So, after my G9 vs. G85 comparison, I think it's time to compare a couple of great standard zooms for them. Neither of these is particularly cheap, nor super-expensive, and both fall into a problematic price bracket where most customers expect visibly better results over kit lenses, but also cannot realistically be expected to stand at the top of the optical heap.
Full disclosure: I've owned the Lumix for two months, and the Leica* for three weeks. I bought the PL 12-60mm to replace the 12-35mm, because I wasn't entirely happy with the latter. Still, I think both are good lenses, with different strengths and weaknesses.
And no, I don't own a copy of Imatest, or Siemens star charts. There are plenty of people out there far better-equipped and qualified to run proper, hard tests on lenses. But hopefully you'll still learn a few things from this comparison.
Let's start with the physical characteristics. There's a lot to cover in this department. I'll list the pros and cons of the Leica DG lens, in relation to the Lumix G:
Pro: The PL 12-60mm weighs almost the same as the 12-35mm.
Con: The 12-60mm is quite a bit larger than the 12-35mm.
Pro: The Leica is substantially better haptics-wise than the Lumix. No, the Lumix isn't bad at all, but it's not "pro" zoom material, either. Panasonic got rid of that hideous rubber for the zoom ring on the 12-60mm (yes!), improved the resistance of both zooming and focusing rings (YES!), and added an AF/MF switch on the body (HALLELUJAH!).
Pro: The Leica has an improved lens cap that feels sturdier and is easier to put on/remove.
Pro: The PL 12-60mm has a much better lens hood. The improvements are subtle, but multiple, and show how the lens' design was a labor of love and dedication (which is one of the main reasons behind my decision to use Panasonic gear, as they really love what they do, and it shows). As you can see on the picture above, the hood, when reversed, lies at a 90 degree offset from the Lumix's, allowing users to adjust both focus and zoom even when the hood isn't deployed. The shade has a button to remove it, and it automatically locks itself when in place; this is an excellent addition, because in comparison the 12-35mm's hood becomes loose very quickly and won't stay put. It also incorporates an aluminum piece that in practice does nothing, but feels and looks great :-D
Con: Panasonic increased the filter thread to 62mm on the Leica. Why? Just, why!? If you look at the front of both lenses, their first elements are almost the same size, and Panasonic even chose a narrower font to print on the makeup ring, which doesn't use the whole width - they could've easily kept the 58mm thread. 58mm is one of the three main "standard" filter sizes of Micro Four Thirds, after all.
Con: The PL 12-60mm narrows down aperture-wise very quickly, whereas the 12-35mm has a constant aperture. It's bad enough that I consider the PL a 12mm f/2.8 prime rolled up into a 14-60mm f/4 zoom.
(Very subtle) Pro: The Leica barely changes size when zoomed in to 18mm, and doesn't move at all between 12 and 16mm. This is great for weather sealing, as trombone zooms can easily scoop water inside if they get wet and are pumped often. Of course, the Lumix doesn't extend much more; however, its inner barrel has a rounded flange that won't keep water out, but rather help it slide inside :-x
Equal: Neither has a measurable advantage in either focusing speed or in-lens stabilization, as far as I can tell.
So, how are they for actual photography?
One of my favorite shots from the 12-35mm f/2.8 II.
Color: The Leica DG is an excellent lens. It renders color very beautifully; it's slightly colder than the Lumix G, and it seems to just make reds pop. The 12-35mm has a little more contrast, but it's less vibrant, and tinges everything yellow.
I didn't even need to adjust vibrance for this shot, but it benefitted from a slight clarity and contrast boost. Most of the frame is very well resolved.
Resolution: Remember, first and foremost, that we're talking of a single copy of each lens, and I've no idea how lucky my draw was this time. Anyway, the PL is a bit softer wide open at the edges than the Lumix, but the 12-60mm sharpens up beautifully one stop down, whereas the 12-35mm just doesn't improve much - my copy has a relatively soft left side caused by tilt, which is exacerbated by the IBIS sometimes. In the center both lenses are stupid sharp even wide open, so that's a non-issue. What can be a problem, however, is the relatively pronounced field curvature of the Lumix, especially at the 12mm end, and which can cause corners to seem much worse than they really are. The Leica DG is much better in this regard, and by f/5.6 resolves fine detail way into the corners like few MFT zooms do.
Neither of these lenses is too flare-prone, but the PL gets washed out a little more shooting contre-jour. For a photo like this the Lumix is better.
Flare, haze, and chromatic aberration: Both of these lenses are susceptible to flare, green for the Lumix, and purple for the Leica, in the same situations and to a pretty comparable degree. I can't pick a winner in that regard. As for hazing and loss of contrast, the 12-60mm suffers more of both than the 12-35mm. It's not bad, really; it becomes a nuisance only with diffuse backlighting at the long end. CA is perfectly controlled by the software on Panasonic cameras, but purple fringing on some Olympus bodies can be atrocious with the 12-35mm - I haven't tested the 12-60mm on my E-M10, and don't expect it to be any better.
This is the one aspect where the PL 12-60mm crushes its sibling - its 0.3x magnification at the 60mm end is extremely handy, and blows the 12-35mm's puny 0.1x out of the water. The photo is of a Samsung Gear S2, for reference.
Close up: No contest here, the Leica DG is worlds better. Or rather, the Lumix G is utterly useless and can't compete. Maybe it's both
Thanks to its AF/MF switch and really decent focus ring, the PL can sub in for a macro lens not only effectively, but also comfortably.
PL 12-60mm
LG 12-35mm
Bokeh: The one huge fault of the Leica lies in this aspect - its bokeh can only be described as 'hideous'. Both it and the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 should be the poster children for "ground aspheric syndrome", or "how manufacturers have made super-sharp lenses that don't weigh a ton and don't cost an eye at the expense of OOF areas". Thanks to a big reduction in the cost of aspherical elements, they've become ubiquitous - but all aren't made in the same way, and the cheapest ones are ground by robots that leave imperfections on their surface. The result is the kind of nervous, oniony, irregular mess that resides in the background of the 12-60mm's photos. If you look at the portraits above (taken at the same time, from the same distance to the subject), the PL should have an advantage with its shallower DoF and greater compression (yeah, sue me), but a cursory inspection of the bokeh leads me inevitably to prefer the 12-35mm. The worst part of the Leica's aspherical mess, however, is on photos where a part is just out of focus, leading to a hazy, swirly rendering that isn't quite blurred, and that could easily lead an unwary soul to think that they bought a lemon. It gives the impression of a cheap 80's zoom shot wide open; it's just awful.
This isn't the best sample, but if you look at the bottom of the picture, it's soft - this is not a problem with the lens itself (I have another shot with the focus point closer to the camera, at the same aperture and focal length, and the pebbles look sharp), but rather with the Leica DG's OOF rendering.
TL;DR (conclusion): Deciding between these two lenses is actually easier than I thought it'd be. If you're a pixel-peeper, get the Leica - it'll give you many satisfactions when peering into the edges and corners at f/5.6, provided they're in focus. If you're a bokeh fiend, get the Lumix - in my experience, it has the smoothest OOF rendering of all MFT standard zooms (I've never owned the Olympus 12-40mm, though, so I'm just going by the samples I've seen).
If close-up capability is important to you, then the 12-60mm is the obvious choice. If a more compact size is paramount, then the 12-35mm is the only game in town.
If you can't decide, get the Leica. It's cheaper right now, it's more versatile, and it's a lovely lens from the perspective of build quality and haptics. That's what I'm doing - I'll keep the PL and sell the Lumix, albeit with a measure of trepidation (it's the only "pro" zoom that my wife has ever liked carrying around, and that's saying a lot).
*Yes, I know it's not a real Leica, but that's what it's called. <German humor> It feels leica premium lens after all, ho ho ho! </German humor>
--
"Chase the light around the world
I want to look at life
In the available light" - Rush, 'Available Light'
Full disclosure: I've owned the Lumix for two months, and the Leica* for three weeks. I bought the PL 12-60mm to replace the 12-35mm, because I wasn't entirely happy with the latter. Still, I think both are good lenses, with different strengths and weaknesses.
And no, I don't own a copy of Imatest, or Siemens star charts. There are plenty of people out there far better-equipped and qualified to run proper, hard tests on lenses. But hopefully you'll still learn a few things from this comparison.
Let's start with the physical characteristics. There's a lot to cover in this department. I'll list the pros and cons of the Leica DG lens, in relation to the Lumix G:
Pro: The PL 12-60mm weighs almost the same as the 12-35mm.
Con: The 12-60mm is quite a bit larger than the 12-35mm.
Pro: The Leica is substantially better haptics-wise than the Lumix. No, the Lumix isn't bad at all, but it's not "pro" zoom material, either. Panasonic got rid of that hideous rubber for the zoom ring on the 12-60mm (yes!), improved the resistance of both zooming and focusing rings (YES!), and added an AF/MF switch on the body (HALLELUJAH!).
Pro: The Leica has an improved lens cap that feels sturdier and is easier to put on/remove.
Pro: The PL 12-60mm has a much better lens hood. The improvements are subtle, but multiple, and show how the lens' design was a labor of love and dedication (which is one of the main reasons behind my decision to use Panasonic gear, as they really love what they do, and it shows). As you can see on the picture above, the hood, when reversed, lies at a 90 degree offset from the Lumix's, allowing users to adjust both focus and zoom even when the hood isn't deployed. The shade has a button to remove it, and it automatically locks itself when in place; this is an excellent addition, because in comparison the 12-35mm's hood becomes loose very quickly and won't stay put. It also incorporates an aluminum piece that in practice does nothing, but feels and looks great :-D
Con: Panasonic increased the filter thread to 62mm on the Leica. Why? Just, why!? If you look at the front of both lenses, their first elements are almost the same size, and Panasonic even chose a narrower font to print on the makeup ring, which doesn't use the whole width - they could've easily kept the 58mm thread. 58mm is one of the three main "standard" filter sizes of Micro Four Thirds, after all.
Con: The PL 12-60mm narrows down aperture-wise very quickly, whereas the 12-35mm has a constant aperture. It's bad enough that I consider the PL a 12mm f/2.8 prime rolled up into a 14-60mm f/4 zoom.
(Very subtle) Pro: The Leica barely changes size when zoomed in to 18mm, and doesn't move at all between 12 and 16mm. This is great for weather sealing, as trombone zooms can easily scoop water inside if they get wet and are pumped often. Of course, the Lumix doesn't extend much more; however, its inner barrel has a rounded flange that won't keep water out, but rather help it slide inside :-x
Equal: Neither has a measurable advantage in either focusing speed or in-lens stabilization, as far as I can tell.
So, how are they for actual photography?
One of my favorite shots from the 12-35mm f/2.8 II.
Color: The Leica DG is an excellent lens. It renders color very beautifully; it's slightly colder than the Lumix G, and it seems to just make reds pop. The 12-35mm has a little more contrast, but it's less vibrant, and tinges everything yellow.
I didn't even need to adjust vibrance for this shot, but it benefitted from a slight clarity and contrast boost. Most of the frame is very well resolved.
Resolution: Remember, first and foremost, that we're talking of a single copy of each lens, and I've no idea how lucky my draw was this time. Anyway, the PL is a bit softer wide open at the edges than the Lumix, but the 12-60mm sharpens up beautifully one stop down, whereas the 12-35mm just doesn't improve much - my copy has a relatively soft left side caused by tilt, which is exacerbated by the IBIS sometimes. In the center both lenses are stupid sharp even wide open, so that's a non-issue. What can be a problem, however, is the relatively pronounced field curvature of the Lumix, especially at the 12mm end, and which can cause corners to seem much worse than they really are. The Leica DG is much better in this regard, and by f/5.6 resolves fine detail way into the corners like few MFT zooms do.
Neither of these lenses is too flare-prone, but the PL gets washed out a little more shooting contre-jour. For a photo like this the Lumix is better.
Flare, haze, and chromatic aberration: Both of these lenses are susceptible to flare, green for the Lumix, and purple for the Leica, in the same situations and to a pretty comparable degree. I can't pick a winner in that regard. As for hazing and loss of contrast, the 12-60mm suffers more of both than the 12-35mm. It's not bad, really; it becomes a nuisance only with diffuse backlighting at the long end. CA is perfectly controlled by the software on Panasonic cameras, but purple fringing on some Olympus bodies can be atrocious with the 12-35mm - I haven't tested the 12-60mm on my E-M10, and don't expect it to be any better.
This is the one aspect where the PL 12-60mm crushes its sibling - its 0.3x magnification at the 60mm end is extremely handy, and blows the 12-35mm's puny 0.1x out of the water. The photo is of a Samsung Gear S2, for reference.
Close up: No contest here, the Leica DG is worlds better. Or rather, the Lumix G is utterly useless and can't compete. Maybe it's both
Thanks to its AF/MF switch and really decent focus ring, the PL can sub in for a macro lens not only effectively, but also comfortably.
PL 12-60mm
LG 12-35mm
Bokeh: The one huge fault of the Leica lies in this aspect - its bokeh can only be described as 'hideous'. Both it and the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 should be the poster children for "ground aspheric syndrome", or "how manufacturers have made super-sharp lenses that don't weigh a ton and don't cost an eye at the expense of OOF areas". Thanks to a big reduction in the cost of aspherical elements, they've become ubiquitous - but all aren't made in the same way, and the cheapest ones are ground by robots that leave imperfections on their surface. The result is the kind of nervous, oniony, irregular mess that resides in the background of the 12-60mm's photos. If you look at the portraits above (taken at the same time, from the same distance to the subject), the PL should have an advantage with its shallower DoF and greater compression (yeah, sue me), but a cursory inspection of the bokeh leads me inevitably to prefer the 12-35mm. The worst part of the Leica's aspherical mess, however, is on photos where a part is just out of focus, leading to a hazy, swirly rendering that isn't quite blurred, and that could easily lead an unwary soul to think that they bought a lemon. It gives the impression of a cheap 80's zoom shot wide open; it's just awful.
This isn't the best sample, but if you look at the bottom of the picture, it's soft - this is not a problem with the lens itself (I have another shot with the focus point closer to the camera, at the same aperture and focal length, and the pebbles look sharp), but rather with the Leica DG's OOF rendering.
TL;DR (conclusion): Deciding between these two lenses is actually easier than I thought it'd be. If you're a pixel-peeper, get the Leica - it'll give you many satisfactions when peering into the edges and corners at f/5.6, provided they're in focus. If you're a bokeh fiend, get the Lumix - in my experience, it has the smoothest OOF rendering of all MFT standard zooms (I've never owned the Olympus 12-40mm, though, so I'm just going by the samples I've seen).
If close-up capability is important to you, then the 12-60mm is the obvious choice. If a more compact size is paramount, then the 12-35mm is the only game in town.
If you can't decide, get the Leica. It's cheaper right now, it's more versatile, and it's a lovely lens from the perspective of build quality and haptics. That's what I'm doing - I'll keep the PL and sell the Lumix, albeit with a measure of trepidation (it's the only "pro" zoom that my wife has ever liked carrying around, and that's saying a lot).
*Yes, I know it's not a real Leica, but that's what it's called. <German humor> It feels leica premium lens after all, ho ho ho! </German humor>
--
"Chase the light around the world
I want to look at life
In the available light" - Rush, 'Available Light'
