12-35mm vs 14-54 or 12-60

Started May 21, 2012 | Discussions
helimech
Contributing MemberPosts: 588Gear list
Like?
Re: less weather sealing too...
In reply to dgrogers, May 21, 2012

Well on panasonic's own site the only weather sealing they talk of is the mount seal. They do say the body is sealed but no reference is made as too how or what degree.

dgrogers wrote:

You mean the reports based off pre-production lenses? I wouldn't base anything off that.

helimech wrote:

Also based on initial reports of the "weather sealing" on the 12-35 it does not appear to be to the same standard as the Olympus lenses.

I can't really see any reason for this lens to be more than the 12-60 at the very least. Same number of elements, same type of elements (# of asphereical, ED...) but again the 12-60 has allot more range and is barely slower over the same 12-35.

The 12-60 is bigger (greater material cost) and with the current popularity of m4/3 there is likely a bigger market for a m4/3 lens so you should be able to produce more to lower costs further.

-- hide signature --

Completely infatuated with the "OMG"

 helimech's gear list:helimech's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 UMC Fisheye MFT +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MichaelKJ
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,011Gear list
Like?
Re: less weather sealing too...
In reply to helimech, May 22, 2012

If it is so inexpensive to develop new lenses, why haven't Oly and Pany come out with a plethora of m4/3 lenses. Especially, Oly, who already have 4/3 versions of high quality lenses. Do you have an opinion as to why they haven't simply made m4/3 versions of all of their 4/3 lenses? If all that is necessary is to machine the same lens at a smaller, and less expensive size, this would seem to be a no brainer.

The zuiko 4/3 70-300 retails at $480 and is currently at $399, while the m4/3 Oly 75-300 is $899 (and Oly can't be bothered to supply as lens hood). Why do you think that is? By your reasoning, a smaller lens costs less to manufacture. So, is Oly also gouging consumers? BTW, the Pany 100-300 has a retail price of $600. Why do you think the 75-300 is $300 more?

Of course, our debate is meaningless because Oly and Pany will seek to maximize their profits and could care less about fairness as long as there is sufficient demand for their products.

 MichaelKJ's gear list:MichaelKJ's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F31fd Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jun2
Senior MemberPosts: 2,208Gear list
Like?
I have 14-54 II
In reply to helimech, May 22, 2012

The auto focus speed of 14-54II is very reasonably. I got it for about $400 (used). Optics is very good. I have Oly 12mm f2. So I am not going to buy the new 12-35mm. I know it's a very nice lens.

 Jun2's gear list:Jun2's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Olympus Zuiko Digital 14-54mm 1:2.8-3.5 II Olympus Zuiko Digital 11-22mm 1:2.8-3.5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
helimech
Contributing MemberPosts: 588Gear list
Like?
Re: less weather sealing too...
In reply to MichaelKJ, May 22, 2012

Well at some point both the 12-60 and 14-54 were developed too. I never said it was inexpensive what I am getting at is that Panasonic is overpricing this lens by setting up a comparison to full frame 24-70mm lenses, which this is not.

My understanding (limited as it may be) is that one advantage to the m4/3 system is the short register distance which actually makes it easier to design wide angle lenses in comparison to full frame. Also factor in the size and ratio of the sensor sizes and it has to be harder especially in corners to develop a high quality full frame lens. Add to the fact the in general Panasonic can "under-design" some aspects of the lens and then use software to compensate and I have a hard time with people saying this lens is not overpriced.

And yes this is not a Panasonic only thing, I feel the Oly 12mm and especially the 75-300 are overpriced as well.

I totally agree that this is just a case of manufacturers trying to push to see how much the consumer is willing to pay while there is limited competition. I guess I was just trying to open some people's eyes to the lack of reason behind this latest lens's pricing.

MichaelKJ wrote:

If it is so inexpensive to develop new lenses, why haven't Oly and Pany come out with a plethora of m4/3 lenses. Especially, Oly, who already have 4/3 versions of high quality lenses. Do you have an opinion as to why they haven't simply made m4/3 versions of all of their 4/3 lenses? If all that is necessary is to machine the same lens at a smaller, and less expensive size, this would seem to be a no brainer.

The zuiko 4/3 70-300 retails at $480 and is currently at $399, while the m4/3 Oly 75-300 is $899 (and Oly can't be bothered to supply as lens hood). Why do you think that is? By your reasoning, a smaller lens costs less to manufacture. So, is Oly also gouging consumers? BTW, the Pany 100-300 has a retail price of $600. Why do you think the 75-300 is $300 more?

