Panasonic AF 12-35/2.8 G worth it?

Hi, im returning to photography again after a break only using my iPhone 6+.

I have been using both Nikon DX and m43 and been very happy with both systems but now when I´m going to buy a new system I lean towards m43 again since I really like the lower total weight.

When I used Nikon DX the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 was my go-to lens that normally was mounted on my camera. m43 is blessed with the Panasonic AF 12-35/2.8 G but I have never tried it.

It is quite expensive so I wonder what your experience with this lens is and if the high cost is worth it? My other option is to buy the Panasonic 14-45 again and use it along with PanaLeica 25 mm.

I love the 12-35.  It is an excellent lens.  I also have the 12-32 lens that came with my GM1.  In good light is also unexpectedly a very good lens.  I use these two lenses most of the time when I am shooting outdoors. The 12-32 is so small that it is just fun to use and people do not realize that I am using a high quality camera system and I am much less noticeable with that lens on either my GX7 or GM1.  To answer your question, the 12-35 is an absolutely fine lens and you will enjoy it.  In fact, this weekend I am going to go picture-taking with some of my friends to a local garden and only will be taking the 12-35.

Hal

Hi,

I have both the lenses you mention.  I got the 14-45 first and there is no doubt in my mind that it's a very good lens the only problem I had with it was the fact that its 3.5 - 5.6.  Not so much a problem at 14mm but at the long end I found the 5.6 a bit restricting.

I eventually bought the 12-35 and I love it, small niggles I wish it were a bit longer (45mm would have been nice and it extends out when you zoom - the 35 -100 doesn't), other than that it's my most used lens on my em5 - both are weather proof.

Whether it's worth the money it depends on how much you can get it for of course but I think so.

btw olympus also do a similar lens (12 -40) similar optical properties, a bit bigger and heavier, longer reach and probably similar price.

Excellent lens for stills and video, well worth the extra cost of the lens just like the 35- 100 /2.8 both top notch quality products.

Worth it is subjective and I don't know if I would have bought it myself. I was given one in February and I wasn't prepared for the quality - jaw dropping. It's the night/indoor go to lens. If you can afford it you'll be VERY pleased.

Regards,

Kurt

Skarstrom wrote:

When I used Nikon DX the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 was my go-to lens that normally was mounted on my camera. m43 is blessed with the Panasonic AF 12-35/2.8 G but I have never tried it.

It is quite expensive so I wonder what your experience with this lens is and if the high cost is worth it? My other option is to buy the Panasonic 14-45 again and use it along with PanaLeica 25 mm.

I can't speak directly to the 12-35mm (though the 35-100mm/2.8 is excellent), but if you were to decide for the budget zoom, I'd recommend the Panasonic 14-42mm II. I've used it and the 14-45mm, and like many others, I've found their output to be indistinguishable. The 14-42mm II is much more compact and is better for video compared to the 14-45mm.

Do you travel a lot? If you do then this is a very good lens if you don't/can't change lenses during your trip.  I don't like to change lenses when I am with family on trips since they are not into photography and I would slow them up.  The Olympus 12-40 is an alternative with similar IQ. Pro: it is a little longer and can focus closer. Cons: a little longer and heavier.  Both pro zooms are considerably heavier than budget zooms and primes, but worth it IMHO.

Yes, it is worth it.  The only problem is that it is addictive and it may cause you to question the value of some of your other lenses.

nt

Definitely optically the equal of the excellent Olympus 12-40 which now has almost reached "Legendary" status.  The 12-35 is a little smaller and lighter which, IMO, is a good thing.  So if you like the focal length the 12-35 f2.8 surely an excellent lens.

JL

I really like mine. It is my most used lens. Extremely smooth zoom and focus rings.

I bought it for use on an EM5 before the 12-40 came out. I planned to sell it when the Olympus fast normal zoom arrived assuming the Oly would be a bit smaller since it would not have OIS like the Pany. After the larger (surprise) Olympus offering was announced, I saw no reason to trade.

It balances even better since I upgraded to EM1 and makes a beautiful travel pair with the Lumix 35-100 2.8. Zoom rings rotate in same direction and both take 58 mm filters.

Also, in my opinion, the difference between 12 and 14 on the wide end is more significant than the difference between 35 and 40/42/45 on the long end of the other lenses you are considering.

Lee

Skarstrom wrote:

Hi, im returning to photography again after a break only using my iPhone 6+.

I have been using both Nikon DX and m43 and been very happy with both systems but now when I´m going to buy a new system I lean towards m43 again since I really like the lower total weight.

When I used Nikon DX the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 was my go-to lens that normally was mounted on my camera. m43 is blessed with the Panasonic AF 12-35/2.8 G but I have never tried it.

