12-35 unimpressive as a landscape lens

Started Jan 23, 2013 | Discussions thread
Shirozina
Regular MemberPosts: 278
Like?
Re: 12-35 unimpressive as a landscape lens
In reply to Sabatia, Jan 24, 2013

Sabatia wrote:

I don't look at DPReview every day, but when I do, I look at m4/3s and go down through the list of topics. I was simply shocked when I saw this. I have been doing photography pretty seriously for more than 30 years and have had hundreds of images published and hundreds of art prints sold. I mostly do wildlife and landscape. I migrated from Canon 40D and 70D with a passel of L lenses and the top of the line efs lenses to m4/3s about two years ago.

For my style of shooting, the 12-35 is the first lens that feels professional in quality and which has high resolution and rich color contrast. The zooms in this range give one the ability to frame and crop in full resolution. Since I print up to 17x24 on my pro printer, full resolution is important.

Finally, I just spent three months on the road in Yellowstone, Tetons, Glacier NP, Wind River Range, Beartooths and Badlands shooting up a storm. While I have two 14-42(kit and X) and three primes in this range, this is the lens that was on my camera probably 60% of the time. (Other key lens was the 100-300.) It was the only zoom that compared favorably with my now former L lenses. The sharpness and color of the 12-35 are just that great. So great that I pushed my financial limits and bought the 35-100. Even with the 35-100, the 12-35 is on my camera 60% of the time.

I too want to buy 35-100 but not if it has the issue I'm describing ( see my first post) with my 12-35. Have you noticed any obvious edge resolution loss ( at either end)?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow