Panasonic Leica 12-60 f/2.8-4.0 vs Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8

[Steve Monks]

I was lucky enough to grab the new Panasonic Leica 12-60 lens today. Unfortunately it was dark and rainy by the time I got home, so there were no particularly good opportunities to try it outdoors, rest assured it will be out on the fells in the Lake District with me at the end of the week, however I was keen to see how it compared against the 12-35, the lens it will effectively be replacing for a bit of extra reach when out on the fells so I ran off a few test shots.

The test shots are not particularly exciting or scientific and shouldn't be taken as proof of one lens being better than the other due to sample variation and so on, but they may be of interest to someone who owns the 12-35 and is thinking of purchasing this lens.

All shots were taken with the lenses mounted on an E-M1 MKII on a static tripod and converted from RAW to full res JPGs via Lightroom with no other adjustments.

For the target shots I attempted to get the camera as square on as possible, but this was just done by eye. The 25mm and 35mm shots are at focal lengths estimated using the value displayed in the EVF, more so with the 35mm length on the 12-60 as that value successfully falls between the granularity of the encoder which jumps directly from 34 to 36.

One interesting thing I've noticed is the DOF appears to fall off very sharply in front of the focal point on the 12-60 but falls off sharply behind the focal point on the 12-35. I'm guessing this is related to close focusing distances, so I don't anticipate this to be an issue when I get (literally) out in the field, but when I first noticed this I thought I had a decentred lens.

My personal opinion from this limited testing is that the 12-60 looks a little sharper across the frame than the 12-35, I'd have been happy for it just to equal it, so this is a good start and I'm really looking forward to getting out on the fells and giving it a proper workout.

First, a grid. The built in lens profiles have been left on during export, so this doesn't really show uniformity issues as LR should be correcting them, but does highlight any corner sharpness and CA issues.


Pana/Leica 12-60 @34mm f/5.6


Lumix 12-35 @35mm f/5.6

This sloping focusing chart clearly shows how the 12-60 focus falls off in front of the target point - a single focus point in the centre circle.


Pana/Leica 12-60 @35mm f/8

With the 12-35, the focus falloff seems to go the other way.


Lumix 12-35 @35mm f/8

The next set of shots are taken at 12, 25 and 35mm focal lengths (all f/5.6). The focal point in all of these is the IC near the middle with "EF ROM 342-0303" written alongside it.


Pana/Leica 12-60 @12mm f/5.6


Lumix 12-35 @12mm f/5.6


Pana/Leica 12-60 @25mm f/5.6


Lumix 12-35 @25mm f/5.6


Pana/Leica 12-60 @ 35mm f/5.6


Lumix 12-35 @35mm f/5.6

 

[pdk42]

OOOh - an Apple IIe !

 

[TXDego]

OOOh - an Apple IIe !

Paul
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/paul_kaye

IKR

Even more rare, where did you find the Fuschia colored shag carpet? :-D

 

[Hen3ry]

I am about to swap the 12-35 for the 12-60 -- so you informal test is exactly what I need to see.

And your results are exactly what I hoped!

I am not concerned with the 12-60 being discernibly superior to the 12-35 -- at least not the one I have, it is a superb lens -- but "just as good" (where "good" = "excellent") is the term I have in mind.

Looks as though I will be getting that when I make the change at the end of next month.

Thanks, Steve.

 

[jalywol]

There's really a big difference in where these lenses are focused in each frame. Is there any way you could redo these shots using MF to make sure they each were exactly focused on the same spot? It's very hard to compare them with the focal point in each being so different.

-J

 

[Steve Monks]

There's really a big difference in where these lenses are focused in each frame. Is there any way you could redo these shots using MF to make sure they each were exactly focused on the same spot? It's very hard to compare them with the focal point in each being so different.

-J

All six shots of the Apple II are focused on the same point. I used the AF, but just the centre spot and it's aimed at the same chip on the board - I was careful not to move the tripod at all between shots and lens changes.

As the EM-1 uses PDAF, it's possible there's a back / front focus difference between the two lenses. The two focus chart shots show that there's a significant difference in focus falloff between the two lenses, with the 12-35 falling off behind the focus point and the 12-60 falling off in front of it. In both cases the actual target point (aimed at the centre of the circle) does appear to be the correctly in focus, so it struck me as a bit weird.

