Sharp, nice range, can be soft / flare in challenging light.

[mknibbs]

I've used this lens quite a bit for general travel and scenic work. I admit this is not my favorite focal range for landscapes, I prefer to go longer (50-200 PL-3) or really wide (Loawa 7.5mm / 15 FF). That said, the 12-60 has been a safe bet and a good performer. AF is fast and consistent on the G9 - even in city night shots. Contrast is good and colors are punchy. I do see a some milkiness in a lot of shots at wide angle in 'contre jour' situations. It's built well, feels good and weighs a bit. Not missing carrying two primes in that range. Recommended.

Some samples.

https://michaelknibbs.smugmug.com/Public/Landscapes/Oregon-Cranberry-Harvest/

https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-G2jLfJ/

 

[Adam-T]

Ithese are kitted with most of the cameras inc the GX9 , G90, G80 etc ..
used -> knocked off -> defects arise

"Knocked off" ? .. these are warrantied used lenses from LCE , WEX, MPB ets

Have you actually used this lens or your knowledge is based on reviews?

I have as I said above

 

[Interceptor121]

Ithese are kitted with most of the cameras inc the GX9 , G90, G80 etc ..

used -> knocked off -> defects arise

"Knocked off" ? .. these are warrantied used lenses from LCE , WEX, MPB ets

Have you actually used this lens or your knowledge is based on reviews?

I have as I said above

I asked as it sound reference to others not your experience. I am surprised wex would give a substandard lens but they do not check everything.





I have this lens since 3 years and takes some great images in addition to being built very solid. It is actually too sharp most times. I use DxO photolab perhaps this flatten the performance with other lenses.

The lens takes some good landscapes as well as portraits and I have win a few competitions with it. So I would say it works pretty well and flare reported as an issue earlier is not an issue. It has a greed dot if you shoot the sun or any light like any other lens I have















--
instagram http://instagram.com/interceptor121
My flickr sets http://www.flickr.com/photos/interceptor121/
Youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/interceptor121
Underwater Photo and Video Blog http://interceptor121.com

 

[Adam-T]

I asked as it sound reference to others not your experience. I am surprised wex would give a substandard lens but they do not check everything.

Lucas below stated that in his experience , the lens suffers poor sample consistency, this would explain the problem, maybe the lens is hard to assemble consistently whereas lenses with excellent sample consistency like (amazingly) the pancake 12-32 and 14-140-II and even the 12-60 Lumix may be easier to "get right" ..

I have this lens since 3 years and takes some great images in addition to being built very solid. It is actually too sharp most times. I use DxO photolab perhaps this flatten the performance with other lenses.

maybe this is a golden sample - my issue was edges at 12mm on the one I tried, I had no other problems with it , it wasn`t even decentered or tilted, even the corners were no worse than the edges (I`m not a Corner zombie, but I do requiire across the frame consistency) , the OP and more than one reviewer mentioned flare , i have no experience of that ..

 

[Interceptor121]

I asked as it sound reference to others not your experience. I am surprised wex would give a substandard lens but they do not check everything.

Lucas below stated that in his experience , the lens suffers poor sample consistency, this would explain the problem, maybe the lens is hard to assemble consistently whereas lenses with excellent sample consistency like (amazingly) the pancake 12-32 and 14-140-II and even the 12-60 Lumix may be easier to "get right" ..

I have this lens since 3 years and takes some great images in addition to being built very solid. It is actually too sharp most times. I use DxO photolab perhaps this flatten the performance with other lenses.

maybe this is a golden sample - my issue was edges at 12mm on the one I tried, I had no other problems with it , it wasn`t even decentered or tilted, even the corners were no worse than the edges (I`m not a Corner zombie, but I do requiire across the frame consistency) , the OP and more than one reviewer mentioned flare , i have no experience of that ..

