Rumors Will 2024 be an exciting year for L-Mount?

[Travis Butler]

The Lumix S 20-60mm not small enough for you? It's a brilliant little lens, not at all big & heavy for the focal range.

It's a fine lens, and pairs well with the S5; but a big point of a rangefinder body is compact, and while the 20-60 is fairly compact for an L-mount zoom with that range, it's still fairly large in an absolute sense. At least compared to what I normally work with, film era primes and wide-to-midrange zooms. I can take some comparison shots tomorrow if you like; but it's probably at least 30-40% larger than, say, a film era Minolta 24-50 or 35-70, which filled much the same role.

More to the point, it balances poorly on my Sigma fp, which I'd guess is in at least the same ballpark as that hypothetical rangefinder Lumix L-mount.

Panasonic's kit zoom in the early M4/3 days was the 14-42, which wasn't bad. But it didn't really go well with their first rangefinder bodies, the GF1 and GX1; by the time they got to the ultra-small GM bodies, they designed a new lens to match them, the 12-32. And then they shipped that lens with all of the rangefinder-style bodies after that, IIRC - because it was a much better fit. So if they do a rangefinder L-mount, I'd like them to do something similar, and make a lens that better matches a smaller rangefinder body.

 

[dirk]

So if they do a rangefinder L-mount, I'd like them to do something similar, and make a lens that better matches a smaller rangefinder body.

I agree. A kit zoom for a small RF style camera needs to be significantly smaller than the 20-60 or 28-200 zoom - if they offer a a zoom with it at all.

Another great move would be, if they would offer a small RF style body with a new compact 28mm FFL or a small 40mm FFL as a "street photographer" edition. With small I mean maximum the size of the Sigma 45/2.8 DG DN i-series.

 

[D_Ch]

A 40mm 2.8, small and good, and get my money!

 

[Markuswelder]

Panasonic's kit zoom in the early M4/3 days was the 14-42, which wasn't bad. But it didn't really go well with their first rangefinder bodies, the GF1 and GX1; by the time they got to the ultra-small GM bodies, they designed a new lens to match them, the 12-32. And then they shipped that lens with all of the rangefinder-style bodies after that, IIRC - because it was a much better fit. So if they do a rangefinder L-mount, I'd like them to do something similar, and make a lens that better matches a smaller rangefinder body.

What sort of compromises would you accept, to get the reduction in size? With the 12-32mm, you lose the focus ring, some focal range, & glass that gives you a flatter, more subdued colour rendition. Don't get me wrong, I own a 12-32mm & have taken a lot of shots that I really like with it, but for me, the point of stepping up to a larger format is to get better image quality. Not sure how much I'd sacrifice for that, or just pick up my m4/3 gear instead.

 

[Markuswelder]

A 40mm 2.8, small and good, and get my money!

Indeed. Something the size & weight of my Canon EF 40mm f2.8 would go down an absolute treat.

 

[dirk]

What sort of compromises would you accept, to get the reduction in size? With the 12-32mm, you lose the focus ring, some focal range, & glass that gives you a flatter, more subdued colour rendition. Don't get me wrong, I own a 12-32mm & have taken a lot of shots that I really like with it, but for me, the point of stepping up to a larger format is to get better image quality. Not sure how much I'd sacrifice for that, or just pick up my m4/3 gear instead.

I think this depends a lot on how the RF style body is made/looking. If it is looking more classical, like a Fuji X camera, a zoom with no aperture ring does not make sense. A small FFL would be better than.

For a very small L-Mount zoom compromises have to be made in focal range, apertures and to some extent image quality. Similar to the MFT 12-32mm Kit zoom.

 

[Travis Butler]

What sort of compromises would you accept, to get the reduction in size? With the 12-32mm, you lose the focus ring, some focal range, & glass that gives you a flatter, more subdued colour rendition. Don't get me wrong, I own a 12-32mm & have taken a lot of shots that I really like with it, but for me, the point of stepping up to a larger format is to get better image quality. Not sure how much I'd sacrifice for that, or just pick up my m4/3 gear instead.

