Steve Huff reviews the 12-35 2.8

sgoldswo · Aug 10, 2012

True, and he does pick up the right point which is that it is not a terrible lens (far from it) but that it is probably too expensive for what it is. I agree with that and I also think I'll keep mine (I think it is really worth about 70-80% of list, which reflects where the price will probably be by the end of the year - it isn't worth it to sell it) as being incredibly useful as a high quality back up to my primes (they are great but swapping lenses isn't always practical in a crowd!).

bgalb said:
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)

papillon_65 · Aug 10, 2012

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Lens - £1250
Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8L II USM Lens - £2299
Sony SAL2470Z Zoom lens - 24 mm - 70 mm - F/2.8 - £1158
Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD - £1000

This is the price you pay for a constant 24-70mm F2.8 zoom, still think the Panasonic is expensive?
--
Any problem on earth can be solved by a well aimed Pomegranate...
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

SeeRoy · Aug 10, 2012

Never mind the review. Look at all the screamers!!!! Admire the multitude of typefaces! Italics! Bold! Bold Italics!!! Coloured bold italics!!!! Underlined Coloured bold italics!!!! Wow! Way Cool!
Cue regurgitation.

sgoldswo · Aug 10, 2012

I own the SAL2470Z and it doesn't suffer from as much CA as the Panny. It isn't the end of the world (and I know this is because Panny has said, "sod it, we'll use a software solution to CA") but for £999 list I would expect it be be a little better in this regard. That doesn't mean it's awful, but to me it's a little overpriced for the results it puts out.

PS you are considerably better at coaxing the best out of it than me!

SkiHound · Aug 10, 2012

I've seen rumors of a 12-60 f2.8-f4. I'm certainly interested in the 12-35. Interested enough that I think I might rent one to give it a hands on try. I'm waiting till after Photokina to see if Olympus announces new lenses that would compete with the 12-35 at a little lower price point. If Oly releases a lens comparable to the 43 12-60 in native m43 mount, I think that would get me reaching for my wallet.

Just Having Fun · Aug 10, 2012

Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 (25.5mm-75mm) is only $499.
The Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 with OS is usually $650 and under.

I think the Panasonic will drop to $999. They know it is the only option right now and priced it accordingly.

String · Aug 10, 2012

I couldnt agree with you more!

Now if I had all the fast primes, the 12-35 would be redundant however I dont so the 12-35 (for me) was a LOT cheaper and more convenient than buying the primes.

I dont understand the comments that its big, fat, heavy; its a lot smaller and lighter than 3 or 4 primes AND it has comperable image quality. Really, what more could you ask for?

--
http://stringfellow.smugmug.com

papillon_65 · Aug 10, 2012

Just Having Fun said:
Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 (25.5mm-75mm) is only $499.

So not the same, not weathersealed and a third party lens with no stabilisation.

Just Having Fun said:
The Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 with OS is usually $650 and under.

Again, not comparable.

Just Having Fun said:
I think the Panasonic will drop to $999. They know it is the only option right now and priced it accordingly.

I gave you the prices for the Canon and Nikon equivalents, that should tell you something at least.
--
Any problem on earth can be solved by a well aimed Pomegranate...
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

SkiHound · Aug 10, 2012

We might compare it to the 24-70 lenses because it offers the same effective field of view, but it's not a 24-70mm lens in construction. Those same lenses would have a field of view of 48-140 on m43, and 36-105 on APS-C. That said, the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 is close to $2k, the 17-35 f2.8 is close $1700 or so, the 16-35 f4 is $1100 or so. Now they have to cover bigger imagers but I don't think the asking price for the Panny 12-35 is really out of line.

String · Aug 10, 2012

In all other formats (CanNikon), the great glass never goes down, only up. If Pany and Oly want the format to be taken seriously (and with the glass coming out these days, they do) then they wont drop the price.

Being fairly new to the m43 format (former Nikon user), it seems that a lot of the m43 users are looking for great glass at Walmart prices. You may wish for it but its not a realistic wish. The design of a small high quality lens is much harder than the design of a large hq lens so it costs more money. If you want the best glass out there then you had best be prepared to pay for it. You just have to ask how much quality do I need.

--
http://stringfellow.smugmug.com

papillon_65 · Aug 10, 2012

String said:
In all other formats (CanNikon), the great glass never goes down, only up. If Pany and Oly want the format to be taken seriously (and with the glass coming out these days, they do) then they wont drop the price.

Being fairly new to the m43 format (former Nikon user), it seems that a lot of the m43 users are looking for great glass at Walmart prices. You may wish for it but its not a realistic wish. The design of a small high quality lens is much harder than the design of a large hq lens so it costs more money. If you want the best glass out there then you had best be prepared to pay for it. You just have to ask how much quality do I need.

Thank you, it's nice to know at least one other person gets it.

String said:
--
http://stringfellow.smugmug.com

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

peevee1 · Aug 10, 2012

Edward Rauschkolb said:
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.

For example, you can compare it with competition, like Sony DT 16-50/2.8 OSS, which can be had for $618 alone (or below $600 in a kit with A77).

Edward Rauschkolb said:
Good lenses are expensive to make and they are not sold by the pound of glass used.

But the major costs going into production of a lens very closely tracks "the pounds of glass used", both the expensive ultra-clear optical glass and the cost of polishing and coating them which is proportional to the area needed to be polished and coated.
And the Sony DT 16-50/2.8 has about twice as much glass as the 12-35.

I see the symptoms of a Stockholm syndrome here, the rationalization and defending undefendable, which is in this case the ridiculous margins on this lens (i.e. total ripoff).

peevee1 · Aug 10, 2012

papillon_65 said:
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

No, it does not really compete with professional FF f/2.8 zooms. It competes with APS-C zooms though, and Sony DT 16-50/2.8 can be had for $618 (or less in a kit).

peevee1 · Aug 10, 2012

ELLIOT P STERN said:
When you look at other lenses matching this focal length like the Nikon 24-70 2.8

What? How are they comparable? Do you understand that the Nikon is twice as long and covers image circle twice as wide? They are totally different devices with totally different costs of production.

peevee1 · Aug 10, 2012

Jogger said:
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.

Well, that was not hard, just mark up the margins.

Pana management told them to compensate for negative margins in TV business, they obliged.

peevee1 · Aug 10, 2012

KwhyChang said:
In daylight the 12-50 is fine

Unfortunately, it is not. At 12 mm it is soft and has some crazy CA.

papillon_65 · Aug 10, 2012

peevee1 said:
papillon_65 said:

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

Click to expand...

No, it does not really compete with professional FF f/2.8 zooms. It competes with APS-C zooms though, and Sony DT 16-50/2.8 can be had for $618 (or less in a kit).

Of course it does, it does the same job on the mount it was designed for. It has very effective OIS, performs comparably and is weathersealed, but let me guess you think it should be cheap because it's smaller? If anything it has to be designed to higher tolerances because it is harder to get the same performance on a smaller sensor.
--
Any problem on earth can be solved by a well aimed Pomegranate...
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

peevee1 · Aug 10, 2012

papillon_65 said:
the 14mm F2.5 is no match for the 12-35mm,

How do you figure that?

papillon_65 · Aug 10, 2012

peevee1 said:
papillon_65 said:

the 14mm F2.5 is no match for the 12-35mm,

Click to expand...

How do you figure that?

Because I've got them both and I can tell you for a fact that the 14mm is poor at the edges, even at F5.6, at closer distances (not so bad at infinity) whereas the 12-35mm is very sharp across the frame at f4+. The 14mm is nice little lens for what it is but it's no match for the 12-35mm, which also has very effective OIS.
--
Any problem on earth can be solved by a well aimed Pomegranate...
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

peevee1 · Aug 10, 2012

papillon_65 said:
peevee1 said:

papillon_65 said:

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

Click to expand...

No, it does not really compete with professional FF f/2.8 zooms. It competes with APS-C zooms though, and Sony DT 16-50/2.8 can be had for $618 (or less in a kit).

Click to expand...

Of course it does, it does the same job on the mount it was designed for.

Well, should I them offer you a toy train at the price of a real one (like, tens of millions of $)? Of course only goes on a toy railroad, but it does the same job on the railroad it is designed for. Exaggeration, but the same principle.

Well, I don't know what is your definition of overpriced, but my definition of overpriced is the situation when margins are above what is customary in the business (or total risk-adjusted margins across all industries, which are now like 5-10%).

I bet the marginal cost of production of the Pana is below $200, i.e. it is not just overpriced, it is RIDICULOUSLY overpriced.

Steve Huff reviews the 12-35 2.8

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts