Are the constant aperture Panasonic lenses worth it (and are you wating for Olympus?)

mikeinak said:

mikeinak wrote:

I appreciate the post for I am at that "fork in the road". Thanks.

Click to expand...

I was also at the fork in the road. I ended up getting the 35-100 for around $1100 from japan

instead of the following

45-175mm @ $399.00

45mm f1.8 @ $399.00

30mm sigma @ $199.00

60mm sigma est $250.00

I figured it was lighter, better range of focal lengths, better built, less money and weather sealed to name a few and it sits nicely on my GH3.

Just my thoughts

Yes, they are worth the cost. They are also sharp and built beautifully. Very fine optics.

The Oly 14-42 is inexpensive for a reason. It is not the sharpest tack in the box.

I have both the GH2 and EM5 and get not 'purple' with these lenses on either body.

I have the 35-100/2.8 but am waiting for the Olympus announcement before deciding whether to go for the 12-35/2.8.

When paying for expensive fast zooms, I expect performance to be excellent wide open, and improve a little for stopping down. Both the Panasonics have issues here.

The 12-35 has reviewed a bit weak at F/2.8 (see lenstip review measurements)

The 35-100 measured bit weak at 100/F2.8 (see lensrentls measurements)

The scores are by no means Bad, and by F/4 both are performing very well, so they are both excellent lenses. But for premium glass, I feel they should be performing a bit better wide open, and therefore are both a bit overpriced.

My 70-200/F4L was one of my favourite FF lenses, so I bit the bullet and went for the 35-100/2.8. It's no match for the Canon, but still a very nice lens and I'm very happy I have it.

-Najinsky

zenpmd said:

zenpmd wrote:

Buying them together is just such a lot of money. But imaging the possiblities of the two together is just mind blowing for the size and quality.

What is everyone elses thoughts, and who is waiting for Olympus are about to offer? As far as I know there is no plan for a zoom like the 35-100 2.8, just the shorter zoom, which is sadly not as wide as the Panasonic but might be smaller (due to the lack of IS) and hopefully won't have the CA that it suffers from on the Oly.

Yours thoughts most welcome!

Click to expand...

bowportes said:

bowportes wrote:

bowportes said:

Alumna Gorp wrote:

bowportes said:

Savas Kyprianides wrote:

They are expensive and I am waiting for Olympus.

Click to expand...

What makes you think those from Olympus are going to be cheaper.

I`m waiting to see what Olympus come up with, for the simple point there lens offering could be smaller.

Click to expand...

Could be cheaper, but maybe not.

Could be smaller, but maybe not.

Could be better quality, but could be poorer quality.

Could appear this year, or the next, or the next.

In the meantime, for those of us who are thoroughly enjoying using the 12-35mm on a daily basis, it's definitely worth it.. And it didn't cost much either once I factored in the money made from lenses I no longer used regularly that were sold.

Click to expand...

Damn right, bowie, on all counts.

Add: wo ;t have OIS.

And almost certainly will zoom in the opposite direction. So if you’ve got other Panny lenses, stick with them.

Cheers, geoff

So although there is an Olympus standard (ish) zoom rumoured, there is no talk of a 35-100 or something similar right?

Member said:

NCV wrote:

Yes, (with a good RAW converter to get rid of CA) for what I use a 2.8 zoom for.

Not having to change lenses all the time is a big positive when I am out hiking in the mountains.

The 2.8 makes a lens far more useful in low light .

Click to expand...

Only on the m43 forum does everyone hike at night.

I hike during the day, I've never needed f/2.8 lenses in order to take sharp pictures.

gollywop said:

gollywop wrote:

I'll begin by noting that I have both these lenses. I use them on my E-M5, and they are drop-dead fantastic. If you can afford them (and I'm not sure I could) and you like using zooms, they are an obvious choice.

Now, I disagree with Pixnat2's assessment below relative to using them with an Olympus camera.

gollywop said:

Pixnat2 wrote:

You shoot with a Panansonic camera

In this case, they are definitely worth it, no contest. Those zooms are very sharp, high quality, stabilized and their weaknesses (CA and distortion) are well corrected by the camera software.

Click to expand...

I agree with this.

gollywop said:

You shoot with an Olympus camera

In this case, the answer is more complex. It depends mainly on your CA tolerence and if you shoot RAW or JPEG.

