On July 8, 2021, the Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Summilux 1: 1.7 / 25-50 ASPH lens was officially announced. (H-X2550).
Leica DG Vario-Summilux 1: 1.7 / 25-50 ASPH. (Panasonic H-X2550)
Basic properties
- For Panasonic mirrorless cameras Micro 4/3 systems
- One of the fastest zoom lenses in the world
- Addition to the previous unique Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Summilux 10-25mm f / 1.7 ASPH.
- Relative Hole: 1: 1.7-1: 16
- Focal length: 25-50 mm (EGF 50-100mm)
- MDF: 0.28 meters
- Maximum magnification ratio 1: 4.77
- Optical design: 16 elements in 11 groups, includes 1 aspherical element, 3 ED elements, 1 super high refractive index element
- Aperture: 9 rounded blades
- Aperture control ring
- Internal focusing, linear focusing motor
- Filter Diameter: 77 mm
- Professional, protected lens
- Weight: 654 grams
- Price: about $ 1.800. All prices for modern Panasonic lenses can be see here.
Appearance
All Panasonic Lenses for Micro 4/3
- 8mm f / 3.5 Fisheye
- 9mm f / 1.7 LEICA
- 12mm f / 1.4 LEICA
- 12.5 f / 12 G 3D
- 14mm f / 2.5
- 14mm f / 2.5 II
- 15mm f / 1.7 LEICA
- 20mm f / 1.7
- 20mm f / 1.7 II
- 25mm f / 1.4 LEICA
- 25mm f / 1.4 LEICA II
- 25mm f / 1.7
- 30mm f / 2.8 MACRO OIS
- 42.5mm f / 1.2 LEICA OIS
- 42.5mm f / 1.7 OIS
- 45mm f / 2.8 LEICA MACRO OIS
- 200mm f / 2.8 LEICA OIS
- 7-14mm f / 4
- 8-18mm f / 2.8-4 LEICA
- 10-25mm f / 1.7 LEICA
- 12-32mm f / 3.5-5.6 OIS
- 12-35mm f / 2.8 OIS
- 12-35mm f / 2.8 OIS II
- 12-35mm f / 2.8 OIS LEICA [2022]
- 12-60mm f / 2.8-4 LEICA OIS
- 12-60mm f / 3.5-5.6 OIS
- 14-42mm f / 3.5-5.6 OIS
- 14-42mm f / 3.5-5.6 OIS II
- 14-42mm f / 3.5-5.6 OIS PZ
- 14-45mm f / 3.5-5.6 OIS
- 14-140mm f / 4-5.8 OIS
- 14-140mm f / 3.5-5.6 OIS
- 14-140mm f / 3.5-5.6 OIS II
- 25-50mm f / 1.7 LEICA
- 35-100mm f / 2.8 OIS
- 35-100mm f / 2.8 OIS II
- 35-100mm f / 2.8 OIS LEICA
- 35-100mm f / 4-5.6 OIS
- 45-150mm f / 4-5.6 OIS
- 45-175mm f / 4-5.6 OIS PZ
- 45-200mm f / 4-5.6 OIS
- 45-200mm f / 4-5.6 OIS II
- 50-200mm f / 2.8-4 LEICA OIS
- 100-300mm f / 4-5.6 OIS
- 100-300mm f / 4-5.6 OIS II
- 100-400mm f / 4-6.3 LEICA OIS
- 100-400mm f / 4-6.3 LEICA OIS II
Materials on the topic
- Full frame mirrorless systems... Discussion, choice, recommendations.
- Cropped mirrorless systems... Discussion, choice, recommendations.
- Cropped mirrorless systems that have stopped or are no longer developing
- Digital SLR systems that have stopped or are no longer developing
- JVI or EVI (an important article that answers the question 'DSLR or mirrorless')
- About mirrorless batteries
- Simple and clear medium format
- High-speed solutions from Chinese brands
- All fastest autofocus zoom lenses
- All fastest AF prime lenses
- Mirrored full frame on mirrorless medium format
- Autofocus Speed Boosters
- One lens to rule the world
- The impact of smartphones on the photography market
- What's next (smartphone supremacy)?
- All announcements and novelties of lenses and cameras
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval.
Fast, but not cheap.
Darkness. (almost) two thousand bucks for the glass to the micra, to its fine-grained matrix. Juit.
I don’t understand who buys a 4/3 system and even more such lenses !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Who is hooked on it and cannot get off it, the same is with the crop 1.5, 1.6
A creditable thing, it's worth saying. It is correct to release such high-aperture optics on the crop - there it reveals all its advantages. And the further you go towards large formats, the less use of a large aperture in principle. And if in the mirror this somehow influenced the brightness of the picture in the viewfinder, then in the era of the UPC, even through a dark zoom at dusk, you can target gray cats.
If only a suitable railway.
A bit on the contrary - this crop reveals all its pluses (or rather, even gets rid of minuses) with similar optics.
And this ... There is always a good thing from a large aperture, do not forget that a large aperture can always be covered if necessary, but on the contrary, it is hardly very likely.
A large aperture is your favorite, from which most often in a full frame there is just no sense due to the thinnest depth of field, it translates into completely unpresentable weight, dimensions and cost. With decent image quality, of course, and not “typical fifty dollars for a soft female portrait in a high key”.
As a rule, in words, everyone wants a top-end aperture. And then either they play with bokeha until the end of their lives, eroding 90% of any plot into trash, or they have 2 percent of the entire mass of images in the archive in the archive.
Regarding the crop, getting rid of the minuses ... Where is the line in general when some format is considered not the owner of solid minuses relative to another? The micra is always worse than the one and a half crop in everything, the crop is always worse than the full frame ... And the full frame will turn out to be worse than the current crop from the medium format, and then 6x9 matrices may roll up and they will again be in something better! And then the gods will come with gimbals and their 8x10 inches in the rear standard and look at us from high. This I mean that it may be enough to already have such a negative attitude to life, and it's time to start perceiving formats from the point of view of their potential advantages in certain tasks?
Where is she the thinnest? 35 1.4 for height 40cm DOF, 85 1.4 for height similarly (with appropriate distances).
Or are you talking about those cases about which the forums like to shout “one eye is not in focus, the other is not” when they are trying to get a big face at 1.2? Well, here sszb seems to be like, no? After all, the head should serve a person not only to eat in it.
This is always the case! At the most interesting place, everything went into portraits ...
Well, macro shooting at f / 0.795 seems like no one suggested doing -_-
Good for reporting in difficult conditions, light weight. Cons: low zoom ratio, boring as a portrait nickname is equivalent to 3,4 grip. In general, an under-portrait, an under-reporter. A cheap 70-200 / 4 in full frame will plug him in the belt. Larger zoom range, about the same weight, f4 versus 3,4 grip, but at large focal lengths it is more interesting as a portrait lens. Full frame ISO workers compensate for aperture
It's funny that many still consider lenses with less depth of field to be the equivalent of a good portrait lens))
The subject is the most reporter in the near field, also protected by the word (unlike the aforementioned 70-200 f4l), well, the full-frame iso workers compensate for the aperture, but the DD as you increase the ISO is known to sag quite strongly.
“And protected by the word” - to which word is he protected?
What is the level of protection against drops, theft, open fire, acids and alkalis?
Okay, if everything is like everyone else, then it's a very simple question - what is the level of protection according to the international IP classification (Ingress Protection) from the ingress of external solid objects and (or) water?
For example, the Leica Q2 has an IP rating of 52, which means that the device is protected against dust and vertical drops of water at an angle of up to 15 °. And what is the lens discussed here really “protected” from?
Elementary Watson. From the same thing that most models of fujifilm, canon, olympus and others are protected from, for which the degree of protection according to the IP classification is not indicated, however, there are additional seals for "dust and moisture", which quite cope with precipitation and dust.
Although I am not Watson, my answer is that marketing tales that are not supported by the appropriate technical characteristics about some kind of imaginary “protection” are not only useless, but also harmful - they create a false sense of “security”. If you carefully read the technical specifications of various cameras and lenses, it quickly turns out that manufacturers guarantee equipment operation in a small temperature range (usually from 0 to 40 ° C) and especially humidity (usually no higher than 85%). Operation of the equipment under any other conditions is not intended or guaranteed. Rare exceptions usually concern cameras with non-interchangeable optics, and then the degree of protection is honestly declared.
All stories about fictional "weather protection" are designed for gullible consumers who are not inclined to analyze the advertising information they receive, but are ready to retell it for free in the future.
There is only one answer to your statement “there are additional seals for“ dust and moisture ”that can cope well with precipitation and dust” - this information is not confirmed by anything, the level of protection is not defined, and the use of the estimated turnover “completely” only emphasizes the complete absence of any specific information.
To trust or not to trust the manufacturer's “marketing” statements is exclusively a personal matter for each consumer, of course. And despite all the "imaginary" protection, very many consumers use protected lenses / equipment in all sorts of difficult conditions and do not break off.
As for ip protection, it creates an equally false sense of protection, since the consumer himself, firstly, is not able to adequately assess the degree of impact, and secondly, the manufacturer always has loopholes. Remind the story of Sony's flagship smartphones, protected by as much as ip67 (or even 8), leaking with closed plugs and eventually being removed from the warranty for leaks?
Pazyazya, pazyazya, pazyazya! Show at least something filmed on Lake! All my life I dream of seeing this, touching the legend, marveling at the color or monochrome, in order to be injured for the rest of my life. Just don't merge like everyone else, please!
This subject is only 50 grams lighter than 24-70 / 4, here's a micra, more than 2 times more expensive, for reporting, the ability to reach further is preferable to aperture ratio
It is doubtful to compare it with 24-70, all the same glasses for different purposes.
There is a stub in new carcasses, and it is not applicable everywhere, the same mirror canon at 24-70 / 2.8, for example, still does not have a stub, which does not prevent it from being an excellent lens.
Yes, I meant 70-200 / 4 of course, but, as it were, 50-100 are not the most convenient focal points for reporting. Now, if they have 12-25 / 1,7, then here you can already comfortably remove the christening. I can't even imagine that you can report at 50-100, this is either not wide enough, or not far enough
As I understand it, he doesn't have a stub either, in general, pretty much everything