12mm on MFT zoom and not is very distorted. Once distortion correction kicks in it eats corner sharpness as those are 'pulled'

Solution: use another software like DxO it has a slightly different logic to tackle distortion correction and you will notice the images gets wider as less pixels are cropped

This problem can kill as much as 2/3 megapixels and what I see is that Olympus correction works better even if the lens are actually more distorted and ultimately loose less pixels

I typically use 12mm indoors many times I shoot landscapes at 14-18mm but again using a different converter the outcomes are more than adequate

This is a 12mm example not an amazing image but I really don't think sharpness is an issue I am fairly OCD and if there was an issue I would have noticed by now perhaps I am lucky with the specific lens







--
instagram http://instagram.com/interceptor121
My flickr sets http://www.flickr.com/photos/interceptor121/
Youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/interceptor121
Underwater Photo and Video Blog http://interceptor121.com

 

[Adam-T]

12mm on MFT zoom and not is very distorted. Once distortion correction kicks in it eats corner sharpness as those are 'pulled'

I use Capture one which does no corrections at all unless you dial them in , that`s how I like it , you can set as much of whatever as you like , this is how to get the best from the humble 12-32 pancake kit lensm, it`s actually razor sharp edge to edge , end to end wideopen, but is almost a semi-fish at 12mm . some scenes need no Distortion correction at all and look OK - just don`t shoot architecture with it and want sharp edges as it needs loadsa correction - the 12-60s fare better - the 14-42-II needs almost none though it`s the king of Vignetting, almost to the degree of being a special effect - LOL

This is a 12mm example not an amazing image but I really don't think sharpness is an issue I am fairly OCD and if there was an issue I would have noticed by now perhaps I am lucky with the specific lens

you may be, it certainly looks fantastic at 3Mp

I had enough with canon and sigma lenses for extreme copy variance when I was shooting canon FF for work - was a case of go into shop and Line them up and choose the non decentered one if there was one ........

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

 

[ahaslett]

It's all very helpful getting this information on lenses. I've been wondering about a 12-60 every since my 12-60 SWD died for the second time. Seems like my 14-54 is going to last a little longer!

I think both M43 12-60s will handily beat a 14-54 - that was a great lens on the 5Mp E1 even wideopen but was never really critically sharp (could have been the old Fourthirds cameras having heavy AA filters though which they did, especially the 8Mp ones ) and their size is way smaller than the 14-54 even without the clumsy adapter , they`ll certainly focus a lot better

I think the main issue with the PL 12-60`s 12mm end at the edges is down to field curvature, the Lumix version doesn`t have this problem .

Good points.

I feel a test against my 12-40 Pro on an EM1.2 coming on.

Andrew

 

[Trolleyman]

I tried the PL 12-60, it was ok, but not a patch on the Olympus 12-100 which I now have.

The 12-100 works well on Panasonic bodies, use mine on a G90 and G9, just with the lens stabilisation its much better than the 12-60

 

[Interceptor121]

12mm on MFT zoom and not is very distorted. Once distortion correction kicks in it eats corner sharpness as those are 'pulled'

I use Capture one which does no corrections at all unless you dial them in , that`s how I like it , you can set as much of whatever as you like , this is how to get the best from the humble 12-32 pancake kit lensm, it`s actually razor sharp edge to edge , end to end wideopen, but is almost a semi-fish at 12mm . some scenes need no Distortion correction at all and look OK - just don`t shoot architecture with it and want sharp edges as it needs loadsa correction - the 12-60s fare better - the 14-42-II needs almost none though it`s the king of Vignetting, almost to the degree of being a special effect - LOL

This is a 12mm example not an amazing image but I really don't think sharpness is an issue I am fairly OCD and if there was an issue I would have noticed by now perhaps I am lucky with the specific lens

you may be, it certainly looks fantastic at 3Mp

I had enough with canon and sigma lenses for extreme copy variance when I was shooting canon FF for work - was a case of go into shop and Line them up and choose the non decentered one if there was one ........

The same average shot at full resolution. There is no sharpening in the image

I think lots of those lenses are damaged in transport or they are not quality checked I do not know but this one works fine







--
instagram http://instagram.com/interceptor121
My flickr sets http://www.flickr.com/photos/interceptor121/
Youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/interceptor121
Underwater Photo and Video Blog http://interceptor121.com

 

[ahaslett]

Nice sky!

Andrew

 

[Lucas1964]

I have experienced an enormous variation in IQ with th PL 12-60.

That would explain my experience an the OP too - not good in a lens with the "Leica" badge on even if its not a real leica

A good copy can be just as sharp as the Oly 12-40 2.8

that`s some going if it pulls it off

A bad copy can be terrible in the corners.

and even edges

Yes, Adam, you're right It's a shame that there's so much sample variation. I have tested four of them, and one was splendid (indeed on par with the Oly and some primes), one was reasonably good, one was soft in the corners and on the right edge, and one was so bad that it seemed like a cheap 100 Euro Chinese Ebay lense...

However, if you find an excellent copy, it's a heck of a lense. Much smaller and lighter than the Oly 12-100 and faster at the wide end.

 

[Adam-T]

The same average shot at full resolution. There is no sharpening in the image

I think lots of those lenses are damaged in transport or they are not quality checked I do not know but this one works fine

a tad softer on the left if anything prob down to OIS movement (the Lumix one can suffer from OIS movement badly at the long end) or lighting but there`s nothing in it really - looks like a top copy

Random shot from the Lumix at F5.6 - full size image



--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

 

[ahaslett]

It's all very helpful getting this information on lenses. I've been wondering about a 12-60 every since my 12-60 SWD died for the second time. Seems like my 14-54 is going to last a little longer!

I think both M43 12-60s will handily beat a 14-54 - that was a great lens on the 5Mp E1 even wideopen but was never really critically sharp (could have been the old Fourthirds cameras having heavy AA filters though which they did, especially the 8Mp ones ) and their size is way smaller than the 14-54 even without the clumsy adapter , they`ll certainly focus a lot better

I think the main issue with the PL 12-60`s 12mm end at the edges is down to field curvature, the Lumix version doesn`t have this problem .

Good points.

I feel a test against my 12-40 Pro on an EM1.2 coming on.

Andrew

So, I just tried my 14-54 mk I against my 12-40 Pro at f/5.6 at 14mm and 40mm. You have to really peek to see any differences and there is no clear winner. The rendering is very similar.

I also tried them both against my Panny 20/1.7 mk I at f/3.2. The Panny produces a warmer colour (as usual) and is marginally sharper than the other two in the centre. In real world shooting, I doubt you would see any difference between the zooms.

My 12-60 SWD was definitely a bit sharper at 54mm than the 14-54 but worse at the wide end. I loved that lens.

It seems your theory about your experience of the 14-54 performance being largely down to the sensor is correct. I'd still prefer to use the 12-40 Pro for landscape, but I'm thinking that an expedition is in order.

Thanks for reminding me about my older lens. BTW, focus on the EM1.2 is about the same as the 20/1.7 (without prefocus), which is fine for me.

Andrew

 

[Adam-T]

It seems your theory about your experience of the 14-54 performance being largely down to the sensor is correct.

The AA on the 8Mp bodies really was heavy, it could make a sharp prime soft - the E1's 5Mp unit seemed to have a weaker one ..

I'd still prefer to use the 12-40 Pro for landscape, but I'm thinking that an expedition is in order.

if its like the two I`ve had over the years, you can simply leave it at F2.8 and forget about it unless deeper DOF is needed . IMO it`s the best standard zoom for the system and the extra stop over the 12-45 / 12-100 is more than welcome (need all the light you can get with these small sensors)

Thanks for reminding me about my older lens. BTW, focus on the EM1.2 is about the same as the 20/1.7 (without prefocus), which is fine for me.

the 20 is about as slow as M43 lenses get so not suprised ... I liked the E1/14-54 setup very much, even used it in rough weather for work as it was full weathersealed whereas my 1DS Mk1 work camera of the time (2003) had a non sealed 28-70 F2.8L .

E1 + 14-54 full size image - as you can tell I had the E1 a long time , it was the only 4/3 body I liked, build quality went downhill after that as did colour .. thankfully that colour came back briefly with the EP1 and back again in the EM1-II though the M43 Olys all have had nice colour ,IMO the 4/3 cams lost it from the Horrible E300 onwards


Oly E1 + 14-54 - Classic Oly Colour

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

 

[ahaslett]

It seems your theory about your experience of the 14-54 performance being largely down to the sensor is correct.

The AA on the 8Mp bodies really was heavy, it could make a sharp prime soft - the E1's 5Mp unit seemed to have a weaker one ..

I'd still prefer to use the 12-40 Pro for landscape, but I'm thinking that an expedition is in order.

if its like the two I`ve had over the years, you can simply leave it at F2.8 and forget about it unless deeper DOF is needed . IMO it`s the best standard zoom for the system and the extra stop over the 12-45 / 12-100 is more than welcome (need all the light you can get with these small sensors)

Thanks for reminding me about my older lens. BTW, focus on the EM1.2 is about the same as the 20/1.7 (without prefocus), which is fine for me.

the 20 is about as slow as M43 lenses get so not suprised ... I liked the E1/14-54 setup very much, even used it in rough weather for work as it was full weathersealed whereas my 1DS Mk1 work camera of the time (2003) had a non sealed 28-70 F2.8L .

E1 + 14-54 full size image - as you can tell I had the E1 a long time , it was the only 4/3 body I liked, build quality went downhill after that as did colour .. thankfully that colour came back briefly with the EP1 and back again in the EM1-II though the M43 Olys all have had nice colour ,IMO the 4/3 cams lost it from the Horrible E300 onwards


Oly E1 + 14-54 - Classic Oly Colour

As long as we are down memory lane, my favourite before the EM1.1 was the E500 with the CCD sensor.









Andrew

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

 

[Interceptor121]

The same average shot at full resolution. There is no sharpening in the image

I think lots of those lenses are damaged in transport or they are not quality checked I do not know but this one works fine

a tad softer on the left if anything prob down to OIS movement (the Lumix one can suffer from OIS movement badly at the long end) or lighting but there`s nothing in it really - looks like a top copy

Random shot from the Lumix at F5.6 - full size image

Field map of my 12-60mm





The lens is just slightly off centre perhaps 2-3% left

--
instagram http://instagram.com/interceptor121
My flickr sets http://www.flickr.com/photos/interceptor121/
Youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/interceptor121
Underwater Photo and Video Blog http://interceptor121.com

 

[Adam-T]

Field map of my 12-60mm



The lens is just slightly off centre perhaps 2-3% left

Fantastic test !! -- that`s about what I`d have guessed from the image .. but that amount can happen in OIS shift in a perfectly centered one ....... how did you get the map - looks like a great way to test if a lens is decentbered / tilted etc



--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

 

[Interceptor121]

Field map of my 12-60mm



The lens is just slightly off centre perhaps 2-3% left

Fantastic test !! -- that`s about what I`d have guessed from the image .. but that amount can happen in OIS shift in a perfectly centered one ....... how did you get the map - looks like a great way to test if a lens is decentbered / tilted etc

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

I am developing my own method based on stacking OIS was off but in reality shifts can happen slightly as I used electronic shutter

This lens would classify as centering quality HIGH

--
instagram http://instagram.com/interceptor121
My flickr sets http://www.flickr.com/photos/interceptor121/
Youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/interceptor121
Underwater Photo and Video Blog http://interceptor121.com

 

[Wildalaskaken]

For folks thinking about buying this lens, its great. I have thousands of pics through mine, its not soft, the edges are fine, I dont get flares, and I call BS on all the purported optical engineers who make all these claims about flaws.

 

[Adam-T]

The lens is just slightly off centre perhaps 2-3% left

Fantastic test !! -- that`s about what I`d have guessed from the image .. but that amount can happen in OIS shift in a perfectly centered one ....... how did you get the map - looks like a great way to test if a lens is decentbered / tilted etc

I am developing my own method based on stacking OIS was off but in reality shifts can happen slightly as I used electronic shutter

This lens would classify as centering quality HIGH

I`d agree with that . try some canon Ls from the 00s , I had some which would classify as "Centering nonexistant" .... also decentering can also appear with the OIS off if the unit doesn`t centre the OIS optic properly

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

 

[Lucas1964]

For folks thinking about buying this lens, its great. I have thousands of pics through mine, its not soft, the edges are fine, I dont get flares, and I call BS on all the purported optical engineers who make all these claims about flaws.