Steve Huff reviews the 12-35 2.8

[Starred]

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/08/10/the-panasonic-12-35-f2-8-zoom-lens-review-for-micro-43-the-best-zoom-available-for-micro-43-by-far/

 

[DLBlack]

Good review. It reads like he loves the lens except for the price. From his review and photos and the photos here on this forum from the inital buyers it looks like a lens that I will get someday. It will take a while of saving my pennies before I can buy it.

Dave
--

 

[Najinsky]

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/08/10/the-panasonic-12-35-f2-8-zoom-lens-review-for-micro-43-the-best-zoom-available-for-micro-43-by-far/

A typically good review from Steve, and one in line with my thinking. A great lens but overpriced.

The right price for this seems to be around $875, but anyone who pays above that to get a copy could easily be at peace with themselves because its usefulness can command a premium, especially if an imminent job demands this kind of lens.

Still, it would make buying a lot easier with an SRP of $900. Times are hard, and it isn't in the league of buy at any price.

-Najinsky

 

[Edward Rauschkolb]

Hi,

While I certainly;y understand your desire to see this as a sub $900 lens (frankly I would too), I do not understand how you can possibly arrive at that price. Good lenses are expensive to make and they are not sold by the pound of glass used.

To make a good lens small is not cheap. One needs to use special glasses and new designs. Comparable (I did not say equivalent) lenses (in FOV) and aperture from any other "brand" are all at least 50% more. The construction quality, WS, IQ are all as good or better!

If you are judging the lens on it being on the m4/3 system, all the quality lenses here are expensive, sometimes more so than in the FF format, Consider the $900 incredibly slow 75-300 from Olympus.

If it is pure size than the tiny, budget (for Leica) 28f2.8 should cost what? certainly not $2200.

I find that this lens is built as well as any I have owned from virtually any manufacturer. Yes my R Leica 28-90 was built better, but it cost $4500. I feel that it is as well built as my previous Canon 24-70 2.8 (which weighed a kg btw) and the IQ is equal or better, certainly wide open. Yes I know that its DOF is different, but its a different format and one would buy the lens to photograph the same thing.

The Olympus (which I own and love) 12f2 is $700-800 and does not even have a lens hood or case included. Frankly I am not sure the the 12-35 isn't better . . . and has weather sealing.

I am not trying to be offensive here, but if you want quality optics, you have to pay for them. There is a point of diminishing returns (look at the pricing in the C or N line if you do not believe that). Smaller does not mean cheaper. Micro 4/3 is moving into the professional market with these sort of optics and to build that quality simply costs more money. If you do not want to spend it, you do not have to, either use 1-2 primes (3 will cost more than this lens) or use the wide variety of cheaper zooms. I am glad that we now at least have 1 high quality sealed constant aperture zoom available.

just my 0.02

Ed

 

[MAubrey]

On the pricing question, I would suggest you read Bob Atkin's review at Photo.net

I'm not sure whether you realize:

1) How good this lens is.
2) How much such quality is worth.

Sure I'd love it if it were cheaper. And I would anticipate that it'll drop in price by maybe $100 over the next year or two--the 12mm f/2 started at $899, but eventually dropped to $799 (and $650 refurbished). I'll be waiting on buying it to see if it does, personally.

http://photo.net/equipment/olympus/lenses/zuiko-ed-75mm-f1.8/

So how sharp is it? Very sharp indeed. Probably sharper than the sensor of the camera I was testing it on (Olympus PEN E-P3, (compare prices) (review)) can resolve. Not only that, but for all practical purposes it’s just as sharp wide open as it is stopped down and it’s almost as sharp in the corners as it is in the center! I don’t think I’ve seen better performance from a lens, certainly not one priced under $1000. Some of the Canon super-telephotos are this good, but they’re not f1.8 and they’re prices over $5000.

--
--Mike

 

[DLBlack]

It does appear that the lens is worth the price. Still after the initial buyers get it and after the GH-5 buyers get it might drop a bit. Maybe about $100. Still it will be awhile.

This type of quality costs money.

Dave

On the pricing question, I would suggest you read Bob Atkin's review at Photo.net

I'm not sure whether you realize:

1) How good this lens is.
2) How much such quality is worth.

Sure I'd love it if it were cheaper. And I would anticipate that it'll drop in price by maybe $100 over the next year or two--the 12mm f/2 started at $899, but eventually dropped to $799 (and $650 refurbished). I'll be waiting on buying it to see if it does, personally.

http://photo.net/equipment/olympus/lenses/zuiko-ed-75mm-f1.8/

So how sharp is it? Very sharp indeed. Probably sharper than the sensor of the camera I was testing it on (Olympus PEN E-P3, (compare prices) (review)) can resolve. Not only that, but for all practical purposes it’s just as sharp wide open as it is stopped down and it’s almost as sharp in the corners as it is in the center! I don’t think I’ve seen better performance from a lens, certainly not one priced under $1000. Some of the Canon super-telephotos are this good, but they’re not f1.8 and they’re prices over $5000.

--
--Mike

--

 

[Jim Boutilier]

Why are you talking about and quoting a review on a high quality Olympus prime priced at $900 when the discussion is about a $1200 Panasonic zoom?

If Pany zoom was the quality of the Olympus prime, I would put it in the must have column. But it isn't.

--
Regards
Jim

 

[papillon_65]

compared to comparable zooms elsewhere, that is to say constant aperture F2.8 zooms in this range with this quality. You've read what he said, it competes with lenses much more expensive and he's right. I've had the Zuiko 14-54mm and 12-60mm and it's better than the 14-54mm and as close as can be to the 12-60mm while being considerably smaller and lighter ( I know these lenses are cheaper but I'm comparing the quality and they're cheaper due to the neglected 4/3's format and the fact that they aren't constant F2.8 zooms ). I paid £840 for mine (after cashback) and it was money well spent. You get what you pay for and a fast aperture constant zoom lens will always cost as least as much, usually more. For a lens that can give prime like IQ but without having to change lenses then it's good value. Add to that the build quality, OIS, weathersealing and size and there is nothing to complain about IMHO. If any lens is expensive then it's the 12mm F2 because it's restricted to 12mm and even SH says they are comparable in IQ.

This lens is not going to plummet in price, quality zooms never do. In reality the value is based on how much you will use it and mine is rarely off my camera so it's a good deal for me.
--
Any problem on earth can be solved by a well aimed Pomegranate...
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

 

[MAubrey]

My mistake, I had this thread open in a tab beside this other thread:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=42227254

I got the two mixed up.

Anyway...uhm, sorry.

Sheepish look...well, its still an interesting review...
--
--Mike

 

[ELLIOT P STERN]

When you look at other lenses matching this focal length like the Nikon 24-70 2.8 this lens is a deal.

Not only is it weather sealed, small, lightweight, it also produces prime lens quality. I first looked at the price and said it was crazy, because I was thinking micro four thirds as opposed to high quality fast optic.

I can only say that I hope to see more like this.
--
El

Gear. 2 Omd, all the lenses, Ep3, Ep2, Ep1 infrared, Fuji X100, Fuji x pro 1, all the Fuji lenses, Voigtlander 15,21,28,50,75,90,180. Nikon 55 macro, 200 macro and Zeiss 100mm macro, Induro Tripods and heads, etc. Ricoh GXR and modules including Leica M

 

[Jogger]

The Oly 14-54 2.8/3.5 was about $750 when released. Its an excellent lens, Weather resisistant.. and it was around f2.9 at the 35mm mark. It has much more reach and was not dependent on software correction.

Somehow Panasonic found a way to make an inferior lens at almost 2X the cost.

 

[DP13Photo]

for his µ4/3 setup.

He says, "It is a bit fat and large on my OM-D when compared to the 12mm and 45mm and it is $1300!

Pretty much my conclusion too. In daylight the 12-50 is fine and more versatile while my 14-45 is no slouch either.

And in challenging light the 12, 14, 20, 25, and 45 are the go to choices for shutter speed and quality.

--
Dave

 

[petergerritsen]

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1041&message=42200014

Great lens for 999 euro See:

http://www.fotokonijnenberg.nl/product/1658371/panasonic-lumix-g-x-vario-12-35mm-f28-asph-ois.html

--
Peter Gerritsen

 

[papillon_65]

The Oly 14-54 2.8/3.5 was about $750 when released. Its an excellent lens, Weather resisistant.. and it was around f2.9 at the 35mm mark. It has much more reach and was not dependent on software correction.