If you shoot mainly RAW and use softwares like LR, you can correct CA and distortion fairly easily. In this case, those zooms may worth it, if you're willing to spend this money knowing the lenses weaknesses, of course.

Click to expand...

These lenses have no weaknesses on an Olympus body that they don't also have on a Panasonic body. The distortions are the same for both bodies; it's just that the Panasonic camera software hides the geometric-distortion and CA weaknesses behind automatic correction whereas the Olympus camera software only hides the geometric distortion behind automatic correction, while you must use software like ACR or LR to do the job for CA. But . . .

ACR does an excellent and effortless job in correcting the CA, and I'm sure LR does too. Further, if you set the defringe on and the purple slider at 3 for a default, the CA is also done automatically -- and extremely effectively.

And that is as true for jpegs as it is for raw files.

Click to expand...

I think Pixnat2's point here is that if you are shooting OOC jpegs, you do so because you don't want to PP (except perhaps in special cases). If you are ready to PP on a regular basis, what would be the point of shooting OOC jpegs (except for the purpose of in-camera review)? And if you are not ready, the fact that ACR/LR can remove CA provides little comfort.

gollywop said:

gollywop said:

If you shoot JPEGS, that's more problematic. In this case, spending 1000$ for a zoom that shows a fairly large amount of CA can be considered as a bit too expensive, but of course, it's a personal opinion, YMMV.

Personally, I shoot RAW+JPEGS, but I'm not CA tolerant, and as I shoot mainly with the EM-5, I'll wait for the Olympus 12-40.

Click to expand...

I'm assuming you've tried these lenses on your E-M5 and are speaking from experience.

Meanwhile, your wait for the Olympus 12-40 may just be a wait for another source of CA. It seems to be the wave of the future.

Click to expand...

Not sure I want to call CA the wave of the future. But, like you, I would expect the Oly 12-40 (if that's what it will be) to show some CA too although most likely a bit less of the lateral variety than the Pany 12-35. Oly lenses are certainly not free from lateral CA in spite of being designed (as far as we can tell from the behavior of Oly bodies) to be fully corrected optically for that kind of CA. And of course we find some longitudinal CA (in-focus as well as out-of-focus) on top of that in most Oly as well as Pany lenses. So if you really want your images to be well corrected for CA (as we both do), the only solution is to PP anyway. That said, it is of course a stupid decision on Oly's part not to correct lateral CA in Oly OOC jpegs. It's easy to do and has virtually no downsides so there is no good reason to abstain.

Hen3ry said:

Hen3ry wrote:

Hen3ry said:

bowportes wrote:

Hen3ry said:

zenpmd wrote:

So it is 90 percent certain that the Olympus will be 12-40? If so, that is a huge advantage for me, since 40, by being a 35mm equivilent of 80 is just about ok for faces, whereas 70mm on the Panasonic is inadequate.

Click to expand...

I must be missing something here. How is it that a 70mm FL (35mm equivalence) is "inadequate for faces" but adding another 10mm makes it "just about ok"?

Click to expand...

For once I disagree with you, Bowy. For me, head and shoulders focal length is critical and it is 85-90mm (35mm equiv) -- even the 5mm step up from 85 to 90mm is useful. I am really happy at 90mm (i.e. Oly f1.8 45mm, apanny 14-54 @ 45) whereas I feel just a little under length at 85mm (with the 14-42 @ 42).

And I felt that back in the day with the wonderful Zuiko f2 85mm on the OM1 -- i6 waws just a touch too short -- but I learned to live with it!

So for me the 70mm focal length is 15-20mm too short -- not just 10mm. A significant difference. Incidentally, in my portrait shooting, this 90mm length is cricital. 100mm is too long for me, and I absolutely abhor what was the "standard" first tele and portrait lens of my day, the 135mm.

I will admire pix like Louis's portrait with the Oly 75mm (150mm 35mm equiv), but I will never own or use that lens.

Obviously, this is very personal. it has to do with a combination of what the photographer likes in the "drawng' pf the subject, and also -- very importantly -- how the photographer feels about distance from the subject when shooting.

Click to expand...

Sorry to disagree about disagreeing, Geoff, but I can heartily endorse what you have just written, and I believe the 85-100 FL range (35mm eq.) is ideal for portraits. That said, I don't agree with the simplistic generalization that 70mm is "inadequate for faces." To me, such statements deny the important role of "what the photographer likes in the drawing of the subject" and "how the photographer feels about distance from the subject," which you articulated so well.

