Forum indexMicro Four Thirds TalkChange forum

The 12-35 mm for landscape.

Started 4 months ago | Discussion thread

Forum

sigala1

Senior Member • Posts: 2,044

Like?

Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.

In reply to ravinj, 4 months ago

ravinj wrote:

sigala1 wrote:

This review would have been more helpful if you took the same photo with a cheaper lens, and then compared to see if you were gaining anything by spending so much money on a lens.

Is there a cheaper 12-35 F2.8 lens in MFT mount? I would like to buy one.

There are four other MFT lenses that cover 12mm, plus several legacy 4/3 lenses, all less expensive.

Plus, if you zoomed in to 14mm, you could compare it against several 14-42 kit lenses.

Reply Reply with quote Complain

Post (hide subjects)	Posted by	When
The 12-35 mm for landscape.	gollywop	4 months ago	4
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	sigala1	4 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	ravinj	4 months ago	1
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	sigala1	4 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	ravinj	4 months ago	4
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	gollywop	4 months ago	1
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	gollywop	4 months ago	5
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	Pic Man	4 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	sigala1	4 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	amtberg	4 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	inasir1971	4 months ago
So......where are these pics?	RealPancho	4 months ago	2
Here are a few.	gollywop	4 months ago
Re: Here are a few.	RealPancho	4 months ago
And here's one with sharpening	gollywop	4 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	amtberg	4 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	Starred	4 months ago	1
Would love to see those in full size.	Paul De Bra	4 months ago
Re: Would love to see those in full size.	Starred	4 months ago
Unfortunately we have no access to original size.	Paul De Bra	4 months ago
Re: Unfortunately we have no access to original size.	gollywop	4 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	dgnelson	4 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	Ron Outdoors	4 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	Ron Outdoors	4 months ago
Would love to see these in full size.	Paul De Bra	4 months ago
Re: Would love to see these in full size.	Ron Outdoors	4 months ago
Don't understand it either but we really cannot see the originals.	Paul De Bra	4 months ago
Re: Don't understand it either but we really cannot see the originals.	gollywop	4 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	Bob Tullis	4 months ago	1
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	gollywop	4 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	RealPancho	4 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	Bob Tullis	4 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	RealPancho	4 months ago
Sigh I get so bored.....	papillon_65	4 months ago	8
Amen (nt)	gollywop	4 months ago	1
Re: Sigh I get so bored.....	Bob Tullis	4 months ago	1
Re: Sigh I get so bored.....	papillon_65	4 months ago
Re: Sigh I get so bored.....	Bob Tullis	4 months ago
Re: Sigh I get so bored.....	papillon_65	4 months ago
Re: Sigh I get so bored.....	RealPancho	4 months ago	1
Re: Sigh I get so bored.....	Chuck Eklund	4 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	gtravis	4 months ago
Purple fringing alert!	sigala1	4 months ago
Re: Purple fringing alert!	gtravis	4 months ago	1
Re: Purple fringing alert!	Bob Tullis	4 months ago
Re: Purple fringing alert!	Shirozina	4 months ago	1
Not every lens does this!	Paul De Bra	4 months ago
Re: Not every lens does this!	RealPancho	4 months ago	1
PF can be hard to remove in post, whereas CA is easy.	Paul De Bra	3 months ago
Re: PF can be hard to remove in post, whereas CA is easy.	RealPancho	3 months ago
Frank, here's a try.	gollywop	3 months ago
Re: PF can be hard to remove in post, whereas CA is easy.	secretworld	3 months ago
Re: Not every lens does this!	gollywop	4 months ago
