Panasonic Introduces 8mm Fisheye for Micro Four Thirds

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/prModelDetail?storeId=11301&catalogId=13251&itemId=414080&modelNo=Content05282010042511700&surfModel=Content05282010042511700' target='_blank'>http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wc...282010042511700</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"Today, Panasonic introduced the LUMIX G Fisheye 8mm/F3.5 lens, the H-F008, with a 35mm camera equivalent 16mm lens, the world&rsquo;s smallest and lightest* digital interchangeable fisheye lens compatible with the LUMIX G Series, DSL Micro (DSLM) cameras."</em></p><p><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/dht/auto/1275525777.usr15670.jpg" style="border: 0;" /></p><p>Panasonic has announced an 8mm fisheye lens for the Micro Four Thirds system. Being a full-frame fisheye, it'll cover the entire sensor while offering a 180mm degree field of view, which is pretty much the standard ever since Nikon introduced the 16mm fisheye years ago. Now, what I have to say to Panasonic is...what are you thinking? <MORE /></p><p>Seriously, the fisheye is a niche lens, prone to gimmicky overuse (especially by those who've discovered it for the first time). There are *huge* gaps in the Micro Four Thirds lens lineup if it is going to meet the needs and wants of its two main buyers currently: People crossing over from compacts, and those who are buying it as a lightweight second system.</p><p>For the former, Micro Four Thirds needs more zoom lenses. The kit is fine, but it's a bit boring and slow. There needs to be a faster (maybe f/4 constant) zoom lens in the 14-50 range, and maybe an extended zoom in the 14-60 range. A lightweight 35-150 might be appreciated as well, instead of the larger 45-200. Or maybe something that goes a little wider, like a 12-40.</p><p>For the latter group, I'm still waiting for my wide angle prime. Where's the 10mm or 12mm f/2.8? The portrait shooters want their 50mm f/2s. The street photographers want their 17mm f/1.4s. A longer telephoto prime might be appreciated too, like a 100mm f/2.8.</p><p>So many gaps, and what we get is a gimmicky fisheye. *sigh*</p>

[Janak Parekh]

Well, there is the Panasonic 14-140mm (28-280mm 35mm equivalent) that is pretty excellent for outdoor shots. Admittedly, it's f/4.0-5.8, so it's not the greatest in low-light, but it's become my favorite all-around lens. It's compact and takes good pictures, and has the silent autofocusing mechanism useful for HD video.

--janak

[Jason Dunn]

Well said Lee! I bought the 14-45 lens, which is f/3.5 to f/5.6, and I was so disappointed with it, I returned it to the store for a refund. I think I'm spoiled by shooting with f/2.8 and faster glass - the GF1 takes crappy photos at ISO 1600 compared to my D300, and when when you're racked out to 45mm on that lens, and you're at f/5.6, you have no choice but to go into high ISO territory. So now I'm back to only using my 20mm f/1.7, because the speed of the glass keeps the ISO nice and low. What I'd really like to see is a 17-55mm type lens, but f/2.8 all the way through the range.

Actually, what I'd like to see are any lenses that are thinner than the 20mm kit lens - anything to make the camera a bit smaller overall...

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Whoa, more m4/3 people then I thought. I forgot that Jason ended up buying a GF1 as well. :D

I have the 14-140. It's not a bad lens, but it's a bit slow, and like most modern super zooms, image quality starts dropping the more you zoom to the telephoto end.

I'm a bit wary of advocating for a 14-35/2.8, because I think it'll be more the size of the 14-140 than the 14-45. And lenses thinner than the 20mm? Well, the upcoming 14/2.8 seems to be that. However since I use the GH1, I can stand lenses that a little thicker. :D