Of course, our debate is meaningless because Oly and Pany will seek to maximize their profits and could care less about fairness as long as there is sufficient demand for their products.

 helimech's gear list:helimech's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 UMC Fisheye MFT +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
s_grins
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,146Gear list
Like?
Re: 12-35mm vs 14-54 or 12-60
In reply to helimech, May 22, 2012

My bad, I've mixed up 14-54 with 14-45, and I offer my apology.

-- hide signature --

I’m surprised how much Wikipedia contributes to the forum.

 s_grins's gear list:s_grins's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-200mm F4-5.6 OIS Sigma 30mm F2.8 EX DN +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
helimech
Contributing MemberPosts: 588Gear list
Like?
Re: 12-35mm vs 14-54 or 12-60
In reply to s_grins, May 22, 2012

no problem. I would understand why you thought it was a bad comparison then.

s_grins wrote:

My bad, I've mixed up 14-54 with 14-45, and I offer my apology.

-- hide signature --

I’m surprised how much Wikipedia contributes to the forum.

 helimech's gear list:helimech's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 UMC Fisheye MFT +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gregm61
Forum ProPosts: 13,404Gear list
Like?
Re: 12-35mm vs 14-54 or 12-60
In reply to helimech, May 22, 2012

helimech wrote:

Maybe, but its on amazon for $1299 right now. Perhaps that will change by the time the actual release date comes but that is the current pricing to go by.

That may well be the price then. Going with a straight f2.8 instead of a variable set of something like f2.8-3.5 or f2.8-4 will jack the price. The folks who really need it will buy at that price, and if Panasonic sells 'em at that price, that's great for the system. It sure does look nice on that black E-M5 and I it bet it will with the GH2 successor very well too.

-- hide signature --

"There's shadows in life, baby.." Jack Horner- Boogie Nights

 Gregm61's gear list:Gregm61's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus E-300 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50mm 1:2.0 Macro +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dv312
Senior MemberPosts: 1,325Gear list
Like?
ditto here with 14-54 II
In reply to Jun2, May 22, 2012

Been using the venerable weatherproof 14-54mm II on my E-P3 as a kit zoom for a while now
AF is a bit sluggish but usable
Weight not too bad , could be lighter and smaller
Now compared to the Lumix 12-35mm what can I gain?

Specs wise the Lumix is slightly smaller in all dimensions , and about 135g lighter
AF is perhaps better and noise should be nil for videos

I'll be losing a bit at the long end and gain a tad at the short and half a EV at the tele

Would all that gain warrant a USD 900.00 difference? ( I bought my 14-54mm II for USD 400.00)

I'd say absolutely not! but given a second hand depreciation I may consider it for I 'd love to have that AF, and that smaller size; the 12mm end doesn't hurt either

The jury 's still out on the IQ but if it 's on par with the Oly then it's not bad
Now all that'd change if Oly decides to build a 14-54mm mft version
Cheers

 dv312's gear list:dv312's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M10
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
George Hsia
Senior MemberPosts: 1,780Gear list
Like?
Re: 12-35mm vs 14-54 or 12-60
In reply to helimech, May 22, 2012

Hi helimech,

helimech wrote:

Instead of comparing the 12-35 against full frame 24-70 lenses, especially in terms of price. What about comparing the Oly 14-54 or 12-60, at $600 and $1000 respectively. Way more range, and only about a half stop difference at 35mm.

I think you underestimate what an engineering feat this is. Look at the best zoom Oly can do. The 12-35mm is only slightly larger than the 12-50mm and the 12-50mm doesn't have OIS. Sure the range is smaller but the performance every aspect is higher, constant aperture, shorter minimum focus distance.

Personally I would way rather have a 14-54mm m4/3 version for $600-800 than the 12-35mm which for me personally is way overpriced. About the only drawback there could/would be is larger size but really with a lens like this what difference is a cm or two going to make.

Go ahead. That's the great thing about the system, there are plenty of options. I thought about it until I looked at the size.

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/special/matching.html

I would gladly save to buy a lens that delivers the performance I'm looking for.

-- hide signature --
 George Hsia's gear list:George Hsia's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital 14-54mm 1:2.8-3.5 Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
helimech
Contributing MemberPosts: 588Gear list
Like?
Re: 12-35mm vs 14-54 or 12-60
In reply to George Hsia, May 22, 2012

George Hsia wrote:
Hi helimech,

helimech wrote:

Instead of comparing the 12-35 against full frame 24-70 lenses, especially in terms of price. What about comparing the Oly 14-54 or 12-60, at $600 and $1000 respectively. Way more range, and only about a half stop difference at 35mm.

I think you underestimate what an engineering feat this is. Look at the best zoom Oly can do. The 12-35mm is only slightly larger than the 12-50mm and the 12-50mm doesn't have OIS. Sure the range is smaller but the performance every aspect is higher, constant aperture, shorter minimum focus distance.