For a lens in this context? Focus ring and focal range. Make it a 2x zoom, say, a 20-40 or a 35-70. 35-70 was a classic film-era focal range for a reason, after all.

You have a point about IQ, but flip it around - what's the point of making a small, light rangefinder body if you only have large, bulky lenses to put on it?

It's certainly not impossible to make small, light high-quality lenses; both Pentax and Olympus were known for the size of their high-quality film-era glass, and both had nice small, light 35-70's. Minolta had some excellent moderate-sized zooms and small, light primes, like the MD-III 50/1.7 and MD-III 135/3.5.

 

[Quentinquirelino]

I think this depends a lot on how the RF style body is made/looking. If it is looking more classical, like a Fuji X camera, a zoom with no aperture ring does not make sense. A small FFL would be better than.

....

I personally would love something more modern looking. Like a Leica TL with EVF and some more dials and buttons. And a tilting screen.

 

[Markuswelder]

I think this depends a lot on how the RF style body is made/looking. If it is looking more classical, like a Fuji X camera, a zoom with no aperture ring does not make sense. A small FFL would be better than.

For a very small L-Mount zoom compromises have to be made in focal range, apertures and to some extent image quality. Similar to the MFT 12-32mm Kit zoom.

Personally, I think some small primes would be the best solution for keeping the size & weight reasonable, without unduly compromising image quality. Not necessarily pancakes, but as I wrote earlier, a 40mm pancake definitely wouldn't go astray. f2.8-f4 would work very well I think, if you want to shoot very low light, then throw in a flash perhaps.

 

[Nevyn72]

Personally, I think some small primes would be the best solution for keeping the size & weight reasonable, without unduly compromising image quality. Not necessarily pancakes, but as I wrote earlier, a 40mm pancake definitely wouldn't go astray. f2.8-f4 would work very well I think, if you want to shoot very low light, then throw in a flash perhaps.

I read somewhere that 80% of the new LUMIX camera's go to China, mostly new users who for the first time have enough to spend to afford a good camera.
I presume that what people in Europe, the USA, down under or even Japan want is not their most important concern.
They will make a small camera, what we MIGHT call a rangefinder, but big enough so that it will have enough standing (very important in China).
What was important in the past is not important for them, but I presume a big zoom will. That's why I think they will sell it together with the 28-200.

 

[dirk]

I read somewhere that 80% of the new LUMIX camera's go to China

I doubt that. For these numbers, too many L-Mount gear is in stock in Europe and the US.

 

[Nevyn72]

I doubt that. For these numbers, too many L-Mount gear is in stock in Europe and the US.

That might be, but if you combine it with this titbit...

Panasonic will announce a new “entry-level” Lumix in May - L mount system camera rumors and news

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8wkUhKPqs4 All I know for sure is that in May Panasonic will announce a new entry level cameras. Don't know if this is a new fixed lens model or a MFT or L-mount system camera... If you happen to know more about this model feel free to contact me at...

www.l-rumors.com

 

[Jayneboo]

I think this depends a lot on how the RF style body is made/looking. If it is looking more classical, like a Fuji X camera, a zoom with no aperture ring does not make sense. A small FFL would be better than.

For a very small L-Mount zoom compromises have to be made in focal range, apertures and to some extent image quality. Similar to the MFT 12-32mm Kit zoom.

I'm really struggling to think of any small. or otherwise zoom lenses with aperture rings, other than the Leica WATE or MATE which aren't really zooms just triple focal lengths.
Ok, got one, the Sigma 70-200 2.8 does have an aperture ring, I forgot.

 

[Quentinquirelino]

Personally, I think some small primes would be the best solution for keeping the size & weight reasonable, without unduly compromising image quality. Not necessarily pancakes, but as I wrote earlier, a 40mm pancake definitely wouldn't go astray. f2.8-f4 would work very well I think, if you want to shoot very low light, then throw in a flash perhaps.

The Sigma I series 17mm F4, 24mm f3.5 and 45mm F2.8 would be a nice set for a compact ranger finder style body. Maybe also the 90mm f2.8.

 

[D_Ch]

The Sigma I series 17mm F4, 24mm f3.5 and 45mm F2.8 would be a nice set for a compact ranger finder style body. Maybe also the 90mm f2.8.

Those are what i'm looking at IF they finally announce a RF style camera. Should Panasonic come out with an f2.8 series like the f1.8 but smaller, that'll be great; otherwise the Sigmas look more than ok to me.
As for zooms, i kept only the GX-80 from my m43 days, with the 12-32; i will probably get the 15mm 1.7 again and call it a day. My version of the X100.
I just don't care about zooms with this kind of camera; either too big or too limiting (aperture and IQ).

 

[CharlesH]

The A7CR appeals to me a lot. It's a very small rangefinder style 61 MP camera. Unfortunately its video function sucks. If Panasonic used that 61MP sensor in a rangefinder style camera with video that sucked less I would be the first in line.

 

[Oíche]

The A7CR appeals to me a lot. It's a very small rangefinder style 61 MP camera. Unfortunately its video function sucks. If Panasonic used that 61MP sensor in a rangefinder style camera with video that sucked less I would be the first in line.

Rumours are it is to be a cheaper camera, we will see but I wouldn't expect S5ii performance if this is the case.

 

[Nomad Nate]

Interesting - so among the current batch of rumors -a new sigma 24-70 2.8 is rumored to be announced in May that will be smaller, lighter, and sharper than the current model to compete with the GMII 24-70.

 

[Travis Butler]

Personally, I think some small primes would be the best solution for keeping the size & weight reasonable, without unduly compromising image quality. Not necessarily pancakes, but as I wrote earlier, a 40mm pancake definitely wouldn't go astray. f2.8-f4 would work very well I think, if you want to shoot very low light, then throw in a flash perhaps.

While small primes are nice, I think this isn't giving enough credit to the quality a good manufacturer can get out of small zooms.

I dunno, maybe my standards are too low. But take a look at these; what do you think?

20231118-SDIM8265 by Travis Butler, on Flickr
Sigma fp, Minolta MD 35-70/3.5 Macro

• 1/640 sec
• Pattern
• ISO 100

20231109-SDIM7978 by Travis Butler, on Flickr



20240412-SDIM9777 by Travis Butler, on Flickr
Sigma fp, OM Zuiko 35-70/3.5-4.5

 

[Markuswelder]

While small primes are nice, I think this isn't giving enough credit to the quality a good manufacturer can get out of small zooms.

I dunno, maybe my standards are too low. But take a look at these; what do you think?

20231118-SDIM8265 by Travis Butler, on Flickr
Sigma fp, Minolta MD 35-70/3.5 Macro

View attachment 370420231102-SDIM7899 by Travis Butler, on Flickr
Sigma fp, MD 35-70/3.5 Macro

View attachment 370520231011-SDIM7465 by Travis Butler, on Flickr
Sigma fp, MD 24-50/4

View attachment 370620230708-SDIM6292 by Travis Butler, on Flickr
Sigma fp, Konica Hexanon 35-70/3.5-4.5 Macro

View attachment 370720240411-SDIM9773 by Travis Butler, on Flickr
Sigma fp, Hexanon 35-70/3.5-4.5

20240412-SDIM9777 by Travis Butler, on Flickr
Sigma fp, OM Zuiko 35-70/3.5-4.5

I'll take a look tonight, as I'm only on the phone now.
The only thing I see with that, is a 2x zoom is pretty limited really. Maybe a 20-40mm might work, as long as it was small and had excellent image quality.
Personally, I'd still have to take something wide with me as 35mm really isn't wide enough. For me anyway. The 28mm of my Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 leaves me wanting, so I picked up the 14-28mm.
Each to their own though, I think that something quite small and compact would be best suited for travel purposes, where you do want a little bit of range. In m4/3 I'd take my 12-35mm f2.8 and PL 9mm, or Laowa 10mm, that was what suited how I see things.