Panasonic GH5 to be released in early January, three new Leica DG f/2.8-4.0 MFT zoom lenses coming in 2017

The Panasonic GH5 camera is rumored to be officially released in early January. For a short period of time today B&H had listed on their website that the GH5 pre-orders will start at 1 pm on January 4th, 2017 (the text is now removed). The GH5 was announced at Photokina, but no additional information was provided. The only specs listed on the product page so far are:

According to the latest Panasonic roadmap from Photokina, there will also be three new Leica Hybrid f/2.8-4.0 MFT zoom lenses in 2017:

  • Leica DG 12-60mm f/2.8-4.0 standard zoom lens (expected 2016)
  • Leica DG 8-18mm f/2.8-4.0 wide zoom lens (expected 2017)
  • Leica DG 50-200mm f/2.8-4.0 telephoto zoom lens (expected 2017)

Images credit: EngadgetNewsshooter

This entry was posted in Panasonic and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • MonkeySpanner

    OMFG – those lenses sound effin sweet. Take my damn money.

  • peevee

    I bet 12-60/2.8-4 is going to cost more than $700 you can get Oly 12-40/2.8 now (which is too much anyway). With cropping, at 60mm the Oly will be equivalent to f/4.2. Meanwhile between 13-55mm or so, it will beat the 12-60/2.8-4 for equivalent aperture, light collected and everything stemming from it (noise, DoF, DR…)

    And it maintains aperture setting when zooming, and has snap focus.

    Too bad Oly cameras do not have smooth digital crop (the simplest feature to make), only 2x “teleconverter” which is often too much.

    • Eno

      The Sony Zeiss 16-70mm f/4 was around 1000$ at launch but optically is terrible!
      Nikon 16-80mm f/2,8-4 was also arround 1000$ at launch, it’s AF is terrible and optically is only mediocre.
      The new PanaLeica 12-60mm f/2,8-4 will probably (definitely) be much better optically, will focus much faster and for the same price will bare the Leica logo. It’s a fear deal I think. 🙂

      • Max

        The 16-80 does everything well, actually. But yes still overpriced

        • Eno

          Actually it does not!
          It was the first lens with which I tested the D500 and was blown away about how slow the AF was focusing (silent but extremely slow). I think the very cheep kit lens (18-55mm VR 2) focuses similarly if not a little bit faster.
          Optically at it’s maximum aperture it’s good in the center but week on the borders and terrible on the corners.
          Sigma C 17-70mm f/2,8-4 at much lower price it’s better optically and focuses much faster (unbelievable but true).

        • Sakaphoto Graphics

          At least, it’s good for you, but everything else that I’ve seen suggests it isn’t very good.

      • peevee

        “The Sony Zeiss 16-70mm f/4 was over 1000$ at launch but optically is terrible!”

        You mean 24-70. It is not terrible, and in m43 terms it is equivalent to 12-35/2.

      • peevee

        The point of my post is if you are willing to crop, Oly 12-40/2.8 is going to be a better deal at $700 if the Pana is priced above $600 or so.

        • Eno

          All the lenses mentioned above were around 1000$ at launch. It’s normal now, after a couple of years to be cheaper.
          I have a feeling this lens will be very good and it will complement the Gh5 just nicely. 🙂

      • Ritvar Krum

        can 100% agree on Zeiss 16-70 and Nikkor 16-80… those are complete garbage kit lenses that should be priced around 200$… nikkor at least had same in past with 16-85 – also a 600$+ lens but quality on par with ceap 18-105.

  • ZMWT

    Panasonic and Leica seems best to understand where tech meets the optics. Nothing but superb releases from them for the m4/3, both in terms of cameras and optical performance. Hands down, this is the smartest trajectory in digital photography world currently, bar none.

    • John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmid

      Succinct and well put. Owning two of them, I have to agree.

      The lenses are simply bulletproof and flawless.

    • Marc P.

      I do prefer Sony & Zeiss….like that Combo much more. Zeiss Lenses are historically a tad sharper as their Leica counterparts, do have more 3D Pop, Microcontrast, and are a hell lot cheaper (compared to horrible expensive M-Mount lenses).
      …and both are german old school brands, too. 😉

  • Azmodan

    Something doesn’t add up. 6K video is 19MP so how can they use an 18MP sensor? Given 6K is a 16:9 format the minimum 4:3 resolution they could offer is 6144 x 4608 = 28MP.

