10-25 vs 12-35 mkii?

Hey guys , I tried posting this on reddit but I’m purchasing a g9 soon. I used to have a have a 12-35 mki on my trusty g7 and I liked it .The images were sharp to me and I liked how compact it was, but I didn’t love how close I had to get to my subjects for usable bokeh.i found the range pretty decent, sometimes I wished for a little more reach, but I also liked how it challenged me in this regard. I would mainly use the lens for travel, video , and maybe small portrait work at 25mm? Basically I want to Know if The 25 is waaay sharper and if the bokeh is way better . Can you guys please give your thoughts and opinions? Thanks

mdubbs90 wrote:

Hey guys , I tried posting this on reddit but I’m purchasing a g9 soon. I used to have a have a 12-35 mki on my trusty g7 and I liked it .The images were sharp to me and I liked how compact it was, but I didn’t love how close I had to get to my subjects for usable bokeh.i found the range pretty decent, sometimes I wished for a little more reach, but I also liked how it challenged me in this regard. I would mainly use the lens for travel, video , and maybe small portrait work at 25mm? Basically I want to Know if The 25 is waaay sharper and if the bokeh is way better . Can you guys please give your thoughts and opinions? Thanks

They are very different lenses regarding fov,aperture, size weight and cost. The 10-25mm optically is better across the board

The difference in size and weight is significant and worth thinking about especially as travel is one of your use cases. But it really is a cracker of a lens

If weight size and cost are not the issues, go for 10-25 without thinking.

the 10-25 can be a great travel and video lens, but it is not a classic portrait one.   I probably could use this one over a 12-35, but it 10-25 is heavier, and I already have portrait lenses.

If buying 10-25, either have lotsa cash, or found you have the specific need for it.

Buying the 10-25mm sounds like a bad idea based on what you wrote

with your 12-35mm do you really find that you take a lot of portraits at the 25ml focal length ? Or rather at the longer end of your zoom ?

if you really need 25mm for portraits better off buying the 25mm prime from Panasonic or Olympus

but if I were you for portraits on the G9 I would really go for the 1.7/ 42.5mm from Panasonic. A true gem for portraits and which weights about nothing in your bag

Harold

I recently picked up the 10-25, and owned the 12-35 v1. Neither of these will give you huge bokeh for a bunch of reasons, though both could maybe force it for close-up work (10-25mm has a minimum focus distance of 28cm, the 12-35 is 25cm). If bokeh is at all important to you I think the suggestion of using a different (and prime) lens like the 42.5mm f1.7 (or better yet the 75mm f1.8) would be your best option.

So far my experience with the 10-25 is that it's a superb lens for tight work in dark areas - stuff like city/street photos, trade shows, indoor candids at family events, crowds (where the subject is the crowd as opposed to what they're watching), that sort of thing. The additional 2mm on the wide end is very handy in those scenarios, as is the constant and bright aperture. I'm just not sure I'd use either as a dedicated portrait lens, and for the cost of the 10-25 it's an expensive thing to test unless you're really sure.

Good luck!

mdubbs90 wrote:

Hey guys , I tried posting this on reddit but I’m purchasing a g9 soon. I used to have a have a 12-35 mki on my trusty g7 and I liked it .The images were sharp to me and I liked how compact it was, but I didn’t love how close I had to get to my subjects for usable bokeh.i found the range pretty decent, sometimes I wished for a little more reach, but I also liked how it challenged me in this regard. I would mainly use the lens for travel, video , and maybe small portrait work at 25mm? Basically I want to Know if The 25 is waaay sharper and if the bokeh is way better . Can you guys please give your thoughts and opinions? Thanks

Technically "bokeh" refers to the quality of blurring of out-of-focus elements, and therefore it is distinct from "depth of field." It sounds to me like you want shallower depth of field than you can obtain with the 12-35, without getting closer to your subject.

At a distance of 5" from your subject, the depth of field produced by 35mm at f/2.8 is actually a bit more shallow than depth of field produced by 25mm at f/1.7. So if I understand correctly what you are looking for, the 10-25 appears not to be the solution. You would have to get even closer to your subject to get shallower depth of field.

Now, you would need to get closer to get the same framing as 35mm, so I'm sort of comparing apples and oranges, but I think my comments are accurate given what you wrote.

The Sigma 56mm f/1.4 might be a great choice for you.

mdubbs90 wrote:

Hey guys , I tried posting this on reddit but I’m purchasing a g9 soon. I used to have a have a 12-35 mki on my trusty g7 and I liked it .The images were sharp to me and I liked how compact it was, but I didn’t love how close I had to get to my subjects for usable bokeh.i found the range pretty decent, sometimes I wished for a little more reach, but I also liked how it challenged me in this regard. I would mainly use the lens for travel, video , and maybe small portrait work at 25mm? Basically I want to Know if The 25 is waaay sharper and if the bokeh is way better . Can you guys please give your thoughts and opinions? Thanks

10-25 doesn't ring me any bell. I'd be rather happy with a 8-18 AND 12-35.

FWIW, the 12-35 f/2.8 works well enough for portraits that I usually don't carry my 25f/1.7 anymore.

mdubbs90 wrote:

Harold66 wrote:

Buying the 10-25mm sounds like a bad idea based on what you wrote

with your 12-35mm do you really find that you take a lot of portraits at the 25ml focal length ? Or rather at the longer end of your zoom ?

if you really need 25mm for portraits better off buying the 25mm prime from Panasonic or Olympus

but if I were you for portraits on the G9 I would really go for the 1.7/ 42.5mm from Panasonic. A true gem for portraits and which weights about nothing in your bag

Harold

Harold, I’ve heard good things about the 42.5 . I think I’ll stick with a 12-35 and the 42.5 . The 10-25 seems amazing but it would take too long I think to save up. Maybe one day 😆

Good idea. If you check my instagram page underneath most of the images you will see are made with that 1.7.42.5 mm lens 

AllFlawed wrote:

I notice you do not seem to have crop factor in.

Heh, the DOF app I use is just always set to the 4/3 sensor, as you can see at the top of each screen shot.  My mind more and more relates to the gear I use as it is (MFT exclusively), and therefore I don't think much about crop factors, or about "FF" equivalent focal lengths, etc.   (unless I'm trying to explain my gear to a FF photographer)

But, yeah, my comments and the results from my DOF app were of the "quick and dirty" variety, and I have no doubt that more sophisticated analyses could be provided, as yours probably is.

Cheers.

mdubbs90 wrote:

Jim, wow I didn’t think the difference would be so huge optically.

Yep the 10-25mm is a super bit of kit. If I was starting out in m43 again I would seriously consider it as it covers my favourite focal lengths

I did enjoy how compact the 12-35 was when I had it on my vacation to DR Maybe I’ll just get a nice prime for my bokeh fix ! But then again...

Another excellent combo would be the Oly 12-100mm with your favourite fast prime for an wide ranging and excellent travel kit it is hard to beat { apart from size }