Reappraisal of the Pan 12-60 F3.5-5.6

History - Skip if needed

When this lens came out, I thought it would be the perfect kit lens being 24-120mm effective range, weather sealed, compact , DUAL OIS and given how good the 14-42-II and 12-32 pancake kit lenses were even wideopen edge to edge as well the stunning 14-140 F3.5-5.6 superzoom, how could it miss ? ..

Well for me it did, I owned two Non decentered copies (returned) which suffered very soft edges (that is EDGES not KornerZ which ppl obsess with in reviews) even stopped down throughout the zoom range and tested a third in a shop which was the same and was decentered too . given that they can make a little pancake , a cheap kit lens and a superzoom which can produce great edges , I was disappointed - what`s more from reviews the PL 12-60 F2.8-4 seemed to have the same issues - for some reason the slower Pan version didn`t get slated for it, just the PL ..

Anyway after just returning to M43 as a personal camera after a break of a year (had M43 for 10 years previous to that) with a GX8 and only having the excellent if limited range 14-42-II I thought I`d give another 12-60 F3.5-5,6 a go but make sure its a recent build .

Results ..............

So it arrived and I slapped it on the GX8 , did the across the road test (I never shoot brick walls closeup so why use them as a test subject?) and wow ,what a difference, EDGES at 12mm almost as sharp as the middle even at F3.5 with less Vignetting than the 14-42 and vastly less distortion than the 12-32 pancake but the same perfect edge sharpness.,., the very centre is sharper than anywhere else but it doesn`t stand out at 12mm .. I did look at the corners too and no blurries there either

Did the long end test and at 60mm widoepen (how else would you shoot an F5.6 lens on M43 ?) and the edges are softer (see the distant house shot) at infinity (ignore the top of the trees, I did very rough selected sharpening to save sharpening any sky noise)  , better closer up but defininately good enough for compressing landscapes , it`s not totally blurry edged due to horrendous Curvature like the Fuji 18-55 F2.8-4 at 55mm but there is a bit .,,

So it`s a winner, Who knows if the 1st samples were badly assembled, or they redesigned the optical formula, or that the GX7 was front focussing the lenses due to a firmware glitch but all is well now . this was a used lens from LCE for £150 . it`s actually a better all round lens than the others mentioned here ..

I loved the 14-140 F3.5-5.6 but it needed F5.6 throughout to sing , contrast was low at F3.5 at the wide end and its very shutter shock prone . the 14-42-II is tiny, amazingly sharp edge to edge end to end , has great OIS and fast AF but wow does it vignette , it`s almost a effect at F3.5 14mm- the 12-32 pancake is damn sharp too edge to edge end to end but distortion uncorrected is almost fisheye (though you get about 10mm !!! - best corrected manually to taste) , the OIS is weak and it`s a pain to use ........ the 12-60 has a little Vigging and some distortion but less than the tiny pair .

My Recommendation is to make sure you get a recent one given my past experience from launch time copies - though as I say they may have just been bad ones . For the money its a damn good lens nowadays ..

Have a look at the walkabout samples in the link , click on original size to pixel peep - GX8 at F5.6 througout - all full frames bar one slightly cropped one which is labelled as such . Developed in Capture one With no distortion or vignetting or CA correction

https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6254305281/albums/panasonic-12-60-f3-5-5-6

It's a great lens. A number of owners in the forum agree that it punches well above its (light) weight. For me it is the ultimate walk-around lens. I bought my copy in Dec 2016 which I think was around the time of its release. I guess you were unlucky with the early copies you had.

Pete_W wrote:

It's a great lens. A number of owners in the forum agree that it punches well above its (light) weight. For me it is the ultimate walk-around lens. I bought my copy in Dec 2016 which I think was around the time of its release. I guess you were unlucky with the early copies you had.

Maybe, bizarre they had the same issue though .. but then the same has been levelled at the PL 12-60 (Soft edges regardless) , could be a lens which is hard to assemble well or a shim was left out of some copies ? .. Dunno but it`s a keeper

AdamT wrote:

History - Skip if needed

When this lens came out, I thought it would be the perfect kit lens being 24-120mm effective range, weather sealed, compact , DUAL OIS and given how good the 14-42-II and 12-32 pancake kit lenses were even wideopen edge to edge as well the stunning 14-140 F3.5-5.6 superzoom, how could it miss ? ..

Well for me it did, I owned two Non decentered copies (returned) which suffered very soft edges (that is EDGES not KornerZ which ppl obsess with in reviews) even stopped down throughout the zoom range and tested a third in a shop which was the same and was decentered too . given that they can make a little pancake , a cheap kit lens and a superzoom which can produce great edges , I was disappointed - what`s more from reviews the PL 12-60 F2.8-4 seemed to have the same issues - for some reason the slower Pan version didn`t get slated for it, just the PL ..

Anyway after just returning to M43 as a personal camera after a break of a year (had M43 for 10 years previous to that) with a GX8 and only having the excellent if limited range 14-42-II I thought I`d give another 12-60 F3.5-5,6 a go but make sure its a recent build .

Results ..............

So it arrived and I slapped it on the GX8 , did the across the road test (I never shoot brick walls closeup so why use them as a test subject?) and wow ,what a difference, EDGES at 12mm almost as sharp as the middle even at F3.5 with less Vignetting than the 14-42 and vastly less distortion than the 12-32 pancake but the same perfect edge sharpness.,., the very centre is sharper than anywhere else but it doesn`t stand out at 12mm .. I did look at the corners too and no blurries there either

Did the long end test and at 60mm widoepen (how else would you shoot an F5.6 lens on M43 ?) and the edges are softer (see the distant house shot) at infinity (ignore the top of the trees, I did very rough selected sharpening to save sharpening any sky noise) , better closer up but defininately good enough for compressing landscapes , it`s not totally blurry edged due to horrendous Curvature like the Fuji 18-55 F2.8-4 at 55mm but there is a bit .,,

So it`s a winner, Who knows if the 1st samples were badly assembled, or they redesigned the optical formula, or that the GX7 was front focussing the lenses due to a firmware glitch but all is well now . this was a used lens from LCE for £150 . it`s actually a better all round lens than the others mentioned here ..

I loved the 14-140 F3.5-5.6 but it needed F5.6 throughout to sing , contrast was low at F3.5 at the wide end and its very shutter shock prone . the 14-42-II is tiny, amazingly sharp edge to edge end to end , has great OIS and fast AF but wow does it vignette , it`s almost a effect at F3.5 14mm- the 12-32 pancake is damn sharp too edge to edge end to end but distortion uncorrected is almost fisheye (though you get about 10mm !!! - best corrected manually to taste) , the OIS is weak and it`s a pain to use ........ the 12-60 has a little Vigging and some distortion but less than the tiny pair .

My Recommendation is to make sure you get a recent one given my past experience from launch time copies - though as I say they may have just been bad ones . For the money its a damn good lens nowadays ..

Have a look at the walkabout samples in the link , click on original size to pixel peep - GX8 at F5.6 througout - all full frames bar one slightly cropped one which is labelled as such . Developed in Capture one With no distortion or vignetting or CA correction

https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6254305281/albums/panasonic-12-60-f3-5-5-6

Do please note that lenses like the 12-60 or 14-140 rely heavily on software correction of aberrations like distorsion, vigneting, and chromatic aberrations.

These corrections are stored in the exif file so that most commercial softwares, like lightroom or D-XO apply them by default. Only a few softwares default by showing an uncorrected file, which seems to be the case of Capture one you use.

Some on line tests show the difference between corrected and uncorrected aberrations.

Of course these correction are also applied to OOC JPEGs.

I have GX8 and the tiny 12-32, the 14-140 and the 12-60 f3.5-5.6. My experience is close to yours: the 12-60 is the sharpest, though non tacksharp wide open (it is a 5X zoom starting fairly wide). The 12-32 is sharp but the default distorsion correction leaves some distortion at the wide end. the 14-140 is better than one can expect from a 10X zoom, sharp at the wide end at usual viewing size like a 55" OLED TV screen or a A4 print, but some softness above 70mm which is easy to see when pixel peeping.

These corrections are stored in the exif file so that most commercial softwares, like lightroom or D-XO apply them by default.

This is one reason why I never use these conveters, you can`t turn it off so you get the full correction complete with detail destroying stretching and CA removal ... Choosing what to do and by how much yourself gives you the flexibility of maximizing image quality, especially the wide end of this lens which is fine uncorrected for a lot of scenes, the 12-32 gains some useful wide on top if you don`t mind the distortion

leaves some distortion at the wide end. the 14-140 is better than one can expect from a 10X zoom, sharp at the wide end at usual viewing size like a 55" OLED TV screen or a A4 print, but some softness above 70mm which is easy to see when pixel peeping.

From experience of superzoom lenses, the F3.5 start 14-140 was the best of its kind regardless of system until the arrival of the Oly 12-100 Pro .......... I never tested the old Fourthirds  PL 14-140 though , never saw one for sale .

ElHombre wrote:

Yes, that's my go to lens. I like it a lot. Reviews I've read basically say if you don't need the speed of it's faster sibling, get this lens as it's produces similar results.

At a third of the price on the used market too ....... given that the PL is really an F4 lens for most of its reach , not worth the price difference, I`d forgo the 20mm and get the Oly 12-40 which is F2.8 and sharp throughout at that aperture (given a good copy of course) ......

the Oly 12-100 I`ve yet to try, I`m sure its optically superb for its range and speed but can imagine it`d be quite a lump on the GX8 , I`d just use my RX10-III anyway as I only use superzooms in nice weather  ..

It's with the contrast and color quality that this lens really shines. It's such a patently obvious difference that I can see it just on my camera screen without even having to take any pictures.

That was one of the strengths of the 14-42-II , colour was always a strong point , better than the 14-140-II and maybe even the 12-35 F2.8 ..

It`s amazing how little is said of colour rendition differences in lens tests

More samples added - Inc Wideopen at 12mm F3.5

As always - Click on original to pixel peep

https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6254305281/albums/panasonic-12-60-f3-5-5-6

managed to do a full walkabout shoot during the Lockdown "Exercise" walk and that`ll do me just fine for a general lens, the 14-42 will get some bag time .. seems great at all focal length at F5.6 but like all OIS lenses with decent OIS systems that are made down to a size, if you`re sloppy or impatient you`ll get a soft edge from any of the 4 edges especially if zoomed (had a couple but not consistently one edge, its when you catch it when the IS element is at its limit due to a movement ) .. colour is lovely and the lens is the absolute perfect size for the GX8 ..

57mm (well nearly 60mm LOL) Compressed landscape at infinity wideopen at F5.6 .. not in the least dissatisfied

Click Original to see at full size

ElHombre wrote:

Yes, that's my go to lens. I like it a lot. Reviews I've read basically say if you don't need the speed of it's faster sibling, get this lens as it's produces similar results.

Its my go to lens for a lot of stuff too. The dual IS on my G9 is really impressive. The lens is incredibly good value (used) for money.

I took delivery of a new copy yesterday, on the front of a GX9.  This combo is to replace my LX100 II which I just don't get on with as the maximum fl of 75mm (equiv) is too short. It came with the latest firmware of 1.2 and the GX9 was one behind at 1.3, now updated to 1.4. I'm looking forward to trying it out.

With some hasitation.

I got it as kit by my G80.

And because it is close to my l14-140mm f3.5-5.6 i needed a  other WA isch lens. (14mm isn't enough)

The 7-14mm and 8-18mm where too expensive.

Longstory short ended up with the PL12-60mm f2.8-4.0 🥴😬😋

The Lumix is around equal in sharpnes a,doh mine PL is over a longer focal range equal sharp. Contrastrendition is better too.  looks better for me in the same conditions.

Maybe i was lucky with my samples , or less keen on looking for failspots, but on a GX the PL is less usefull then on my G80. body lens balance.

I sold it (lumix) and never heard the guy back so he must be happy. 😃