Previous news story    Next news story

Panasonic Lumix G X 12-35mm F2.8 ASPH Power OIS hands-on preview

By dpreview staff on May 21, 2012 at 05:12 GMT

Just Posted: our hands-on preview of the Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 fast standard zoom for Micro Four Thirds. It's the first constant-aperture standard zoom for a mirrorless system - helping strengthen the position of the system developed by Panasonic and Olympus. We've been using a pre-production version of the lens on both makers' cameras, and have prepared a hands-on preview and a small gallery of sample images.

Comments

Total comments: 313
12
Couscousdelight
By Couscousdelight (May 21, 2012)

Why is that lens so big ?
Where is is gain in size offered by 4/3 format ?

what's the advantage to buy a 4/3 system if the lenses are the same size that APS-c or 35mm ?

2 upvotes
njkdo
By njkdo (May 21, 2012)

Maybe because it have 2.8 aperture....?

5 upvotes
ntsan
By ntsan (May 21, 2012)

Let see, Canon 17-55 F2.8 weigh 645g..

14 upvotes
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (May 21, 2012)

So big? Did you even look at the stats and compare it?

5 upvotes
Gethenderson
By Gethenderson (May 21, 2012)

But.. it's half the size of the 24-70mm f2.8 zooms, are you actually making this point by pointing out the opposite? Your comment is either genius or woefully uninformed.

9 upvotes
kavolis
By kavolis (May 21, 2012)

it's not the same size as APS-C or ff zoom lenses with f2.8. It's significantly smaller.

4 upvotes
Couscousdelight
By Couscousdelight (May 21, 2012)

Ok, my bad, it is smaller than a aps-c standard F2.8 zoom.

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (May 21, 2012)

It's not that big at all. Check here for a size comparison (second picture from top): http://www.dslrmagazine.com/pruebas/pruebas-tecnicas/panasonic-lumix-gx-vario-12-35-mm-f-2-8-asph-a-fondo.html

1 upvote
Jorginho
By Jorginho (May 21, 2012)

The lenses are not. Only if you compare apples and oranges.

Didn't you read this "But perhaps most striking is its compact size; at less than 3" (75mm) in either diameter or length it's scarcely bigger than a typical 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 kit zoom for APS-C SLRs, and it weighs in at under 12oz (~300g)."

Did you think they somehow meant it is a big lens, compared to an APS-c?

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Brian Mosley
By Brian Mosley (May 21, 2012)

I would like to know more about the 'multiple nanocoatings' used on this lens, and what they do...

It looks perfect on the E-M5... if the image quality is outstanding, I want one!

Any chance dpreview (Andy Westlake) will do a thorough lens review?

Thanks

Brian

4 upvotes
raztec
By raztec (May 21, 2012)

How does a lens such as this - with built in OIS - work on a camera such as the Olympus OM-D which has an in body IS system?

Does one get double the image stabilization or is the lens OIS disabled?

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Louis_Dobson
By Louis_Dobson (May 21, 2012)

Swithc off one of the IS systems. Although with current OM-D firmware the IBIS takes over anyway (bug or feature, argue amongst yourselves).

0 upvotes
highwave
By highwave (May 21, 2012)

It looks so good on the black OM-D

Both looks and spec wise, it's more fittingly the kit lens for the OM-D than the 12-50mm ever will be

4 upvotes
IcyVeins
By IcyVeins (May 21, 2012)

This is wrong. No kit lens ever costs more than the camera it goes with. A kit lens isn't supposed to be absolute best lens available, with the 12-35 is.

Comment edited 58 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
highwave
By highwave (May 21, 2012)

I just checked amazon right now

Olympus E-pl1 body only: 149.95$

Olympus 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 lens only: 249.00$

Olympus E-PL1 with 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6: 270.00$

why do people like making generalizations?

3 upvotes
RPJG
By RPJG (May 21, 2012)

What, like the one you just made?? o_O

0 upvotes
Joe Pineapples
By Joe Pineapples (May 21, 2012)

All generalizations are incorrect...

0 upvotes
dbm305
By dbm305 (May 21, 2012)

E = MCsquared?