Re: Not every lens does this!	Anders W	4 months ago	1
Re: Not every lens does this!	gollywop	3 months ago
Again, PF is not CA.	Paul De Bra	3 months ago
Re: Again, PF is not CA.	gollywop	3 months ago
Re: Again, PF is not CA.	Anders W	3 months ago
Re: Again, PF is not CA.	Paul De Bra	3 months ago
Re: Again, PF is not CA.	gollywop	3 months ago
Thanks a lot! That seems to actually work reasonably well.	Paul De Bra	3 months ago
Re: Thanks a lot! That seems to actually work reasonably well.	gollywop	3 months ago
Re: Again, PF is not CA.	Anders W	3 months ago
Re: Again, PF is not CA.	astone	3 months ago
Yep that is PF allright.	Paul De Bra	3 months ago
Re: Purple fringing alert!	Moonman52	3 months ago
Re: Purple fringing alert!	Bob Tullis	3 months ago
THIS IS HORRIBLE!	RealPancho	3 months ago
The fix actually isn't that easy...	Paul De Bra	3 months ago
Re: The fix actually isn't that easy...	RealPancho	3 months ago
I have quite a bit of experience with this problem...	Paul De Bra	3 months ago
Of course, you're right	RealPancho	3 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	MOD Aleo Veuliah	4 months ago	1
Good stuff, Golly	Hen3ry	4 months ago	1
Re: Good stuff, Golly	gollywop	4 months ago
Re: Good stuff, Golly	MOD Aleo Veuliah	4 months ago	1
You speakin' ta me?	dcassat	4 months ago	1
Re: You speakin' ta me?	MOD Aleo Veuliah	4 months ago	1
Re: You speakin' ta me?	ADSinger	4 months ago
Re: You speakin' ta me?	MOD Aleo Veuliah	4 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	Big Ga	3 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	gollywop	3 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	Bob Tullis	3 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	Big Ga	3 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	Bob Tullis	3 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	Big Ga	3 months ago
Bottom line: don't need f/2.8 for landscape	sigala1	3 months ago	1
Re: Bottom line: don't need f/2.8 for landscape	Moonman52	3 months ago
Re: Bottom line: don't need f/2.8 for landscape	gollywop	3 months ago
Re: Bottom line: don't need f/2.8 for landscape	Moonman52	3 months ago
Re: Bottom line: don't need f/2.8 for landscape	gollywop	3 months ago
Ths simple assertion is nonsense, of course…	Hen3ry	3 months ago
Re: Ths simple assertion is nonsense, of course…	sigala1	3 months ago
Re: Ths simple assertion is nonsense, of course…	amtberg	3 months ago
Re: Ths simple assertion is nonsense, of course…	gollywop	3 months ago
Re: Ths simple assertion is nonsense, of course…	String	3 months ago
No one said one did, Saddle Burr.	Bob Tullis	3 months ago
Re: Bottom line: don't need f/2.8 for landscape	Big Ga	3 months ago
Re: Bottom line: don't need f/2.8 for landscape	Shirozina	3 months ago
Re: Bottom line: don't need f/2.8 for landscape	Dawindyk	3 months ago
Is the 12-35 suitable for cat-scapes?	bluelemmy	3 months ago
Ther answer to edge softness is HERE...	Hen3ry	3 months ago	1
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	grampaeddy	3 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	Shirozina	3 months ago
Re: The 12-35 mm for landscape.	grampaeddy	3 months ago
FWIW, snapshot 'scapes w/7-14, 9-18, 12-35	Bob Tullis	3 months ago
Re: FWIW, snapshot 'scapes w/7-14, 9-18, 12-35	gollywop	3 months ago

Keyboard shortcuts:

FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads

Color scheme? Blue / Yellow

Editorial content

Product database

Community

Would you move to a full frame DSLR?	118
weekly wildlife 5/19-5/26	65
Got Flowers? VOLUME 3	59
Why is the 55-210 so big?	57
Is it OK to "steal" pictures for school ...	55
* this week through your m43 - 2013.05.20 *	53
FLICKR	48
Favorite walk-about lens	45
Sony A mount cameras could go mirrorless in 2014	40
My Friend + his daughter for retouch	39
OMD Shutter shock revisited...and a possible ...	38
RX100 concerns...	37
Canon 10mm vs 18mm for landscapes	36
Backup, if you don’t do it, do it now	35
I am downright impressed.....with the X-E1!	33
K-30 prices dropping, rebate, inventories low. ...	32
Omd Woes: How Prevalent?	31
Old cafe in Llanystumdwy for play	29
Pentax FF rumor gaining steam	29
Why does my photo lack detail...?	29