Panasonic puts 43mm F1.2 portrait lens and 150mm F2.8 on lens roadmap


CP+ 2013: Panasonic has added a 42.5mm F1.2 portrait lens and 150mm F2.8 super-telephoto prime to its lens roadmap for Micro Four Thirds, for release in the near future. The lenses, shown in prototype form at Photokina 2012, last September, are shown as being ready for release just after the 14-42mm II APSH. kit zoom launched this week.

The roadmap indicates the lenses should be expected near the beginning of 2013. We’ll ask for further information when we speak to Panasonic, later today.

The 42.5mm F1.2 will offer a 90mm equivalent portrait lens with depth of field equivalent to an 90mm F4 on full-frame. The 150mm F2.8 offers a fast 300mm equivalent option for sports and wildlife shooters.

The two lenses on the roadmap aren’t the only new optics on show – Panasonic also has plenty of examples of its 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 II APSH. Mega OIS on its stand. Nearly 25% shorter, it is small and light, and has a rather un-damped feel to the zoom ring, consistent with its lowly status in the company’s lens lineup

Panasonic is also showing-off the recently launched DMC-ZS30 (TZ40 in Europe) with NFC capability. NFC (Near Field Communication) allows you to tap the phone against a compatible smartphone and that transfers all the information the phone needs to agree a Wi-Fi connection, making it quick and easy to do



I’d like to see Panasonic get rid of the ribbed, knurled focus ring. They are dust magnets. In three days, my new PL 25 1.4 had so much lint on the focus ring, it looked like a used lens. Even the 42.5 1.2 prototype seems covered in lint. The tight ribbing of the AF ring just collects it.



Mike Ronesia

I have a feeling this lens will be very sharp at 1.2 and be priced to match.

For exposure and focal length – M43’s 42.5 f1.2 = FF 85 f1.2
For DOF – M43’s 42.5 f1.2 = FF 85 f2.4.
Same settings gives same exp but shallower DOF with FF.

It’s that simple… I think???

I for one like the deeper DOF, sure it takes more skill to get a good shot when you can’t blur out everything else but in low light I can shoot wide open and have more DOF to work with. Bottom line is there are times when both can be used to your advantage and we all have to work within the limitations of the system we have.


Looks like the 35-100 sold well enough for Panasonic to greenlight the 150mm f2.8. Hope this keeps up, m4/3 is shaping up to be a thriving standard.


Not quite the same because of the smaller format, but Nikon beat Panasonic to this large aperture lens with the 35 1.2 N coated portrait lens announcement last week.

I’m guessing the Panasonic f1.2 lens will cost close to $1000, which I guess is OK if you need the speed and shallow DOF, but prices in m43 lenses are going a bit crazy in recent times. It’s becoming a bit of a luxury, boutique format in terms of prices.

NZ Scott

“Nikon beat Panasonic to this large aperture …”

I didn’t realise there was some race going on.

Who came third?

“…prices in m43 lenses are going a bit crazy…”

Have to agree with you there – generally, anyway. The M. Zuiko 12/2.0 and 17/1.8 lenses are clearly overpriced. There is some reasonably priced glass around though – the 45/1.8 and 40-150 ED spring to mind, and the 25/1.4 can justify its price.


The camera industry is all one big race to innovate and win market share.

As far as m43 prices, yes the 25 f/1.4 is such a good, fast, useful lens, it’s price can be justified. Some of the others, not so much. The two f2.8 zooms from Panasonic, really set a dangerous precedent for future prices. I don’t think smaller format zooms should ever be priced similarly to professional FF zooms and the 2 Pany f2.8 zooms approach that high grade pro optic price point.

NZ Scott

I also think the f2.8 zooms are a bit overpriced but not because of the smaller sensor. I think they are overpriced because they aren’t as good optically as their full-frame equivalents. The Panasonic-Leica 25/1.4 is priced a bit higher than a Canikon 50/1.4 but can justify the premium by its optical quality. The two f2.8 zooms aren’t quite good enough to match Canikon professional zooms. It will be interesting to see what Olympus brings to the table.


All this talk of full frame depth of field equivalent and the like… But how does it compare to my phone’s camera? Yawn.


I’d rather these lenses be announced by Tamron / Sigma
because I know Panny will price them outrageously
Don’t even dream that the 42.5 f1.2 will be comparable to Canon’s 85L…
I presume we don’t shoot at F1.2 to bump up the shutter speed, we shoot at F1.2 to destroy the background.


One more thing, the 150 F2.8 looks hideous.


Yes, the Olympus 150mm F2.8 might be christened ‘the Beer Mug’ after the Minolta lens they called ‘the Beer Can.’


The MSRP price is always the starting point. If enough people don’t like it, the price drops.
If people like it (as I suspect they will) they will get good revenue for it. The reward of making a desirable product.


What the hell does un-damped mean??


It lacks the smooth (slight resistance) focusing rotation that we used to get when using manual focusing lenses in the the 1970s…


@photo nuts

The fact is that kayone was not correct in his assertion. You being a sheep, jumped on the bandwagon and are now criticizing the author for something that he did actually get right.

You can apologize at any time.


How so, Kayone was right. Use a depth of field calculator to prove it to yourself if you wish.


Of course f/1.4 will expose the same always, but you won’t get equivalent images shooting at f/1.4 on full frame vs same framing and perspective on m4/3. You have to multiply the aperture by the crop ratio to get the effective aperture. So effectively a 42.5mm f/1.2 on m4/3 will be nearly identical to an 85mm f/2.4 on full frame. I.e. the lenses would serve the same function. Unless you make some trade off the image quality would be about the same between them. I.e. trade longer shutter speed for lower ISO on the full frame, or shallower depth of field for faster shutter speed or lower noise, etc.


I really urge you to apologize yourself, Chekr. Please. Your ill-conceived comments are embarrassing for humanity. I know that this sounds mean, but your comments are so baseless and rude that I don’t know how else to respond.


Which will end first? Humanity or Equivalency debates?


I like rudeness…it means i can respond by saying fark you.


@checkr: Again did you actually read the dpreview text at which Kayone commented? dpreview says “depth of field equivalent to an 90mm F4 on full-frame”. Which is wrong no matter which camp do you belong to in the equivalence debate.


No, not criticizing; grazing.


Panasonic is doing some pretty awesome work with the m4/3 lenses.

photo nuts

Awesome stuff!


I wonder if Leica is still their silent partner?


Math is wrong on the 42.5 caption, should be an 85mm f 2.4 equivalent





photo nuts

I am wondering if DPReview folks know what they r doing. Sad to see how far the standard has fallen since Phil Askey left.


The math is not wrong, you are wrong.

Aperture determines two factors, depth of field and exposure. In exposure f1.4 on a crop sensor is f1.4 as it is on a full frame. It is not at all relative to the sensor. Depth of Field is relative and and therefore you can say that the depth of field has an equivalence at play.


Is 90mm what you usually get when you double 42.5, Chekr?


42.5mm f/1.2 on 2x crop factor is equivalent to 85mm f/2.4 on a full frame (assuming they were both 4×3, there is a slight difference due to the different crop ratios, but only a few percent. Check a depth of field calculator, checking a 43mm f/1.2 it is very close to an 85mm f/2.4 at the same subject distance. For all practical purposes if you stood in the same spot, shot the same subject, had the same framing, used 42.5mm at 1.2mm ISO 100 on an m4/3, you would get a nearly identical image to a full frame sensor at 85mm at f/2.4, ISO 400. For all practical purposes these would be the same (given both lenses performed at an adequate level).


re-read the comment, I am referring to the aperture calculation, no mention of FL



As i said aperture ratios are used to measure two things, exposure and DOF. You only do an equivalence equation when calculating DOF, not exposure. DOF is relative to your FL, crop and aperture so using just an f ratio to measure it is plain silly anyway.

f1.2 is 1.2 is 1.2


I did you said “The math is not wrong, you are wrong.” when the OP math is just fine. Effectively the aperture of the 42.5mm is 2.4 if you convert it to full frame terms. Just as focal length doesn’t change when you convert to effective focal length, the aperture doesn’t really equal f/2.4, but it is equivalent to f/2.4 on a full frame at the equivalent focal length.


You are right, 1.2 is 1.2, just as 42.5mm is 42.5mm, the physical values don’t change, but if you convert the focal length to full frame terms you need to convert the aperture too.


Well, they specified DOF equivalent, not exposure, on their caption. Context matters.

Viking79. Depends what you’re trying to do and what you consider important.


OK well you have no experience using a light meter to set exposure times, that is quite clear. If you had you would have learnt this lesson in practice.

Let me repeat it for you as you are clearly thick. Aperture is used for calculating the light gathering area relative to the focal length of the lens, it has nothing to do with your sensor size. If you want to learn how to properly measure DOF, there are much more things to take into consideration than just aperture

Aperture affects two aspects of your photograph and you are ignoring one of them. Dont say that aperture is equivalent because that only applies to DOF and not to area of exposure.

Or just keep on acting like a n00b and keep on doing what you’re doing.


This would be so much easier if you two would stop equivocating and specify DOF equivalence or exposure.


@Chekr – have you actually read what the original comment was about? Dpreview article says ” depth of field equivalent to an 90mm F4 on full-frame”. They are talking about DOF not exposure, and have made a calculation error while coming up with the FF equivalent for DOF – I hope you would agree that there is no interpretation under which this lens becomes an F4 equivalent.

Rage Joe

“For all practical purposes if you stood in the same spot, shot the same subject, had the same framing, used 42.5mm at 1.2mm ISO 100 on an m4/3, you would get a nearly identical image to a full frame sensor at 85mm at f/2.4, ISO 400.”

One more question:

Why did you put ISO 400 on a full frame sensor and ISO 100 on a m4/3, when that m4/3 is already shot with two stops wider aperture at f/1.2 compared to the full frame f/2.4?

keith james taylor

It sounds like good motivation to go out and sel some more piks to pay for them

Source Article from