IQ of Panasonic 14-45 f3.5-5.6 vs. Panasonic 12-35 f2.8

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3208130

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3232058

I have used an E-pl1 and manual lenses, M. Zuiko lenses, etc. in misty/drizzely conditions for years (Pacific NW, USA) without any problems.

We have even had reports here in this forum of an E-p1 taking a dunking in a stream with no ill effects.

As long as you are talking about fresh water, I don't think a little moisture/humidity intrusion is going to do much-everything is low voltage (except maybe the flash charging circuit?).

TEdolph

I have used both, and was never wowed by the 14-45 like I was with the 12-35. The OIS of the latter is better, and I'd take the trade-off of 14 to 12 over 45 to 35 any day. The 12-35 feels like something special in the camera, while the 14-45 only feels like something good. The low-light performance doesn't compare.  Constant f2.8 aperture makes a big difference. Those are my thoughts.

Full review and comparison at  http://cameraergonomics.blogspot.com.au

Happy reading

Can't agree more. And I never consider 14-45 good for two reasons: 1) It's not special. It's questionable if there is significant advantage of mirrorless camera with this lens over high end compact camera with larger aperture and good lens. 2) Mine is not sharp at more used wider end, but it seems that this is not a problem of this lens in general.

By the way, here is an excellent review (i just think that OIS is underestimated here):

http://cameraergonomics.blogspot.com/2012/12/lens-test-panasonic-lumix-gx-12-35mm.html

Thanks everyone for your views and references. I read it all. What worries me the most is the report of chromatic abberation in the 12-35 with Olympus bodies. I have the E-M5. Hope to hear more in subsequent thread entries about that.

The other issue for me is, although there is almost universal praise for the IQ of the 14-45, I think I may have an even better than average copy of this lens. I just love it, and see little difference at 25mm than I get from the PL 25mm f/1.4.

--
Frank Paris

Everyone's perception of such things is different, but I find the rendering and sharpness of both the P25 and the P12-35 much better than the two copies of the 14-45 I have tried. The notion of someone purchasing a 12-35 on the merit of its weather sealing alone would never have occurred to me.

As far as the flare goes, the OMD is pretty flare-prone with the 12-35 fitted, but the lens is worth it overall. It's a special lens, and covers the vital 24-70 range that the majority of shots fall into. For the relatively few times you need longer, well, that's what the 45 and 75 are for, in my estimation. I just don't think you can get this sort of rendering in the OOF areas with the 14-45, much less combined with the laser sharpness present on the tag:

I have the 12-35 and E-M5. It's true that the lens exhibits chromatic aberration, which is noticeable mainly where a dark vertical object meets a light source, for instance an object silhouetted against a bright sky. If you only ever shoot JPEGs, it's a problem. If you shoot RAW, and to be frank there's little point in investing in equipment of this quality and not going down the RAW route, it's very easy indeed to fix the problem in mainstream PP software such as Lightroom or Aperture.

I strongly support this point of view. All this talk about CA corrections is just silly if you shoot RAW. It's usually only visible in images that will be printed or displayed large, and for those one would usually spend a fair amount of time fine-tuning in PP anyway.

I shoot JPEG/RAW. But I only use the JPEG to do a quick triaging. I go into Photoshop Elements for everything that makes it through the triaging. I also delete all the JPEGs and replace the triaged images with new JPEGs converted from TIFs. So if I notice any chromatic abberation, I could correct it then.

Before I commit to the 12-35, however, I'm going to want to see some examples of chromatic aberration using the E-M5. To partially fund it, I'll sell off my LP 45mm f/2.8 macro, which was rendered redundant when I bought the Olympus 60mm macro, which is currently my favorite lens.

--
Frank Paris

All the talk I've seen about chromatic aberration with the 12-35 on the E-M5 has only been rumors anyhow. What I'd like to see are full-res images that exhibited it "before and after PP."

I'm retired on a fixed income, so I have to be very careful about investments like this from my life savings. But I've been an avid photographer all my life, and photography is my greatest aesthetic passion, now that I'm retired (beats out listening to classical music by a hair). I financed my initial investment in MFT equipment by selling off all my Nikon equipment which included a D2x and 13 lenses. But that money is gone now.

The 12-35 lens would be the perfect "rainy day" walk around lens for me, since 3/4 of the days here in the Pacific Northwest are heavily overcast -- and wet!

--
Frank Paris

I don't keep my images in a way that makes it easy for me to post them here, but trust me (and man others who own or have tested this lens), it *does* exhibit chromatic aberration under the circumstances I've described. It's easily spotted looking at JPEGs or uncorrected RAW files. However it is also very easily corrected in any decent PR software. In Lightroom it's just a click of an eye-dropper. Then it's gone entirely: images are excellent.

I'm not thrilled to spend the money for the 12-35mm, but I can tell you the constant 2.8 is a total clincher for me.  It'll be more useful for my shooting. So I'm going to  save up and do it right (for me)  the first time., and bide my time with the kit lens.

It's disgusting and inexcusable but Photoshop Elements can't correct chromatic aberration. Right now I have no way to correct it.

--
Frank Paris

This, of course, is a constant refrain on this forum. My question is why can't JPEG be correct for CA? Certainly it could be  converted to many other formats, and processed in them. Why am I completely stuck with CA from JPEGs? (I hope the answer is not something stupid like nobody has implemented the algorithm for anything but RAW. But, then, maybe that would give some of us hope.)

--
The BoxerMan

For a cheap and good option to correct CA, PTLens does a good job. And it fixes lens distortion in a jiffy. I use it with LR4 Pretty sure you can batch process.

--
-------------------------------
www.simplyathos.com

Once an image is read into memory from disk, regardless of the format on disk, image processing programs are ignorant of the format on disk. The computer only sees an array of pixels. But every time you save that array to disk, the algorithm to compress to JPEG degrades the image. So don't start with a lossy compression format like JPEG. Saving to JPEG should be the last step of PP, and the last step of PP should be sharpening. I always work with TIF (a lossless disk format) until I'm ready to sharpen. Then I save to JPEG. But anything worth keeping I save the raw file in case I later change my mind or want to do some further experimenting. I don't keep TIF images on my hard disk after I've got an image the way I want it for keeping.

--
Frank Paris

Unless you are shooting mainly Raw and using LR4 or something that deals with CA and fringing properly, don't buy the 12-35 for use on Oly bodies. The price of LR is trivial compared to the lens, and will transform your workflow. No need to mess about with TIFs unless you are doing anything drastic. The control with graduated filters and brushes in LR4 is superb.

Bruce

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bruce-clarke/
Flickriver - view large on black as a stream:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/bruce-clarke/

I have both.  To be honest I can see virtually no difference in IQ.  The obvious reasons to choose the 12-35 over the 14-45 are the constant 2.8 aperture and the wider 12mm.

If you don't need those two things get the 14-45.