I'll repeat a few of these tests this evening with the GX8 as the results may be different with a CDAF system and also give manual focusing a shot.

 

[Steve Monks]

I am about to swap the 12-35 for the 12-60 -- so you informal test is exactly what I need to see.

And your results are exactly what I hoped!

I am not concerned with the 12-60 being discernibly superior to the 12-35 -- at least not the one I have, it is a superb lens -- but "just as good" (where "good" = "excellent") is the term I have in mind.

Looks as though I will be getting that when I make the change at the end of next month.

Thanks, Steve.

 

[Steve Monks]

OOOh - an Apple IIe !

Paul
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/paul_kaye

IKR

Even more rare, where did you find the Fuschia colored shag carpet? :-D

It's a lifestyle choice. New carpets or camera gear? You can imagine where my priorities lie. Beside, give it a few more years and it'll be back "on trend". Probably.

 

[Steve Monks]

OOOh - an Apple IIe !

 

[TRP]

I recently purchased a E-M1 ii, and am building a new kit. I have the 40-150 f2.8 and the Pan/Leica 100-400 on the way, but need something at the short end. I was originally thinking of he 12-40 Pro, but the added reach of this lens is really attractive. I am just wondering if it will as sharp and the loss of constant 2.8 is a bit bothersome.

Can you verify how the aperture changes through the zoom range?

Can this do sudo-macro at all (like the 12-40)?

Do you miss the f2.8 from 12-35 (that if is it goes above 2.8 before 35)?

--
http://www.greinerstudio.com
---
Pentax K3
Pentax 12-24 f4 ED AL
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD
Pentax SMCP-DA 40 f/2.8 ED Limited Edition
Pentax D-FA 100 f/2.8 Macro WR
Sigma 400 f5.6 Telemacro
Pentax DA* 60-250 f/4

 

[blewey]

Can you verify how the aperture changes through the zoom range?

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

Focal length vs aperture is almost identical to the Olympus Four Thirds 12-60 f2.8-f4 - minor differences of 0.1 at some focal lengths.

Can't answer your other two questions, though.

 

[Steve Monks]

Can you verify how the aperture changes through the zoom range?

The aperture varies as follows;

f/2.8 @ 12mm
f/3.2 @ 18mm
f/3.5 @ 25mm
f/3.8 @ 35mm
f/3.9 @ 40mm
f/3.9 @ 50mm
f/4.0 @ 60mm

Can this do sudo-macro at all (like the 12-40)?

Close focus distance is pretty good at both ends, this was shot at 60mm from just a couple of inches away. For reference the coin is about 30mm across;




E-M1 MKII + Pana/Leica 12-60 f/2.8-4.0. 60mm f/8.0 - full res image.

Do you miss the f2.8 from 12-35 (that if is it goes above 2.8 before 35)?

No, not really. I shoot mostly landscapes so I generally prioritise deep DOF more than a wide aperture. For my purposes I'd have been happy with this lens if it had been a constant f/4.0.

I haven't had a chance to use it in a proper real world environment yet and my plans to hit fells this weekend have been thwarted so I can't really comment on the performance out in the field at this point.

 

[TRP]

Can you verify how the aperture changes through the zoom range?

The aperture varies as follows;

f/2.8 @ 12mm
f/3.2 @ 18mm
f/3.5 @ 25mm
f/3.8 @ 35mm
f/3.9 @ 40mm
f/3.9 @ 50mm
f/4.0 @ 60mm

Can this do sudo-macro at all (like the 12-40)?

Close focus distance is pretty good at both ends, this was shot at 60mm from just a couple of inches away. For reference the coin is about 30mm across;

Do you miss the f2.8 from 12-35 (that if is it goes above 2.8 before 35)?

No, not really. I shoot mostly landscapes so I generally prioritise deep DOF more than a wide aperture. For my purposes I'd have been happy with this lens if it had been a constant f/4.0.

The MFT charts show this being pretty soft in the corners vs the center so I will be really curious to see if you find that to be the case. This would have an impact on landscapes. I couldnt tell from your test shots

I haven't had a chance to use it in a proper real world environment yet and my plans to hit fells this weekend have been thwarted so I can't really comment on the performance out in the field at this point.

 

[Steve Monks]

The MFT charts show this being pretty soft in the corners vs the center so I will be really curious to see if you find that to be the case. This would have an impact on landscapes. I couldnt tell from your test shots

It seems to be softest around the edges at 12mm, but from this not very exciting series of test shots taken this morning it doesn't look bad (all uncropped and without chromatic aberration correction).


12mm hand held, 1/13th sec at f/5.6. Adjusted for tone and contrast.


25mm hand held, 1/15h sec at f/5.6. Adjusted for tone and contrast.


34mm hand held, 1/13th sec at f/5.6. Adjusted for tone and contrast.


50mm hand held, 1/20th sec at f/5.6. Adjusted for tone and contrast.


60mm hand held, 1/20th sec at f/5.6. Adjusted for tone and contrast.

 

[Steve Monks]

A few nicer looking test shots taken with the 12-60 this morning (mostly full res)...


29mm @ f/5.6, uncropped, adjusted for tone and contrast.




12mm @ f/6.3, uncropped, adjusted for tone and contrast.




12mm @ f/5.6, uncropped, adjusted for tone and contrast.


...and a few from a very misty and drizzly walk at the weekend.


16mm hand held, 1/15th sec @ f/6.3




17mm hand held, 1/40th sec @ f/5.6




36mm hand held, 1/10th sec at f/6.3, vignette added in LR.




12mm hand held, f/6.3 @ 1/10th sec - not full res.




Full res corner crop from the previous image.




Full res centre crop from previous image.

 

[TRP]

My biggest concern is the difference between center and edges at the wide end (12mm being the worst I assume). Tests just show it is not sharp across the frame.

Also, if looks like you actually lose some sharpness with this lens the more you stop it down, it does its best wide open according to mtf charts.

Do you have anything wide open or only one stop down at 12mm?

 

[Steve Monks]

My biggest concern is the difference between center and edges at the wide end (12mm being the worst I assume). Tests just show it is not sharp across the frame.

Also, if looks like you actually lose some sharpness with this lens the more you stop it

down, it does its best wide open according to mtf charts.

Regarding reviews I've only come across the ePhotozine one so far and that seems to indicate that sharpness improves slightly at 12mm up to f/5.6. Have you seen any others?

Do you have anything wide open or only one stop down at 12mm?

No, sorry, I wouldn't normally be shooting wide open at 12mm, so I didn't take any test shots like that. What sort of image are you looking for? I could make a point to take something of that nature the next time I'm out with it.

 

[JHaagsma]

I'd also like to see some samples where the lens is probably at its weakest: @12 and @60 wide open (disregarding shooting at f/22 which in reality would have the weakest IQ)

Preferably of some flat object, shot from a tripod if possible to exclude softness from shake. Anyway, thanks for the effort to post some images!

 

[silentstorm]

init hello

catalog

pr#6

Sure brings back memories!!!!

BTW, how is the distortion like for 12mm, 30mm & 60mm? There was a thread mentioned that the uncorrected distortion is quite high.

Thanks for the test & those lovely scenic pics

 

[Steven Wandy]

I would love to have someone (preferably a user, but will take a website review) compare this to Panasonic's first 12-60 (the non-Leica branded one) which I have. Would like to think that since this lens is double the price it would be noticeably better as far as IQ was concerned before I decided to "upgrade".

I looked at the latest sample images and two things struck me - I was surprised when looking at the photos in the DPR viewer (I might download them to check again) is the amount of what I would think is noise from the EM1-II at even ISO 200 (I have the Pen-F, which has supposedly the same sensor and I think my ISO 200 images look cleaner) and the images (granted they are hand-held and the light looks pretty dim in most of them) don't really look that dramatically "better" than what I see from my 12-60. It might be your post processing to get the images the way you like - or maybe just the way the DPR gallery viewer displays JPEG files as I am certainly no expert in either.

Please don't take my comments as a reflection on you and like everyone else here I really appreciate your taking the time to post this about the new lens.

UPDATE: I just downloaded the JPEGs (have not brought them into any software yet) but I did notice that for "full res" photos the file sizes are very small. Is there a place that you have the full resolution images - perhaps that is why I saw what I mentioned in my comments above. Thanks