0 upvotes
IcyVeins
By IcyVeins (May 21, 2012)

You know, it would have made you look a lot less stupid to just concede that I made a fair point, or even just not respond at all. But the example you gave shows only that you are stubborn, argumentative, and in denial. You know why the example you gave is ludicrous, and if you don't then I certainly can't help you.

0 upvotes
highwave
By highwave (May 21, 2012)

@ IcyVeins

Well at least this stupid, stubborn, argumentative, and in denial poster doesn't respond to arguments with a flurry of insults.

1 upvote
Jogger
By Jogger (May 21, 2012)

i cant remember the last time dpr gave so much attention for a lens

0 upvotes
roomnoxii
By roomnoxii (May 21, 2012)

They should. This is the first ever constant aperture zoom for a mirrorless. Big heads up to the Sony camp.

1 upvote
Mike Ronesia
By Mike Ronesia (May 21, 2012)

You mean besides the 7-14.

3 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (May 21, 2012)

What attention, a press release and quick preview? Wake me up when they start doing lens reviews again ;)

5 upvotes
ogl
By ogl (May 21, 2012)

24-70/f5.6 - 35 mm equivalent

11 upvotes
George Paulides
By George Paulides (May 21, 2012)

The aperture is the aperture - it does not change it is still F2.8.

26 upvotes
highwave
By highwave (May 21, 2012)

you mean depth of field equivalence?

I think your statement is true in the case of depth of field equivalence but in terms of expose it's still a 24-70/f2.8 - 35mm equivalent.

And not everyone is a fan of shallow depth of field. For those seeking shallow depth of field they would be better served with the 45mm f1.8 or the upcoming 75mm f1.8.

I really don't think full frame users would pick up a 24-70/f2.8 for its shallow depth of field capabilities either.

21 upvotes
Jon Rty
By Jon Rty (May 21, 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number

The F-stop is the ratio of focal-length to the entrance pupil. A 24-70mm F/2.8 lens has a 8.5mm pupil at the wide end, and a 25mm pupil at the long end. The 12-35mm has a 4mm pupil at the wide end and a 12.5mm pupil at the long end. It is not equivalent to a 24-70mm F/2.8, but a 24-70mm F/5.6. The size of the pupil does not change, hence you can't just multiply the focal-length.

As for exposure, a 24-70mm F/2.8 on 135 does have the same light intensity as the 12-30mm, but it has 4 times the image circle, meaning that it gathers 4 times as much light in total. If used with a native sensor, one that utilizes that image circle, you gather 4 times as much light, making it 4 times, or 2 stops, better than a m43 12-30mm F/2.8.

A equivalent m43 lens to a 135 24-70mm F/2.8 is a 12-30mm F/1.4.

6 upvotes
IrishhAndy
By IrishhAndy (May 21, 2012)

Great depth of field in low light. Enjoy your blurry nose and ears.

6 upvotes
ogl
By ogl (May 21, 2012)

aperture - of course, but DOF is too big.

0 upvotes
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (May 21, 2012)

Your post is full of foolishness ogl.

2 upvotes
highwave
By highwave (May 21, 2012)

@Jon Rty

On both arguments you presented you ignored the fact that that a FF sensor is 4X bigger than a m43 sensor

so for your first argument the f number of the m43 12-35mm is 12/4.28=f2.8 and same for the long end. For a focal length of 12mm used on a m43 sensor it would be cropped by a factor of 2X. Hence the equivalency to 24mm. So again yes in terms of exposure m43 12-35mm/f2.8 is equivalent to 24-70/f2.8 FF once the cropping factor is taken into account.

for your second argument, sure the FF 24-70/f2.8 gathers 4 times more light than the m43 12-35/f2.8 but then again it really needs to. It's exposing 4 times the sensor area the m43 lens needs to expose. So in the end again taking into consideration that you will use m43 lenses on m43 sensors and you will use FF lenses on FF sensors then this claimed 2 stop advantage doesn't exist.

