Based on Ephotozine's tests the old Panasonic 14-45mm ( $272 on Amazon ) offers significantly higher resolution than the the new 12-35mm ( $1299 on Amazon ) and weighs about 1/3 less. It seems like a very large premium to pay for an extra f stop, 2mm more on the wide end ( albeit 10mm less on the long end ) and power OIS. What am I missing here?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Panasonic 12-35 vs 14-45
- Thread starter widick
- Start date
I have the original 14-45 and use it mostly at wide end with my fast primes. You will lose a fast constant aperture for one thing and at the long end the 14-45 is 5.6 and the 12-35 is f/2.8 which is a big difference for anyone needing the light. The 12-35 is also weather resistant but the big appeal is the constant fast aperture in a very good small zoom IMO.
However, saying that, for the immediate future I plan on using 14-45 (esp. for wide end as I don't have 14/2.5) and carrying my several very good fast primes. I'll consider when the lens is available whether it meets my needs at that point.
Diane
--
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic
http://www.flickr.com/photos/38647240@N00/
However, saying that, for the immediate future I plan on using 14-45 (esp. for wide end as I don't have 14/2.5) and carrying my several very good fast primes. I'll consider when the lens is available whether it meets my needs at that point.
Diane
--
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic
http://www.flickr.com/photos/38647240@N00/
Moonlight Knight
Well-known member
If I read ephotozine correctly, the tests were done with different cameras with different resolution. Can the graphs be compared directly?
sarlo100
Senior Member
It's closer to two stops faster by 35mm than a kit lens, but you're paying the premium for the constant f/2.8 aperture. If you need it and can afford it, it's worth it to you. If you don't need a zoomed out f/2.8...the 14-45 is a much more cost effective purchase.
Panny is gambling that enough people will want that zoomed out f/2.8 that they'll pay an extra $1000 for it. I think they're being overly optimistic, and that the street price will drop under $1000 before too long, closer to being on par with a Canon 17-55. What I'm wondering is whether Sigma or Tamron will try and undercut with their own f/2.8 zoom in the $600-700 price range anytime soon.
Here's what you're missing:
On top of being 2/3rds of a stop faster at the wide end, it is almost 2 stops faster at 35mm than the 14-45 is at 35mm.
Constant aperture meaning you don't have to worry about shutter speed when you zoom your lens in poor light. For the same f/2.8 aperture setting, you get the same shutter speed and ISO at the long end as you get at the wide. This may not matter much to you in conditions where the shift in ISO would be from 200 to 800, but if the shift is from 800 to 3200 or from 3200 to 12,800, you're a lot better off with the zoom that is faster at the long end.
If you shoot video, having the same shutter speed at a long focal length that you have at a short focal length is possibly even more crucial than it is for still photography.
It's also the de facto standard focal length range for a normal zoom for event photography and photojournalism.
If you don't see the benefit of constant exposure regardless of focal length covering 24-200 equivalent across 2 lenses, then you don't need one.
--
http://www.photoklarno.com
On top of being 2/3rds of a stop faster at the wide end, it is almost 2 stops faster at 35mm than the 14-45 is at 35mm.
Constant aperture meaning you don't have to worry about shutter speed when you zoom your lens in poor light. For the same f/2.8 aperture setting, you get the same shutter speed and ISO at the long end as you get at the wide. This may not matter much to you in conditions where the shift in ISO would be from 200 to 800, but if the shift is from 800 to 3200 or from 3200 to 12,800, you're a lot better off with the zoom that is faster at the long end.
If you shoot video, having the same shutter speed at a long focal length that you have at a short focal length is possibly even more crucial than it is for still photography.
It's also the de facto standard focal length range for a normal zoom for event photography and photojournalism.
If you don't see the benefit of constant exposure regardless of focal length covering 24-200 equivalent across 2 lenses, then you don't need one.
--
http://www.photoklarno.com
Aleo Veuliah
Forum Pro
The 14-45mm is a fine lens, very good image quality, but I think that on real life and not on graphics, we will notice better colors and color depth, the nano coating on the new lens really works, and beside that we have a faster lens
--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
God is the tangential point between zero and infinity.
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
God always take the simplest way.
--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
God is the tangential point between zero and infinity.
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
God always take the simplest way.
Jogger
Veteran Member
The lens isnt meant for the mass market and priced accordingly... 95-99% of m43 users will not need this lens. But, it presents an upgrade path for existing users and further rounds out the lens line-up; the fast, mid-range zoom is standard lens across all lens systems.
kenw
Veteran Member
One is tested on a 16MP imager, the other on a 12MP imager. Also they use imatest and don't specify if they are doing it in RAW or JPEG, in which case the JPEG engine plays as much role as the optics.
Looking through their lens reviews I immediately notice their undocumented test methods, their graphs with unlabeled scales, and the fact that they test with random camera bodies. All of those indicate you can safely ignore any graph, plot or conclusion drawn from their test data when compared to another lens. Don't even bother comparing one test of theirs to another - it would be total garbage. Now, their text about the lens and what not may still be useful. And for a given lens the graphs might help you figure out where it is sharpest, or how bad the corners are in a relative sense. But don't compare lenses between their reviews - they aren't set up to do that at all.
--
Ken W
See profile for equipment list
Looking through their lens reviews I immediately notice their undocumented test methods, their graphs with unlabeled scales, and the fact that they test with random camera bodies. All of those indicate you can safely ignore any graph, plot or conclusion drawn from their test data when compared to another lens. Don't even bother comparing one test of theirs to another - it would be total garbage. Now, their text about the lens and what not may still be useful. And for a given lens the graphs might help you figure out where it is sharpest, or how bad the corners are in a relative sense. But don't compare lenses between their reviews - they aren't set up to do that at all.
--
Ken W
See profile for equipment list
Moonlight Knight
Well-known member
Trying to convince myself I don't need the 12-35mm f/2.8, I checked out the SLRgear VFA target. The results of the two lenses look closer than a $1000 difference might suggest (at different focal lengths, different apertures and on different camera bodies though 
)...
)...Try not to put too much weight on a single review. Also, LPM is not the only metric.
--
http://www.pbase.com/dot_borg
--
http://www.pbase.com/dot_borg
Anders W
Forum Pro
I think Klarno already summarized the reasons why you might want to get 12-35/2.8 pretty well. That the 12-35 would be sharper than the 14-45 when both are shot at the same aperture isn't one of them. The 14-45 does about as well as any zoom can within the range of apertures it allows. Even excellent primes like the 14/2.5 and the 20/1.7 aren't significantly better at apertures that the 14-45 can manage. Consequently, I don't bother to mount them if the light is sufficient for the 14-45 to do the job. I bought the 14 and the 20 solely for speed and use them accordingly.Trying to convince myself I don't need the 12-35mm f/2.8, I checked out the SLRgear VFA target. The results of the two lenses look closer than a $1000 difference might suggest (at different focal lengths, different apertures and on different camera bodies though
The main advantages of the 12-35 is that it can manage f/2.8, that it can do so across the entire 12-35 range, and that it can do so without any noticeable penalty as far as resolution is concerned. If you don't find these characteristics important, there isn't much reason to get it.
Ulfric M Douglas
Senior Member
They cannot be directly compared as the conditions/sensor were different for each.
That's not to say I don't await real-world back-garden comparisons from some keen early adopter simply for the smug feeling of reaffirming the sharpness of this G1's kit zoom ... or not. :|
Bring on the
Aleo Veuliah
Forum Pro
--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
God is the tangential point between zero and infinity.
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
God always take the simplest way.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum