Comparing Pana 12-35mm zoom to some primes

Started Feb 13, 2013 | Discussions thread
pinnacle
Senior MemberPosts: 2,439Gear list
Like?
Re: The 12-35 f2.8 is good but...
In reply to RealPancho, Feb 14, 2013

RealPancho wrote:

pinnacle wrote:

RealPancho wrote:

pinnacle wrote:

RealPancho wrote:

pinnacle wrote:

RealPancho wrote:

pinnacle wrote:

It doesn't give us the "Wow!" that the older Olympus 14-35 f2.0 SHG gives you when you compare it to primes. I am hoping that Olympus will provide a similar lens that takes us to that level.

...and...uh...just remind us...what's the price tag on that baby?

If you are serious about perfection,

I think those who are serious about perfection don't use the 4/3 & m4/3 formats.

that lens is about as close as it gets. And yes, it has a hefty price tag.

so comparing it with the Panasonic doesn't seem completely fair, does it?

However, if you have owned one, you are aware of how special it is.

For now I'll stay with my Oly 12mm, Panny 20 f1.7, Panny/Leica 25, and the Oly 45mm to cover those focal lengths and have the advantage of the speed and better bokeh properties

There is that - bokeh

those lenses offer. Collectively they are more expensive and bulky than the 12-35 but, that is my compromise to have the better overall IQ for now.

It looks to me like your only getting marginally better IQ from the 12mm, and same or worse from the others. But I definitely respect your choice. It just doesn't work for me.

The only lens that may be a tad "worse" is the 25mm and the 25mm has something in the way of "character" which is hard to define but if you have one you will likely use it on solo treks on ocassion just because of the special rendering properties. Just which of those lenses are you suggesting is not better than the 12-35 at a matched focal length?

From the tests I've seen, the 20 and the 25.

I already gave you the 25 as not testing as well and how it well it actually performs in real world use...but ask a group of people who own one and there will be the real test. Now for the 20mm....where are the test results showing the side by side superiority of the 12-35? I have not seen any direct comparisons of the two by a known testing/review authority. Can you give me the reference that you are referring to please?

Dan

Dan

Dan

-- hide signature --

Life is good.

-- hide signature --

Frank

-- hide signature --

Life is good.

-- hide signature --

Frank

-- hide signature --

Life is good.

http://www.photozone.de/m43

-- hide signature --

Frank

I checked the data from both lenses on the site. It didn't help you.

Thanks, but I don't need any help.

Oh...I thought you posted the link to "help" you  support your suggestion that the 12-35 reviewed better than the 25mm f1.4?

For that site which is respected, the 25 had better resolution numbers and much, much better CA numbers. The reviewer gushed over how nice the bokeh of the 25 is.

Look at what you wrote above: you asked about the 20mm, which the tests on Photozone show to be inferior to the 12-35 at that focal length.

Well...except for one very important thing you missed in comparing the results...The 20mm was tested on a 12 megapixel body against the 12-35 on a 16 meg body. Of course the 12-35 will have higher resolution on a higher resolution body. That is why the lenses are grouped into two columns, left and right.

They did not show test results for the 12-35 @ 25mm, but if you take an average (unscientific, I realize) between the numbers at 20 and 35, they are pretty close, and look better at the edges, especially as you stop down. Finding much difference at that ONE focal length seems to be splitting hairs, in my opinion.

As for the CA, I disregard it because of LR4's ability to remove them so effectively. Sorry if that seems dismissive.

Do you have a different respected reviewer that reverses the data results showing the 25 having better results from the site you posted?

Dan

-- hide signature --

Life is good.

I'm not saying there aren't better lenses out there. My chief contention here is that when weighing all factors, there is nothing to top it in its range of focal lengths. If you try to cover the 12-35 range with primes, you'll be spending more money, and carrying too many lenses to be practical, most of which will get you only marginally better IQ at only one or MAYBE two FLs.

Well....except for bokeh which isn't a "marginal" kind of element in imaging. You can't fix poor characteristics of bokeh in post processing. And if you are an Olympus body user, you are going to be stuck with dealing with 12-35mm CA issues in post processing or just get used to the idea that it will be tolerated.

It's a good working method for some folks, but it simply isn't for me.

And that is the point that is probably the most important element in the discussion. Each of us makes a decision about the styles, methods, and particular needs we use in our unique situations. We each decide which lenses to carry along for a particular situation. There is no question that zooms minimize size and weight considerations for most situations. Some people own zooms and primes and accept the IQ (except for the Oly SHG class) compromises zooms impose in favor of size and weight (and cost) considerations for certain outings. I think for Panasonic body owners of the 12-35mm the IQ is at least competitive with primes. For Olympus body owners, it is a different animal because of the other CA issues mentioned earlier.

We all make compromises. The elements of those compromises are unique to each of us.

Dan

-- hide signature --

Frank

-- hide signature --

Life is good.

 pinnacle's gear list:pinnacle's gear list
Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm X-M1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R +6 more
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