Now if you were to use FF lenses on m43 sensors then that's a different story but it would be out of context here.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Gethenderson
By Gethenderson (May 21, 2012)

You all know it's not a 24-70f5.6 lol, stop being nazis's.

Otherwise think of a P&S, by your theory it'd be like a 28 -105mm f25 which would make it impossible to capture anything.

There are clear advantages to Full Frame, but exposure wise it gives the same readings and "general" results as a 24-70mm f2.8 on a full frame camera. We all know they have the capacity to have better ISO, which is just one reason to go for FF if you want it, but nowadays, with usable ISO of 1600 at least on these m43 and other mirrorless cameras I don't think it's that necessary.

Give it a break.

8 upvotes
zigi_S
By zigi_S (May 21, 2012)

At least you have supporters in your lack of understanding.

Tribalism FTW!

1 upvote
ogl
By ogl (May 21, 2012)

My post it's pure truth.

12-35/2.8 is equivalent to a 24-70mm F/5.6. A equivalent m43 lens to 135 format 24-70mm F/2.8 is 12-35mm F/1.4.

1 upvote
zigi_S
By zigi_S (May 21, 2012)

It would be if you mounted that lens on a full frame camera which would have to cover the whole sensor. But exposure is not light gathering but light density.

0 upvotes
Ilkka Nissilä
By Ilkka Nissilä (May 21, 2012)

The total amount of light recorded by the sensor determines how good the tonality and SNR of the resulting image are. So ogl is essentially correct.

But this is nevertheless a good development, allowing a moderately fast and serious zoom lens to be used on cameras of this format. They already have a comprehensive range of primes and slow zooms.

0 upvotes
zigi_S
By zigi_S (May 21, 2012)

>The total amount of light recorded by the sensor determines how good the tonality and SNR of the resulting image are. So ogl is essentially correct.

Yes, camera and THE LENS! The whole package has a total of 2 stops of exposure advantage. Not the lens by itself plus bigger sensor. 2 stops for only about ahh, 2500€ full frame body and a matching full frame lens that'l cost u if you are cheap at least a cool grand. Not to mention the size weight. Makes perfect sense.

0 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (May 22, 2012)

And hence the APS-C sweet spot! $400 for a D3200 and $400 for a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. One stop worse than full frame and one stop better than m43, and significantly cheaper than both.

0 upvotes
zigi_S
By zigi_S (May 24, 2012)

It seems you live in a world where there exist no other lens charachterstics as the aformentioned. I'm pretty sure the pana walks all over the tamron resolution, CA, vigneting, focus wise.

0 upvotes
Louis_Dobson
By Louis_Dobson (May 21, 2012)

Size looks good, price more or less reasonable, if the IQ is good that's a winner!

Me, I want Oly's 75mm f1.8. The zooms I'll get another year.

6 upvotes
IrishhAndy
By IrishhAndy (May 21, 2012)

I think you will buy it. It takes filters.

0 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (May 22, 2012)

I think I'll also follow a similar path. Right now I have the Panasonic 20mm f1.7, next on the shopping list is the 45mm f1.8, and thought I'd like to have a zoom, I haven't found one particular one that stands out among the others.

I'd rather stick to high quality primes, than to buy soft zooms.

0 upvotes
JEROME NOLAS
By JEROME NOLAS (May 21, 2012)

finally...

1 upvote
MichaelEchos
By MichaelEchos (May 21, 2012)

Nice.

1 upvote
Ivar Dahl Larsen
By Ivar Dahl Larsen (May 21, 2012)

With this new lens on my GH2 I finally have my "Ball-of-a-like-a" for street photography, providing it's as good as it should be!

1 upvote
Jorginho
By Jorginho (May 21, 2012)

Sam thoughts here, Ivar. If it is as good as one can expect for such a lens at the supposed price, this and the 35-100 will be the two lenses you'll need for a trip (may be a macro in there aswell). I do not understand august as a release date though. Vacations start in june/july mostly. It would have been more clever to start delivering in may, but they most likely can't do that.

I also expect a shortage the first fewmonths after release so it might be a nice christmas present. f2.8 will be handy in those dark days.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 313
12