It is quite expensive so I wonder what your experience with this lens is and if the high cost is worth it? My other option is to buy the Panasonic 14-45 again and use it along with PanaLeica 25 mm.

You've got a lot of great choices now with m43. The 12-35 and 12-40 (Oly) are both great lenses. Bigger and heavier and more expensive, but faster and great Iq.

The 12-32 and 14-42mk2 (both from Pany) are both tiny and great, but not as fast; the 12-32 is ludicrously small.

The 14-45 is like the 14-42mk2 quality-wise plus a bump, but is a bit bigger.

Oly zooms in this range (other than the 12-40) just haven't impressed.

I'm seriously looking for a HQ lens for my GH3 as well.  I've basically settled on the Pan 12-35 and it would complete the water resistance factor for my site photos.  The Olympus 12-40 would also work, but I've been told that the water resistance feature only works with lens and camera from the same manufacturer.  Is this true?

Skarstrom wrote:

It is quite expensive so I wonder what your experience with this lens is and if the high cost is worth it? My other option is to buy the Panasonic 14-45 again and use it along with PanaLeica 25 mm.

The two best standard m4/3 zooms are the Lumix 12-35mm and the M.Zuiko 12-40mm. I've used both for a couple of years.

Since the M.Zuiko 12-40mm doesn't provide image stabilization, if your m4/3 camera body doesn't have in-body IS, your best choice would be the Lumix 12-35mm.

If your  camera has in body IS, the best choice is the M.Zuiko 12-40mm. That's my main lens for now and I'm still amazed how sharp this lens is.

That being said, there is a huge price differences these two zooms and the rest of the m4/3 standard zooms. These price differences don't reflect _huge_ quality differences. They are not as extraordinary as the two best ones but still very good lenses.

If I would have to give a note of the ones that I've own and have tried long enough to be categorical, I'd give these subjective results:

100% M.Zuiko 12-40mm
  98% Lumix 12-35mm
  80% Lumix 14-42mm II
  78% Lumix 14-45mm

It is quite expensive so I wonder what your experience with this lens is and if the high cost is worth it? My other option is to buy the Panasonic 14-45 again and use it along with PanaLeica 25 mm.

The 12-35 is great - it and the 35-100/2.8 Panasonic are totally worth the money. Don't spend off your cash on alternatives. I tried all first and ended up buying the pair anyway.

I would recommend buying a new 12-35 from a Japanese or Korean seller on ebay. Some well-established Japanese camera shops sell this way and offer to expedite warranty service if required. But the build quality is so good on these lenses, I don't worry about not having warranty. They don't break.

I paid 1099USD for my US retail 12-35 long ago, and the warranty is long gone. Nowdays I'd just buy one from Japan for 850-ish on ebay. I smartened up and bought a new US market 35-100/2.8 with no warranty off of ebay for 999USD instead of the silly US retail price of 1399. I like it even better than the 12-35, which is superb in its own right.

Thanks for all the input guys, im happy to see how many that like this lens, but it´s gonne sting in my wallet

Steve_ wrote:

It is quite expensive so I wonder what your experience with this lens is and if the high cost is worth it? My other option is to buy the Panasonic 14-45 again and use it along with PanaLeica 25 mm.

The 12-35 is great - it and the 35-100/2.8 Panasonic are totally worth the money. Don't spend off your cash on alternatives. I tried all first and ended up buying the pair anyway.

I would recommend buying a new 12-35 from a Japanese or Korean seller on ebay. Some well-established Japanese camera shops sell this way and offer to expedite warranty service if required. But the build quality is so good on these lenses, I don't worry about not having warranty. They don't break.

I paid 1099USD for my US retail 12-35 long ago, and the warranty is long gone. Nowdays I'd just buy one from Japan for 850-ish on ebay. I smartened up and bought a new US market 35-100/2.8 with no warranty off of ebay for 999USD instead of the silly US retail price of 1399. I like it even better than the 12-35, which is superb in its own right.

Good suggestion to use Japanese retailer on ebay, much cheaper the brick and mortars in Sweden! Thanks.

It's really good and exceptional for video. The main down-side is 70mm (equiv) really isn't zooming in too much so you can need to carry a longer lens as well.

Good suggestion to use Japanese retailer on ebay, much cheaper the brick and mortars in Sweden! Thanks.

No problem. When you look at your first set of pics from the 12-35 you'll know it money well spent

I hope so, because mine was delivered 2 days ago      I have only done a few test shots so far, but the quality of the images is excellent. I am no pixel peeper, but the detail and sharpness at 1:1 is remarkable.

Dave