Hen3ry said:

Hen3ry said:

The 12-35mm lens is an outstanding lens for people period, whether talking about just head-and-shoulders portraits or depicting people in contexts. The last time I perused some of my 35mm people shots, the faces all looked fine.

Click to expand...

Having said all the above, though, I am up for the Panny 12-35. While I might wish for a slightly longer top end, the 12-35 with the constant f2.8 presses a lot of my buttons and I will happily use it in association with other lenses -- and even for portraits t a pinch!

Click to expand...

I expect you will find it more than "adequate" in such circumstances. ;-)

Hen3ry said:

Cheers, geoff

--
Geoffrey Heard
http://pngtimetraveller.blogspot.com/2011/10/return-to-karai-komana_31.html

Click to expand...

Member said:

Najinsky wrote:

I have the 35-100/2.8 but am waiting for the Olympus announcement before deciding whether to go for the 12-35/2.8.

When paying for expensive fast zooms, I expect performance to be excellent wide open, and improve a little for stopping down. Both the Panasonics have issues here.

The 12-35 has reviewed a bit weak at F/2.8 (see lenstip review measurements)

The 35-100 measured bit weak at 100/F2.8 (see lensrentls measurements)

The scores are by no means Bad, and by F/4 both are performing very well, so they are both excellent lenses. But for premium glass, I feel they should be performing a bit better wide open, and therefore are both a bit overpriced.

My 70-200/F4L was one of my favourite FF lenses, so I bit the bullet and went for the 35-100/2.8. It's no match for the Canon, but still a very nice lens and I'm very happy I have it.

-Najinsky

Member said:

zenpmd wrote:

Buying them together is just such a lot of money. But imaging the possiblities of the two together is just mind blowing for the size and quality.

What is everyone elses thoughts, and who is waiting for Olympus are about to offer? As far as I know there is no plan for a zoom like the 35-100 2.8, just the shorter zoom, which is sadly not as wide as the Panasonic but might be smaller (due to the lack of IS) and hopefully won't have the CA that it suffers from on the Oly.

Yours thoughts most welcome!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The lens is sharp enough wide open so that what you focus on will appear very sharp indeed in a print in a wedding album.

It's a really good performance for a zoom lens. It's worth the price if you NEED that kind of lens for wedding photography or something similar.

No, you don't need a lens like that to go hiking.

Anders W said:

Anders W wrote:

Anders W said:

gollywop wrote:

I'll begin by noting that I have both these lenses. I use them on my E-M5, and they are drop-dead fantastic. If you can afford them (and I'm not sure I could) and you like using zooms, they are an obvious choice.

Now, I disagree with Pixnat2's assessment below relative to using them with an Olympus camera.

Anders W said:

Pixnat2 wrote:

You shoot with a Panansonic camera

In this case, they are definitely worth it, no contest. Those zooms are very sharp, high quality, stabilized and their weaknesses (CA and distortion) are well corrected by the camera software.

Click to expand...

I agree with this.

Anders W said:

You shoot with an Olympus camera

In this case, the answer is more complex. It depends mainly on your CA tolerence and if you shoot RAW or JPEG.

If you shoot mainly RAW and use softwares like LR, you can correct CA and distortion fairly easily. In this case, those zooms may worth it, if you're willing to spend this money knowing the lenses weaknesses, of course.

Click to expand...

These lenses have no weaknesses on an Olympus body that they don't also have on a Panasonic body. The distortions are the same for both bodies; it's just that the Panasonic camera software hides the geometric-distortion and CA weaknesses behind automatic correction whereas the Olympus camera software only hides the geometric distortion behind automatic correction, while you must use software like ACR or LR to do the job for CA. But . . .

ACR does an excellent and effortless job in correcting the CA, and I'm sure LR does too. Further, if you set the defringe on and the purple slider at 3 for a default, the CA is also done automatically -- and extremely effectively.

And that is as true for jpegs as it is for raw files.

Click to expand...

I think Pixnat2's point here is that if you are shooting OOC jpegs, you do so because you don't want to PP (except perhaps in special cases).

Click to expand...

Well, yes, maybe. That's not exactly what he says. Shooting jpeg ≠ OOC.

Anders W said:

Anders W said:

Anders W said:

If you shoot JPEGS, that's more problematic. In this case, spending 1000$ for a zoom that shows a fairly large amount of CA can be considered as a bit too expensive, but of course, it's a personal opinion, YMMV.

Personally, I shoot RAW+JPEGS, but I'm not CA tolerant, and as I shoot mainly with the EM-5, I'll wait for the Olympus 12-40.

Click to expand...

I'm assuming you've tried these lenses on your E-M5 and are speaking from experience.

Meanwhile, your wait for the Olympus 12-40 may just be a wait for another source of CA. It seems to be the wave of the future.

Click to expand...

Not sure I want to call CA the wave of the future. But, like you, I would expect the Oly 12-40 (if that's what it will be) to show some CA too although most likely a bit less of the lateral variety than the Pany 12-35. Oly lenses are certainly not free from lateral CA in spite of being designed (as far as we can tell from the behavior of Oly bodies) to be fully corrected optically for that kind of CA. And of course we find some longitudinal CA (in-focus as well as out-of-focus) on top of that in most Oly as well as Pany lenses. So if you really want your images to be well corrected for CA (as we both do), the only solution is to PP anyway. That said, it is of course a stupid decision on Oly's part not to correct lateral CA in Oly OOC jpegs. It's easy to do and has virtually no downsides so there is no good reason to abstain.

Click to expand...

That is absolutely correct.



--
gollywop

I'd agree with Najinsky in that the f2.8 performance does take more of a dip than I'd like over the lower (non-diffraction-limited) apertures. I do own both of them but only go wider than f4 if I need to for shutter speed or DoF reasons.

I'd love to see Olympus try their hand at making a 12-35mm or 35-100mm MZuiko lenses, but I doubt it will ever happen. There is no doubt that these would very expensive but outstanding lenses, that were shipped without lens hoods. But even without the lens hood, they would be very desirable lenses which would probably be optically excellent.

The reason I say Olympus will probably not create these lenses is because the market for high end lenses is very small, and it would result in both companies dividing a very small pie between them.

The market for M4/3 itself is pretty small, and it becomes even smaller at the high end of the scale. This makes economies of scale very hard to get, and drives costs even higher. (Low volume could also explain why the Fuji MILC cameras and lenses are also very expensive.)

If you look at the M4/3 lenses that already exist you will see that there is very little duplication of focal lengths beyond the most popular ones.

Both Panasonic and Olympus make the same kit lenses, and both offer a 10X zoom lens, and a telephoto zoom lens, but:

• Olympus does not have a 25mm f/1.4 lens
• Panasonic does not have a fast 45mm or 75mm prime lens
• Panasonic has an 8mm fisheye lens
• Panasonic has a 7-14mm lens, so there is no point in Olympus creating one
• Panasonic is planning a fast 150mm lens. Sound familiar?

The interesting thing here is that Panasonic seems to be recreating the legendary Olympus 4/3 lenses in the new format, while Olympus is focusing on small fast prime lenses that 4/3 never had.

I needed a 2.8 here at midday for example:

http://nigelvoak.blogspot.it/2010/08/orrido-di-botri.html

Canon EF 70-200/4L USM - $700 - Check out it's optical performance. It's superb.

Canon EF 70-200/4L IS USM - $1,100 - Even better.

.

The Panasonic 35-100 is $1,500. It should be a bit better than it is. Nothing to do with being a perfectionist, just comparing it to the standards set by it competitors and one of my most used lenses. And certainly not ridiculous to expect excellent performance all round from a lens of this price.

If it were $900, I'd forgive the reduced (though still good) F/2.8 performance. But at $1,500 I'm less forgiving.

-Najinsky

Member said:

Najinsky wrote:

Canon EF 70-200/4L USM - $700 - Check out it's optical performance. It's superb.

Canon EF 70-200/4L IS USM - $1,100 - Even better.

.

The Panasonic 35-100 is $1,500. It should be a bit better than it is. Nothing to do with being a perfectionist, just comparing it to the standards set by it competitors and one of my most used lenses. And certainly not ridiculous to expect excellent performance all round from a lens of this price.

If it were $900, I'd forgive the reduced (though still good) F/2.8 performance. But at $1,500 I'm less forgiving.

Click to expand...

I get your point, but you are missing one important fact.

It is physically impossible for a M4/3 lens to be "as good" as full frame lens at the same or similar price. Because the sensor is 1/4th as large, you would need a much faster M4/3 lens, and then it will become much more expensive and much larger. And then you will be upset about that.

You seem to be unhappy about the cost of the Panasonic 35-100mm lens, and say "if it was cheaper" but you are asking for a more expensive lens design. This just won't happen in our lifetimes.

Do you recall how LARGE and HEAVY the 4/3 35-100mm lens is?


The Olympus 35-100mm lens costs almost twice as much and weighs three times as much. But it is a much better lens. Is this what you want?

When you selected a M4/3 system you made a compromise that everyone else who selected that system made. You chose reasonably good performance with a smaller size and weight at a reasonable cost rather than the absolute best performance with no regard for price or weight.

If you really need the absolute best lens then the best solution for you is to stick with full frame.

If you can tolerate almost as good, then M4/3 might be for you.

--
Marty
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/
Olympus E-30
Olympus E-PL2
Sony SLT-A55

Marty4650 said:

Marty4650 wrote:

Marty4650 said:

Najinsky wrote:

Canon EF 70-200/4L USM - $700 - Check out it's optical performance. It's superb.

Canon EF 70-200/4L IS USM - $1,100 - Even better.

.

The Panasonic 35-100 is $1,500. It should be a bit better than it is. Nothing to do with being a perfectionist, just comparing it to the standards set by it competitors and one of my most used lenses. And certainly not ridiculous to expect excellent performance all round from a lens of this price.

If it were $900, I'd forgive the reduced (though still good) F/2.8 performance. But at $1,500 I'm less forgiving.

Click to expand...

I get your point, but you are missing one important fact.

It is physically impossible for a M4/3 lens to be "as good" as full frame lens at the same or similar price. Because the sensor is 1/4th as large, you would need a much faster M4/3 lens, and then it will become much more expensive and much larger. And then you will be upset about that.

You seem to be unhappy about the cost of the Panasonic 35-100mm lens, and say "if it was cheaper" but you are asking for a more expensive lens design. This just won't happen in our lifetimes.

Do you recall how LARGE and HEAVY the 4/3 35-100mm lens is?

The Olympus 35-100mm lens costs almost twice as much and weighs three times as much. But it is a much better lens. Is this what you want?

When you selected a M4/3 system you made a compromise that everyone else who selected that system made. You chose reasonably good performance with a smaller size and weight at a reasonable cost rather than the absolute best performance with no regard for price or weight.

If you really need the absolute best lens then the best solution for you is to stick with full frame.

If you can tolerate almost as good, then M4/3 might be for you.

--
Marty
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/
Olympus E-30
Olympus E-PL2
Sony SLT-A55
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6101/6318442842_7b93cb589b.jpg

Click to expand...

In fact not even FF will deliver the absolute best solution. For that you must spend upwards of $50,000 on things such as Leica S2, Hasselblad, Phase One etc

Really, for the convenience, size, weight and IQ as a package the two Lumix f2.8 lenses are very good value. My Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VRII weighs as much as the whole GH3/lens combo and cost $3500.

I don't hike at night that often... there's a dusk to dawn curfew in the town parks... but I do sometime take a stroll during a full moon



And not every night shot I take is in the woods, and I can't always take a tripod w me.





--
Art P
"I am a creature of contrast,
of light and shadow.
I live where the two play together,
I thrive on the conflict"

Even though I still agree there is not much overlap, there is more than you say there is.

- 17 mm 1.8 is close enough to the 20 mm 1.7 (seeing quite a few discussion about these two).
- 9-18 mm Oly is not too different and a viable option pricewise too to the 7-14 mm.
- 40-150 vs 45-150
- 42,5 f1.2 (roadmap) or 45 mm 1.8. although tjhe price will be very different for sure
- 12mm 2.0 or 14mm f2.5 is also not an overlap, but close enough to consider either of both
- 75-300 or 100-300 mm is close, but here OIs or not is very important depending on the body you use

I agree with economy of scale etc. But given the no overlap but close lenses, I think we can expect something from Oly here too. May be something like an 12-40 f2.8 to f4.0 (has been rumored I think). 40-100 f2.8 to f4.0 etc.

Also, if rumors are correct there could be a cam that can hold 43 and m43 lenses. E7. In that case, the body could give us these very fast lenses because they are already there...