Comparing Pana 12-35mm zoom to some primes

Hello,

in the German "Olympus forum" we hat a discussion whether the Panasonic 12-35 zoom can deliver IQ similar to prime lenses.

I decided to boost the discussion with some sample pictures.
I think these pictures could be of some interest in the English forum too, so here they are.

First a practical exercise:
I borrowed the 12mm prime from a friend (thank you Franz) and did a landscape at 12mm.
Pana 12-35/f2.8 @2.8 and Oly 12mm/f2.0 @2.8.

Panasonic 12-35 @f2.8

Olympus 12mm @f2.8

Now some theoretical pictures:

100% crops from a test chart, center and upper left corner.

• At 12mm: Pana12-35mm, Oly12mm, Oly9-18mm
• At 25mm: Pana12-35mm, PanaLeica25mm, Oly 14-150mm
• At 35mm: Pana12-35, Oly 35mm Macro
  

At 12mm: Pana12-35mm, Oly12mm, Oly9-18mm

At 25mm: Pana12-35mm, PanaLeica25mm, Oly 14-150mm

At 35mm: Pana12-35, Oly 35mm Macro

You see, the old FT Macro rules!!

And now something very theoretical (in my opinion):
100% crops from RAW files without any correction, full barrel distortion and CA.

Uncorrected RAW file screenshots

Here ist my personal conclusion from these tests:

The zoom has quite good sharpness and contrast. In practical use it is hard to distinguish from the 12mm prime or the other primes. Only the purple fringing in the trees shows that we are using a zoom lens.

Stopped down the IQ looks very similar, for example Oly 12@f2.0 and Pana12-35@2.8. I think I can live with the zoom lens, loosing only one step of aperture while having similar IQ.

What do you think?

Christof

Thank you for posting.

Putting them side by side on the same (good) monitor, in the real life photos of the barn the Oly 12mm image is significantly more detailed.

In particular, the grain of the wood on the barn doors is clearer with the Oly lens.  It's this kind of subtle detail I'm looking for rather than the more obvious contrast between light and dark.

Unless of course, there was a slight camera shake or mis-focus with the Pany.

I am interested because I myself am choosing between these two lenses.

Rens wrote:

Thank you for posting.

Putting them side by side on the same (good) monitor, in the real life photos of the barn the Oly 12mm image is significantly more detailed.

In particular, the grain of the wood on the barn doors is clearer with the Oly lens. It's this kind of subtle detail I'm looking for rather than the more obvious contrast between light and dark.

Unless of course, there was a slight camera shake or mis-focus with the Pany.

I am interested because I myself am choosing between these two lenses.

The photos were taken on a good tripod, so camera shake should not be an issue.

What I found strange that there are "zones" in the pictures where one or the other lens seems to be sharper. Strange ...
Anyhow, I focused on the top of the barn, maybe this extra info can help?

As we are pixel peeping, I have two additional shots from the same location:

Here, focus is different: front or back side of the roof. But should be the tree in the middle. And focus should be sharp from 5m to infinity, theoretically ...

Oly 12mm

Panny 12-35

Also for your conclusions which clearly follow what you were seeing in the results. So often people get sucked in by one lens or one aspect of a lens or another and their conclusions are actually not logical.

That 12-35 looks like a very nice lens indeed. The Oly 9-18 results were a bit of an eye opener!!! i would have expected better.

Cheers, geoff

Very little to choose between the second pair of barn shots. I wonder why the difference between the first pair?  Though there is still a difference in fine detail of, for example, the bark on the trees.  I believe this is what is called micro contrast (I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong).

Pixel peeping is useful when choosing a lens.

As for the 9-18, it's ultra compact and the width is very useful but I've never found it to be as good as many of the reviews suggest.

Thank you! I needed that comparision. I am trying to decide if i have to buy the 12-35...
I believe I must have it. I am hoping in a lowering of the price...

for doing these comparisons. It confirms what I already knew from my own copy of the 12-35mm. It competes very well with any prime lens except the sharpest macro lenses (which I would expect anyway). The fact that it's a fast constant aperture zoom lens makes this performance pretty impressive, especially as it's sharp from F2.8. What I find bewildering is how anyone can say this lens is expensive when you consider what it can do and how it compares to primes lenses in it's focal length. The 12mm F2 is not cheap and it only has one focal length. I think some people need to wake up and smell the coffee, considering that this lens on it's own performs like a prime throughout it's entire range from it's maximum aperture, as you've shown.
The 12-35mm F2.8 is a an excellent constant aperture zoom that does exactly what it should do and does it very well, it isn't cheap, it's never going to be cheap, it's a premium lens - end of story.

papillon_65 wrote:

What I find bewildering is how anyone can say this lens is expensive when you consider what it can do and how it compares to primes lenses in it's focal length.
The 12-35mm F2.8 is a an excellent constant aperture zoom that does exactly what it should do and does it very well, it isn't cheap, it's never going to be cheap, it's a premium lens - end of story.

I think it's easy to look at its size and expect the price to match this.  Compared to it's exact Nikon FF counterpart,  the 24-70 f2.8 VR it is indeed a bargain.

But in actual, rather than relative, terms, it still costs enough that we want to be sure it is good enough before spending the money.

