is just a teeny-tiny skosh slower than that monstrous (read-totally humongous) Canon 200 f/1.8, a lens your have to drive a minibus to haul around.
***Which means my 35-100 shoots shot for shot with the f/1.8 in dark theatres.

Load on a 1.4 teleconverter and we’re out to 340mm @ a very fast f/2.8. Load on a 2X and we’re 400mm @ f/4.0.

[Razr]

Nothing like shooting at a cropped field of view of 200mm at f/2 and have everything in focus for 10ft. You know that how? Your own tests?
I don't understand why the lens is given so much attention, Because it's a LEICA? Because it's LEICA’s very first 10X+ zoom?
it's not really wide or fast; Your point?
the quality is questionable? A real LEICA lens: "questionable"? Only in your mind.

The AF speed and accuracy is unknown? You know those invidious statements how: personal testing, a hands-on wringing out? You own Voitlander? :eek: :eek:

But for those that cling to LEICA, it's a great thing! I'm embarrassed for you. You are the only photographer I’ve ever known who dismisses LEICA out of hand.
I'm eager to see the reviews and actual user opinions. Why? You despise LEICA and 4/3rds with the same fervor and with the same passion some folks hate The Irish.
No reviews will change your mind.

[TheObiJuan]

Razr, you are so presumptuous.

I do not suckle on Leica like you do. Leica produces superb lenses and some with low quality.

Just because they are known for great optics does not mean everything is stellar, including their latest lenses from partnerships with low end consumer grade manufacturers.

The point of a review is for an unbiased review, the point of user reviews is for individual opinions and experiences to be shared. Both are valid and necessary for me to form an opinion without owning it.

I dismiss nothing, but put credence only in what has been tested.
This goes for Leica's SLR too, when it originally came out.

[Prospero]

Razr, the lens mount converters available for for instance Canon, also have no glass elements, and they can also focus to infinity.
Ok, there are less adapters available, but that's also because the system has much more lenses in it's line-up and therefore does not need to rely on ancient German lenses. :)

Just to be clear, none of us here hate the 4/3rds. We appreciate its strengths (longer, faster lenses), but unlike you, we do not forget about its weaknesses (less DOF, smaller viewfinders, less lens choice). Also, unlike you, we do not use factual inaccuracies to support our views.

Because, really, the Depth of Field "gossip" is true. Just take a look at the following formula:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/8/7/b/87bd619bc1bba29c6d94ebb99d16ed28.png

The symbol f stands for the focal length, N for the apperture, c for the circle of confusion and s for the subject distance.

The circle of confusion of a full frame system is 300 microns, that of a 4/3rds camera 150 microns. The 4/3rds system actually has the advantage here due to the fact that the result on the sensor has to be enlarged twice as much as that of the full frame camera.

However, as you can see from the exponents in the equation, this is not nearly as important for the result as the physical focal length. The apperture is also not as important as the focal lengths.

This does not mean that the system cannot produce great bokeh; bokeh after all, does not only depend on pure math. It also depends on the roundness of the apperture blades, the amount of blades, the distance of the background and the absence of highlights. However, a larger depth of field does mean that the effect is not achieved as easily.
And yes, also with the panasonic FZ-20 you can get good bokeh if the subject is close and the background far, but that's not the discussion here.


I would point out there are millions of us “old school” shooters to which that is no disadvantage at all.
Maybe for the tens-hundreds of millions of those who have never held an all manual camera that could be a serious impediment to their enjoyment of the craft, but for us whiskered folks, manual focus operation is our “Briar Patch”.
I would remind you you overlook the fact there are few third party adapters or tele-converters which allow autofocus in any case.
I suppose for the "Whiskered Old School Shooters with a Briar Patch" the lack of autofocus is not an issue. Neither, I suppose, is the fact that only spot metering can be used and the fact that aperture can only be controlled manually.
Well, for me, and I'm sure milions of others, it is. Of course, I can control all these things manually, but not as quickly as an automated camera can, which means it would lead to missed shots.

Indeed, the lack of autofocus is true for most adapters and many teleconverters. However, for most other systems you generally need not use them anyway, since there are plenty of lenses in the line-up that can do the job.

[Ray Schnoor]

Which is it, True or Not True?

What “it”?
Maybe you should read an entire sentence before asking questions. It is amazing you accuse someone of taking you out of context. You are the king of out of context by clipping half sentences and asking questions which are answered in the remainder of the sentence.


What? Your question makes no sense.

The questions make perfect sense if you read the entire question along with your claims which I include "in full" before my questions.

You are correct, though, with one of your conclusions. If you clip out pieces of sentecnces, anything can be made to have the appearance of not making sense.

Ray.

[TheObiJuan]

Let's lock this sucker up and keep Razr on a short leash.
It'll get out of hand again....

http://www.spursreport.com/forums/images/smilies/lock.jpg

[Razr]

Razr, you are so presumptuous. Not so, though these "Chevy Vs. Ford" discussions always tend to, as this (and every thread I enter) one has, you, for no other obvious reason other than your having a burr under your saddle (you think I placed there) seem to want to confront me: as you are now with yout totally out of context "presumptuous".
"Presumptuous" what?
I do not suckle on Leica Your hubris (hatred) makes you a poor conversationalist. But I understand, burrs, real or not, stil makes the mount-skittery.
Leica produces superb lenses and some with low quality. There you go again with your Leica hate speil.
Just because they are known for great optics* does not mean everything is stellar, 1. Where (when) did I claim that?
2. And who, in their right mind, wold shoot "non-stellar" Leica lenses?
*Any Leica lens owner reading that silly statement of your immediately above would dismiss you out-of-hand; if not for being a knuckle dragging oaf, for your boorishness.
People have been buried with their Leica collections; one wonders why?
...including their latest lenses from partnerships ...how many of those "Low-end" cameras do you own? How bout that classic "Bridge" (Now Cult) camera, the Panasonic DMC-FZ30? No? Why?
You're wrong there me buck-o: LEICA says they are LEICA lenses and who are you to argue with LEICA?
The point of a review is for an unbiased review, the point of user reviews is for individual opinions and experiences to be shared. Both are valid and necessary for me to form an opinion without owning it. "Errrhumpf"-you mention "user reviews" but yet, you don't own or use a 4/3rds system rig.
And you would likely try to carry that same empty argument forward by saying "I don't need to own (or drive) the new $70,000 2008 Corvette to form an opnion about it".
"I can read the specs and a few reviews on the 2008 Corvete and make up my mind from there".
No 2008 Corvette owner would put credence in what would be an absurd and frivilous-even cavalier opinion about the new Corvette;
just like 4/3rds owners would look askance at you while reading your answers here.
I dismiss nothing, but put credence only in what has been tested. Except for 3 other forum members who own and shoot 4/3rds gear, you cannot test anything 4/3rds, having to depend on what you read in reviews and the coupious amont of lies about the 4/3rds in forums, lies told in the main-by non-4/3rds owners like yourself.
This goes for Leica's SLR too, when it originally came out. You have hoisted yourself by your own Petard: when the LEICA L1 came out, it appearded with a "kit" lens:
so whatever "opinion" you formed, good or bad-about the L1 was and is tainted by your own admission.

[TheObiJuan]

I don't even know where to start, so I'll end it.

I bow down to Leica and 4/3rd's, as I am sure everyone will if it gets you to hop off the propaganda wagon.
This is not the place to change people's minds or convert them, visit here: http://www.dpreview.com/

[Franklin]

Even better, many LEICA 4/3rds lenses have image stabilization built into the lens, the import being when used on a PANSONIC-OLYMPUS image stabilizer body, both stabilization systems (body-lens) work together.


Agreed! olympus and leica IS do work together!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPdy52mR6Io

In a very special way :D

[TheObiJuan]

Agreed! olympus and leica IS do work together!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPdy52mR6Io

In a very special way :D

Hahaha! Genius, Franklin!