It is also soft at F2.8 and doesn't really shine until F4+

Somehow Panasonic found a way to make an inferior lens at almost 2X the cost.

No they managed to make a smaller lighter lens that's sharper wide open and more consistent throughout it's range, but then you'd know that if you'd used both, clearly you haven't.
--
Any problem on earth can be solved by a well aimed Pomegranate...
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

 

[papillon_65]

for his µ4/3 setup.

He says, "It is a bit fat and large on my OM-D when compared to the 12mm and 45mm and it is $1300!

Well of course it's bigger than those primes - it's a zoom lol.

Pretty much my conclusion too. In daylight the 12-50 is fine and more versatile while my 14-45 is no slouch either.

But neither perform like this lens so it's a bit of a moot point.

And in challenging light the 12, 14, 20, 25, and 45 are the go to choices for shutter speed and quality.

Really? the 14mm F2.5 is no match for the 12-35mm, the 12mm is a stop faster but not really any better and then you're adding 3 more lenses which cost how much? The 12-35mm and 20mm F1.7 make a great combination without having to carry a multitude of lenses or change them frequently. If you want to carry and bag full of primes and change lenses often then feel free. The 12-35mm means you don't have to. You can miss and awful lot of shots swapping lenses all the time.

--
Dave

--
Any problem on earth can be solved by a well aimed Pomegranate...
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

 

[TrapperJohn]

Does Steve understand the nature of a constant aperture lens? It's 'wide open' only when at it's longest focal length. Otherwise, it is aperture limited internally when the focal length is reduced.

So, of course it's going to be larger than the 12-50. In reality, the 12-35 is a F1.8-F2.8, artificially limited to F2.8 at the low end. Same goes for the 7-14, both Panny and ZD, which are actually F2.8-F4 lenses, with aperture limited to F4 at 7mm.

Those of you who own the 12-35 might try the ZD 7-14 trick: put the camera in manual mode, set the lens to 12mm, set manual to underexpose by a couple of stops, then press the lens release button just before taking the shot. That cuts the electronics, and leaves the aperture wide open at 12mm, should be around F1.8 or so. With the 7-14, you could get a 7mm F2.8 shot, but you find out why it was limited to F4 at 7mm: that 2.8 shot was ugly.

And of course it's going to be sharper at F2.8 at 12mm when compared to the 12-50, because it's not being shot wide open, it's being shot a couple of stops down, while the 12-50 actually is being shot wide open.

Still, I tend to agree with his final conclusion: it's a bit pricey for what it delivers, at least for me it is. If you can afford it and love it, my hat's off to you.

 

[bgalb]

+1. I think Steve's review was right on. The market is already proving his statement about the lens being pricey. I have seen it on Ebay as low as $1119 with free shipping from Japan, including help with warranty support. That's a $180 discount over list. It is just now arriving in the US and I believe it will be available here for around $1100 by the end of this year.

 

[sgoldswo]

My issue with this review is that he doesn't mention the CA issue with Oly bodies and probably over praises the sharpness (it is great in the centre, but is a bit softer in the extreme corners). He does dwell on the size though and I think that's fair. It's a bit like the 7-14mm, marvellous with Panny bodies, but I'm not quite convinced I should have bought it for my E-M5. By the way I own the lens - I'm a bit disipointed with it in comparison to the 75mm (which is definitely a "wow" lens).

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/08/10/the-panasonic-12-35-f2-8-zoom-lens-review-for-micro-43-the-best-zoom-available-for-micro-43-by-far/

 

[bgalb]

Having said that, this lens is still on my wish list and if Olympus doesn't come out with a fast quality zoom by the end of the year, I will probably buy the panny 12-35 (for under $1150).

If the oly 12-50 kit had been faster and of higher IQ, I would have one right now. They made the right marketing decision with the kit they are selling, but I can still wish they had made a faster and better lens. Now they are probably very unlikely to make a high quality fast zoom in the same zoom range as the kit, so I wonder what they WILL come up with next.

 

[bgalb]

I agree that he overpraises the sharpness and underplays the CA issue. But that is the nature is the kind of user reviews that are admittedly subjective and show no testing (Steve Huff and others with "blog" type reviews)