Really based on its specs I don't feel it is anything spectacular as far as size goes, its pretty much exactly how big I thought it would be. Its only a 12- 35mm that's not exactly a huge range. I would have been more impressed if they managed to push it to f/2.0. If anything its maybe a little longer than I would have thought based on its focal range.

The 12-50 is not the best Oly can do, its just all they have done until now and if you take its price in a kit it's a quarter of the cost.

I think Olympus really thought the m4/3 was going to be more of a consumer system only. With the success of the 12mm and now the OM-D I think they realize the demand is there for higher end m4/3 products and we will see more... a la 75mm 1.8 and 60mm macro.

Personally I would way rather have a 14-54mm m4/3 version for $600-800 than the 12-35mm which for me personally is way overpriced. About the only drawback there could/would be is larger size but really with a lens like this what difference is a cm or two going to make.

Go ahead. That's the great thing about the system, there are plenty of options. I thought about it until I looked at the size.

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/special/matching.html

Read what I said... I would rather have a m4/3 version of the 14-54 that should sell for around the same price as the 4/3 version. Obviously there is not one as of yet. Again I wish Olympus would have produced that instead of the rather weak 12-50.

I would gladly save to buy a lens that delivers the performance I'm looking for.

-- hide signature --
 helimech's gear list:helimech's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 UMC Fisheye MFT +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MichaelKJ
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,011Gear list
Like?
Re: less weather sealing too...
In reply to helimech, May 22, 2012

It would be nice if we could get some idea of what it costs to develop and make mFT lenses. I don't disagree that the profit margin is high on these lenses. But, one could argue that this is the case for most higher end products. For example, Apple has much higher profit margins than its competitors because people are willing to pay a premium.

I think we agree that Oly and Pany have are charging a premium for many of their lenses. One has to wonder if they are pricing them at a point that is optimal for them.

 MichaelKJ's gear list:MichaelKJ's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F31fd Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dgrogers
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,650
Like?
Re: less weather sealing too...
In reply to helimech, May 22, 2012

What would b the point of having a mount seal when the lens itself couldn't handle the elements?

helimech wrote:

Well on panasonic's own site the only weather sealing they talk of is the mount seal. They do say the body is sealed but no reference is made as too how or what degree.

-- hide signature --

Completely infatuated with the "OMG"

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Melbourne Park
Senior MemberPosts: 2,405Gear list
Like?
Re: 12-35mm vs 14-54 or 12-60
In reply to helimech, May 22, 2012

helimech wrote:

Read what I said... I would rather have a m4/3 version of the 14-54 that should sell for around the same price as the 4/3 version. Obviously there is not one as of yet. Again I wish Olympus would have produced that instead of the rather weak 12-50.

I would gladly save to buy a lens that delivers the performance I'm looking for.

-- hide signature --

Width costs money though. As an example: Olympus's 11-22, cost more than the 14-54II, and is around the same size. Its F/3.5 at 22mm. Its only a 2xs zoom too.

The comment though about the 12-35 - which is a three times zoom - being an F/2.0, is interesting. But - look at how much the F/2.0 zoom lenses cost from Olympus. They cost a lot. And the F/2.0 12mm m43 lens, costs $900. However - its is small, and beautifully made. Could a 12-24 F/2.0 have been made by Panasonic, that would have cost $1,500? Perhaps not ... but if they had of done that, then it would have sold IMO, as long as it wasn't very big. And that is another issue.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rovingtim
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,926
Like?
retrofocus ... (I think its called)
In reply to helimech, May 22, 2012

helimech wrote:

My understanding (limited as it may be) is that one advantage to the m4/3 system is the short register distance which actually makes it easier to design wide angle lenses in comparison to full frame.

The shorter register distance means you don't need to retrofocus (if I got that term right) a lens that has a shorter focal length than the register distance. That allows much smaller lenses in the short focal range. ie compare the two 7-14's.

However, the shorter register distance also makes telecentricity a much greater optical challenge which is one reason why we are seeing more vignetting in m4/3rds.

A shorter register distance doesn't make wides better. The 4/3rds 7-14 is optically better than the m4/3rds. Unfortunately, the 4/3rds lens is also enormous ... about the same size as a brighter FF lens covering the equivalent focal range.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jake21
Contributing MemberPosts: 511
Like?
Re: ditto here with 14-54 II
In reply to dv312, May 22, 2012

One thing that was not mentioned is optics. I actually dont know how the 12-35 compares to the 14-54 optically. Do you ?