I'd be interested to see a comparison of the 12-35 on OMD agains the 24-70 on a Nikon D700 or D600.  A comparison of image quality and a comparison of total cost.

I'd be interested to see a comparison of the 12-35 on OMD agains the 24-70 on a Nikon D700 or D600. A comparison of image quality and a comparison of total cost.

The cost comparision is easy:

Here in Sweden the Oly E-M5 + Pana 12-35/2.8 is 20.000:- SEK (~3000 USD)

Nikon D600 + 24-70/2,8 is 31000:- SEK (~4600 USD) or +55%

Prices includes our VAT that is 20% of above amounts here.

Weight is 705 g for the Oly+Pana and 1750 g for the Nikon combo.

Size comparision can be seen on camerasize.com http://camerasize.com/compact/#378.327,289.336,ha,t

Rens wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

What I find bewildering is how anyone can say this lens is expensive when you consider what it can do and how it compares to primes lenses in it's focal length.
The 12-35mm F2.8 is a an excellent constant aperture zoom that does exactly what it should do and does it very well, it isn't cheap, it's never going to be cheap, it's a premium lens - end of story.

I think it's easy to look at its size and expect the price to match this. Compared to it's exact Nikon FF counterpart, the 24-70 f2.8 VR it is indeed a bargain.

Exactly.

But in actual, rather than relative, terms, it still costs enough that we want to be sure it is good enough before spending the money.

I think there has been a wealth of evidence here on the m4/3's forum to suggest it is. There is also the dedicated flickr group here where you will find plenty of great examples.

I'd be interested to see a comparison of the 12-35 on OMD agains the 24-70 on a Nikon D700 or D600. A comparison of image quality and a comparison of total cost.

Why would you want to do that? if you want what they offer you are better off just buying them. Comparing lenses on different formats and different cameras is a pointless exercise IMHO. All I need to know is what any respective lens can do on a specific body, I guess YMMV.

-- hide signature --

Rens
There are optimists and there are realists

papillon_65 wrote:

Rens wrote:

I'd be interested to see a comparison of the 12-35 on OMD agains the 24-70 on a Nikon D700 or D600. A comparison of image quality and a comparison of total cost.

Why would you want to do that? if you want what they offer you are better off just buying them. Comparing lenses on different formats and different cameras is a pointless exercise IMHO. All I need to know is what any respective lens can do on a specific body, I guess YMMV.

I think that kind of comparisons are interesting. In the end it's the combination of body and lens that is the tool you use taking pictures. Neither the lens nor the body is capable by themselves. A comparison of final results from body and lens together between two systems is interesting when you decide if the lesser weight is worth the compromise, or if there even is a compromise choosing m4/3

Interesting comparisons of the lenses anyway. Obviously the 12-35 performs very well compared to the 12/2. I didn't expected it should be better than the 25/1,4 on 2,8 but it obviously is, especially in the corner.

That it outperforms the 14-150 and 9-18 is less astonishing. Superzooms like the 14-150 never perform well, but maybe you could expect more from the 9-18. The result regarding that lens  corresponds well to my own findings. The 9-18 is just a little sharper than the kit lens 12-50 through their common reach 12-18. That said I find this lens very versatile and useful anyway. Only when making big prints you'll be disappointed.

Ulfric M Douglas wrote:

CrisPhoto wrote:

Hello,

in the German "Olympus forum" we hat a discussion ...

.

What do you think?

I think your test procedure and presentation are excellent, thanks for posting.

That 35mm 4/3rds lens is SHARP! & contrasty.

And the correct pronunciation is "ve hat" rather than "we hat" ...

From your test and others I'd say the 12-35 is really excellent for Panasonic bodies, less so for Olympus simply because of uncorrected CA.

I think you got me wrong, in my everyday use the CA is corrected on LightRoom import. So I will barely ever see it, that's why I am very happy with my Olympus/Panasonic team.

Therefore I called the last test charts the most theoretical part of my comparison.

But you are not completely wrong: In the German thread we hat, hmm had the PanaLeica 25mm on a Pany and Oly body.

While lateral CA (the red and green borders in my last test chart) is corrected by Pana or Lightroom, there was less blue colored "purple fringing" on the Panasonic pictures. Either the camera is less sensible to harsh light or it does some additional magic to reduce the blue borders?

I don't know. My test landsape also shows harsh contrast, the tree against bright sky. You can see the purple fringing especially in the upper right corner in the tree.

Christof

It doesn't give us the "Wow!"  that the older Olympus 14-35 f2.0 SHG gives you when you compare it to primes. I am hoping that Olympus will provide a similar lens that takes us to that level.

For now I'll stay with my Oly 12mm, Panny 20 f1.7, Panny/Leica 25, and the Oly 45mm to cover those focal lengths and have the advantage of the speed and better bokeh properties those lenses offer. Collectively they are more expensive and bulky than the 12-35 but, that is my compromise to have the better overall IQ for now.

Dan

papillon_65 wrote:

I'd be interested to see a comparison of the 12-35 on OMD agains the 24-70 on a Nikon D700 or D600. A comparison of image quality and a comparison of total cost.

Why would you want to do that? if you want what they offer you are better off just buying them. Comparing lenses on different formats and different cameras is a pointless exercise IMHO. All I need to know is what any respective lens can do on a specific body, I guess YMMV.

Just out of interest.