    • That’s a good point. I remember it being hinted that the camera wouldn’t do 6K video, but would grab 6K stills (maybe in 4:3).

      What would be really interesting is if the GH5 downsamples its 4K from the whole width of the sensor, and re it’s that in 10-bit. That would give it a feature only RED cameras could rival. Of course, it’s a smaller sensor, etc., but that would be a pretty crazy move.

  • peevee

    It is f/3.1 in m43 in total light too. DoF is created by light. That extra blur comes from extra photons captured, and they are captured not just from OOF areas.

    • Eno

      The total amount of light focused by the lens to the sensor is described by the T number which is close to the f number for most lenses and has nothing to do with you theory.
      Current best M4/3 sensors are comparable to previous 35mm ones like Nikon D3 or Canon 5D but in a quarter of the space. 🙂

      • duck

        If the FF equivalent aperture is F4, it applies to both DOF & overall light.
        Also, you shall also note that ISO 100 on a M4/3 is equivalent to ISO 400 on a FF .

        • Eno

          Your comment totally absurd, the ISO abbreviations stands for: The “International Organization for Standardization”.
          The ISO standard ISO 12232:2006
          gives digital still camera manufacturers a choice of five different
          techniques for determining the exposure index rating at each sensitivity
          setting provided by a particular camera model. The standard specifies the measurement of light sensitivity of the
          entire digital camera system and not of individual components such as
          digital sensors.

          In short, ISO x number must be consistent regarding light sensitivity for any camera manufacturer, regardless of sensor size, type, etc used. 🙂

      • peevee

        “The total amount of light focused by the lens to the sensor is described by the T number”

        Wrong, intensity of the light per unit of area is described by T-number. Not total light.

        • Eno

          Your definition is also not acurate: ” intensity of the light per unit of area is described by T-number.”

          In physics, intensity is the power transferred per unit area, where the area is measured on the plane perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the energy. In the SI system, it has units watts per square metre (W/m2).

          A T-stop (for transmission stops) is an f-number adjusted to account for light transmission efficiency (transmittance).

          Transmittance of the surface of a material is its effectiveness in transmitting radiant energy. It is the fraction of incident electromagnetic power that is transmitted through a sample.

          The f-number of an optical system is the ratio of the lens’s focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil.
          In other words, an f/x is the same for any y focal length, regardless of it’s format.

          • peevee

            Look at you, you finally read up a little bit. BTW, my words are absolutely correct, I never claimed that intensity of light is proportional to T-stop, or depend on T-stop ONLY – obviously, only for the same subject.

            All the latter is just you trying to get out of ust admitting that you were wrong, and the same T-stop on one sensor does not capture the same light on that sensor as a lens with the same T-stop with a sensor of different size. From the same subject, at the same T-stop (and approximately the same f-stop – for all practical purposes T-stops of lenses with the same f-stop are the same), and in the same exposure time, a sensor receives amount of light proportional to its size (more precisely, active area).

            QE plays a role but for sensors in the same generation is it practically the same. Although for a last couple of years m43 is behind, even APS-C and FF has moved on to BSI and copper wiring (not that it makes much difference at this low pixel densities).

          • Eno

            I see you like to play “smart”, you’ve just written: “intensity of the light per unit of area is described by T-number. Not total light.” and I’ve prove you wrong with correct terminology that you can’t bypass!

            T-number will, by definition, transmit the same amount of light regardless of sensor size attached to that particular lens.

            A T/2,8 50 mm medium format lens has exactly same transmission regardless if you mount a MF or a 1″ sensor on it and the final exposure for a given shutter speed and ISO will be IDENTICAL!

            O and by the way, the newest m4/3 sensor equals in quality the past FF sensors. Quite an achievement for such a small sensor wouldn’t you say? 😉


  • Eno

    If you can’t cope with either rational talk or clear definitions means either you have no idea what are you talking about or you are just trolling. I tend to incline it’s the latter.

    The 35mm format is not the holly grail of photography, it’s just one format from many others, it’s not even the most used one (it’s more like a niche actually).

    • duck

      The moment you can’t contribute anything meaningful to the topic…. lol

  • Back to top