I was sort of interested in the 12-35 when it was rumored to be around $1100; I think at $1600 I'm not real sure I want to go that route. When I used an aria for about 5 years; my go to lens was the 35-70f4 (great lens). Not sure if the 12-35 will compare (optically) but the 35-70f4 only cost around $400.

dv312 wrote:

Been using the venerable weatherproof 14-54mm II on my E-P3 as a kit zoom for a while now
AF is a bit sluggish but usable
Weight not too bad , could be lighter and smaller
Now compared to the Lumix 12-35mm what can I gain?

Specs wise the Lumix is slightly smaller in all dimensions , and about 135g lighter
AF is perhaps better and noise should be nil for videos

I'll be losing a bit at the long end and gain a tad at the short and half a EV at the tele

Would all that gain warrant a USD 900.00 difference? ( I bought my 14-54mm II for USD 400.00)

I'd say absolutely not! but given a second hand depreciation I may consider it for I 'd love to have that AF, and that smaller size; the 12mm end doesn't hurt either

The jury 's still out on the IQ but if it 's on par with the Oly then it's not bad
Now all that'd change if Oly decides to build a 14-54mm mft version
Cheers

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gabi
Senior MemberPosts: 1,785Gear list
Like?
Re: ditto here with 14-54 II
In reply to Jake21, May 22, 2012

Jake21 wrote:

One thing that was not mentioned is optics. I actually dont know how the 12-35 compares to the 14-54 optically. Do you ?

Here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jazzcrab/sets/72157629604375120/
you may have a look at a few sample pictures of the 14-54 II on the E-M5.

Optically it is very good but it is somewhat bulkier and heavier than the 12-35 and the autofocus is slow, although okay if you don't want to shoot action pictures. In good light it takes a little less than a second, in bad light up to 2 seconds for focussing (that is a rough subjective estimation).
--
Gabi

http://www.gabis-galleries.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jazzcrab

 Gabi's gear list:Gabi's gear list
Olympus Stylus 1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Moonlight Knight
Regular MemberPosts: 150
Like?
Re: ditto here with 14-54 II
In reply to Gabi, May 22, 2012

Anyone knows the maximum aperture of 14-54mm II at 35mm? Thanks.

If the 14-54mm II is nearly as sharp as the 12-35mm, I'd consider buying a used 14-54mm II instead. I think I can tolerate the slightly slower AF.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Macx
Senior MemberPosts: 1,248Gear list
Like?
Re: ditto here with 14-54 II
In reply to Moonlight Knight, May 22, 2012

Maximum aperture of the 14-54 at 35 is f/3.2, in other words it's 1/3 of a stop slower than the 12-35

Moonlight Knight wrote:

Anyone knows the maximum aperture of 14-54mm II at 35mm? Thanks.

If the 14-54mm II is nearly as sharp as the 12-35mm, I'd consider buying a used 14-54mm II instead. I think I can tolerate the slightly slower AF.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TrapperJohn
Forum ProPosts: 10,038Gear list
Like?
Real world prices and AF speed
In reply to helimech, May 22, 2012

In the real world, 12-60 prices have plummeted. Typically, they're in the $500-600 range, and I saw two sell recently for under $500. That's used, but you won't see 12-35 prices drop any time soon. The 14-54II is in the low $400's, and I'd hate to think what my old 14-54I sells for.

Then, there is AF speed. Even on the EM5, which is greatly improved in this respect, ZD AF is still slow, in the 1.5 second range. It's a lot more consistent and accurate than it was on the Pens (where ZD AF was so inconsistent it was pretty much hopeless), but that relegates it to static subjects only. I assume the 12-35 is a quick focuser. There is the 14-54II which is supposed to have better AF times.

The 12-60 is also not a small lens. Handles well on a gripped EM5, but not very well on a smaller GF/GX or Pen body.

Personally, I would have preferred Olympus omit the power zoom and macro on the 12-50, and recreate the 12-60 for M43 in an IQ optimized manner. Perhaps they will do this.

 TrapperJohn's gear list:TrapperJohn's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
helimech
Contributing MemberPosts: 588Gear list
Like?
Re: ditto here with 14-54 II
In reply to Moonlight Knight, May 22, 2012

The 14-54 is a great lens I doubt there is any discernible sharpness difference. Just a size and AF speed difference, which if Olympus would just make a m4/3 version that would be taken care of.

Moonlight Knight wrote:

Anyone knows the maximum aperture of 14-54mm II at 35mm? Thanks.

If the 14-54mm II is nearly as sharp as the 12-35mm, I'd consider buying a used 14-54mm II instead. I think I can tolerate the slightly slower AF.

 helimech's gear list:helimech's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 UMC Fisheye MFT +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads