12-35 unimpressive as a landscape lens

Started Jan 23, 2013 | Discussions thread
amtberg Veteran Member • Posts: 5,726
Re: 12-35 unimpressive as a landscape lens

Shirozina wrote:

mpgxsvcd wrote:

Shirozina wrote:

With it's high price tag I was expecting much from this lens on my GH3 but the edge resolution is disappointing under 25mm where my 14-45 is better at a fraction of the price. I shoot mainly at F8 and would expect any wide open edge losses to be resolved when stopped down but doing this on the 12-35 does very little. I was about to buy a 35-100 as well but was stopped when I started to read reports and see tests showing a similar so-so edge performance so this may simply be the design compromise of these lenses. On the plus side it has fast AF, weather sealed, fast aperture, a good solid feel and not bad edge resolution at 35mm. Think I'll sell it unless it's simply a bad copy.

The first question I have is do you have a good reason to shoot at F8.0?

I am getting tired of people stopping m4/3s lenses down and then complaining about the mistake they just made.

When I shoot at F2.8, F4, F5.6 the edges show the same resolution drop from the center. F8 'should' sharpen things up at the edges, not be too small to create diffraction softness and render a deep DOF.

No, not really. Most MFT lenses are sharpest around f/4, even at the edges.

As you can see, at least SLRGear's copy of the 12-35 is brilliantly sharp across the frame at 14mm and f/4.

While I was there I compared it to Canon's new, well regarded 24-70 mkII. In terms of sharpness it is quite comparable tot he 12-35 over all. The Canon lens is better wide open at the wide end, while the Panasonic is better at the long end. Stopped down a bit there is little to separate them ... except the Canon costs over $1,000 more and is about 250% heavier.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow