Panasonic Leica 12-60 IQ compared with Pansasonic 12-32

[Rens]

I’ve just bought a Panasonic Leica 12-60 f3.5-4 to go on my Panasonic G100. I use the G100 as a pocket camera, with the retractable 12-32 it’s really compact.

I thought when the extra weight and size wasn’t an issue, the Leica 12-60 would give me three advantages over the 12-32; more range, brighter and better IQ.

More range and brighter, yes of course. But better IQ over the 12-32 range? Negligeable in real life. A tad more contrast, but not noticeably sharper in centre or corners.

I should say, I’ve not been unhappy with the 12-32 IQ, was just hoping for even better.

Was I wrong to expect more (especially given the Leica name), or is my lens not quite up to standard. Any thoughts welcome.

 

[glassoholic]

I’ve just bought a Panasonic Leica 12-60 f3.5-4 to go on my Panasonic G100. I use the G100 as a pocket camera, with the retractable 12-32 it’s really compact.

I thought when the extra weight and size wasn’t an issue, the Leica 12-60 would give me three advantages over the 12-32; more range, brighter and better IQ.

More range and brighter, yes of course. But better IQ over the 12-32 range? Negligeable in real life. A tad more contrast, but not noticeably sharper in centre or corners.

I should say, I’ve not been unhappy with the 12-32 IQ, was just hoping for even better.

Was I wrong to expect more (especially given the Leica name), or is my lens not quite up to standard. Any thoughts welcome.

 

[Rens]

These two lenses are different enough, more physically than in output, to justify hanging onto both. Sometimes enough to carry together in your bag, other times enough different to leave one or the other at home.

I recommend you keep both and use them to their strengths.

I quite agree, it's the conclusion I've come to.

 

[Rens]

If you're not married to the PL 12-60mm f/2.8-4, there is another approach I'd suggest you consider.

The PL12-60mm is kinda biggish and heavy and somewhat limited by its' quickly closing aperture (it's only f/2.8 at 12mm, but jumps to f/3.2 by 18mm and is essentially f/4 from 40-60mm.)

Quite true, though fortunately most of my use is as wide as possible.

Your fun little G100...

It is indeed fun. I had a G9 with decent lenses but never used the million frames per second or action tracking. The G100 and having (I presume) the same sensor) does everything the G9 did for me in a tiny package. Except IBIS, of course. This is a miss but I'm pretty steady anyway.

..needs needs lighter companions. Sell it for $600-$700 and then, re-invest in the kit below if you want improved IQ and even more capabilities:

Zooms $100 - $130

1) Keep you P 12-35mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom (no cost) for when you need a versatile outdoor lens or wide angle.

Definitely doing this.

2) Add the P 45-150mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom OR the P 35-100mm f/4-5.6 both are around or less than $130 used (often much less.) Both are compact tele zooms with surprising IQ that will extend you past your current lens. They work great outdoors or decently lit indoor areas.

Neither of these covers the wide angle I use most, so would always require the 12-32 as well. And changing lenses in the field can be a pain.

** if you don't want to carry two lenses for outdoor photography or travel then... Get the slower, lighter and cheaper P 12-60mm f/3.5-5.6 for a travel lens. The Leica version you own is only really sharper above 40mm OR even consider the P 14-140mm f/3.5-5.6 v2 superzoom which has the same IQ but more range.

The Leica version is faster. And given our low winter light levels here in the north of England, along with M4/3's relatively poor high ISO performance, DOF permitting I want all the light I can get

Primes $320 - $550

3) Then, add the PL 15mm f/1.7 prime - $350 used - Gives your G100 low light/indoor capabilities + shallow DOF + Adds both AF/MF switch and Aperture ring controls that the G100 is missing OR if you don't care about the controls and are happy at f2.5 get the P 14mm f/2.5 version 2 for $120 used. ^^Fun fact, the GWC1 wide adapter can be used on either lens to make a 10-11mm f/2ish wide angle lens.

4) Finally add the PL 42.5mm f1.7 prime - $200 used - Gorgeous little fast portait lens for that can be used indoors or outdoors. Also excels at flowers and small objects due to its good magnification and close focusing distance. This little cheap lens blows the doors off the PL 12-60mm at 42.5mm (f/1.7 vs f/4.0 for the aforementioned usages.)

I'm not shooting indoors at all with the G100, I have a Canon RP with two good wide f4 zooms I'm very happy with. But while the RP is light for FF, the zooms weigh a ton. The G100 is my hill walking and inconspicuous townscape camera.

This 3-4 lens kit will take just about any photo you can imagine. Big benefit also is that all the above lenses (except the P14 & PL 15mm primes) are image stabilized which will give you 1.5-3 stops of light that the G100 misses in stills mode due to the lack of IBIS. Best thing is that they all balance very well on the G100 and fit the smaller is better ethos of the body. Lastly, try to shoot in each lenses aperture sweet spot (where it produces the sharpest results (on the primes f/1.7 - f/4 and on the zooms f/5.6 to f/7.1,) and don't shoot above f/8.0-f/10 if you can avoid it. Diffraction will rob your images of sharpness quick. This makes a BIG difference in your output whether shooting JPG, RAW or both.

I always shoot RAW plus jpeg for quick assessment.

I take your point about the lens sweet spot. But if closing down means using a higher ISO, I'm cautious about doing this.

Thanks again for your input.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Kent Ekasak]

I have both.. and have Lumix 1235/2.8 too..

12-32 is quite sharp lens, and nothing special; I seldom use it, and prefer to set it at f5.6 and use it as a constant f5.6 for day light scenario.. But it lacks MF ring, the build quality is so fragile, and it's easy to suck in dust into the lens.. The color is "flatter" than the Leica..

Leica 1260 is big, nice color, but it's reasonably sharp until 45mm.. 45-60mm is noticeably soft.. After use it for a year and many trips, I decide to use it exclusively for day time sport and video, because of great zoom range, OIS, and nice color..

Even though I have not tried it, but I think the new Oly 1245/4 Pro is a very good lens, perhaps can replace all three zoom I have.. Oly will introduce 8-25 Zoom soon too..

 

[Rens]

Even though I have not tried it, but I think the new Oly 1245/4 Pro is a very good lens, perhaps can replace all three zoom I have.. Oly will introduce 8-25 Zoom soon too..

Without IBIS, I'm restricted to stabilised lenses, I think Oly lenses are not.

Some one will certainly tell me if I'm wrong.

--
Rens
Every silver lining has a cloud

 

[FeralFoto]

I’ve just bought a Panasonic Leica 12-60 f3.5-4 to go on my Panasonic G100. I use the G100 as a pocket camera, with the retractable 12-32 it’s really compact.

I thought when the extra weight and size wasn’t an issue, the Leica 12-60 would give me three advantages over the 12-32; more range, brighter and better IQ.

More range and brighter, yes of course. But better IQ over the 12-32 range? Negligeable in real life. A tad more contrast, but not noticeably sharper in centre or corners.

I should say, I’ve not been unhappy with the 12-32 IQ, was just hoping for even better.

Was I wrong to expect more (especially given the Leica name), or is my lens not quite up to standard. Any thoughts welcome.

I bought a used G9 over a year ago that came with the Leica 12-60. I already had a G85 with the LUMIX 12-60. What I found was, the Leica wasn’t enough better in image quality for it to matter and was still too slow for event work. So I sold the Leica, kept the LUMIX for everyday use and added the 12-35 f2.8 for events. I already had the 35-100 f2.8.

 

[Rens]

2 images from each lens, taken outside my workshop,

2 at 12 mm, 2 at 32 mm (actually 31 with 12-60).

Each pair taken with the same camera settings.

RAW files opened in ACR and lightly processed, each with exactly the same settings.

All are temporarily in my gallery

Never quite sure about DPReview image rendering, but see what you think. No idea why they are so dark.




Lumix 12-32 at 12 mm




Leica 12-60 at 12 mm




Lumix 12-32 at 32 mm




Leica 12-60 at 31 mm



--
Rens
Every silver lining has a cloud

 

[Dostoy]

Hi, having both as said previously, they are quite different and I still prefer the PL12-60 colours, contrast, image quality and it is noticeable over the 12-32, however I've taken some stunning pics with he smaller lens along with the matching 35-100.

I also notice that the PL12-60 has "something extra".

 

[Wildalaskaken]

I have the PL 12-60. It is the greatest lens ever made. Its IQ is so crisp and clean I was using it to check the sex of ants. If it wasnt that good, I wouldnt own it.

I dont own the other lens mentioned. Ive never used one. Therefore, it sucks.

Let me know if you need to know about any other equipment.

 

[Samuel Dilworth]

These photos are only 2000 or 3000 pixels wide, needlessly obscuring any differences that might exist.

Are you saying the lenses look similar in photos of 2000 pixels across? That’s barely HD video resolution.

All the same, the Leica-branded lens can still be seen to have less chromatic aberration in the corners (unless the tree branches and specular highlights on the road at bottom-right of the 12 mm frames were really purple), less vignetting, and clearer detail rendition.

Less promisingly, the right side of both 12–60 frames looks weak. You might have a bad lens or a bad camera (mount not parallel with sensor). These are common problems with both Panasonic cameras and lenses in my experience. I wish it weren’t so. Olympus products have been more consistent for me, especially when talking about zoom lenses.

Do more testing before acting on my observations made from these small, over-sharpened JPEGs (over-sharpened for the purpose of comparing detail, not necessarily practical use).

 

[ahaslett]

These photos are only 2000 or 3000 pixels wide, needlessly obscuring any differences that might exist.

Are you saying the lenses look similar in photos of 2000 pixels across? That’s barely HD video resolution.

All the same, the Leica-branded lens can still be seen to have less chromatic aberration in the corners (unless the tree branches and specular highlights on the road at bottom-right of the 12 mm frames were really purple), less vignetting, and clearer detail rendition.

Less promisingly, the right side of both 12–60 frames looks weak. You might have a bad lens or a bad camera (mount not parallel with sensor). These are common problems with both Panasonic cameras and lenses in my experience. I wish it weren’t so. Olympus products have been more consistent for me, especially when talking about zoom lenses.

Do more testing before acting on my observations made from these small, over-sharpened JPEGs (over-sharpened for the purpose of comparing detail, not necessarily practical use).

I also thought that these images show the 12-32 at its best and the 12-60 doesn’t convince on the right. The phone box looks pretty good on the left.

My own experience is 2 copies of the 12-32 and one 12-40 Pro. The first 12-32 came apart but was great optically. The second is pretty good too. The difference between the kit and Pro lenses for landscape on a 32” 4K monitor is not subtle. On an iPad screen, you have to zoom in and look.

My copy of the tiny 35-100 kit lacks contrast, so that’s apparent even at small image sizes. Still useful if you want a zoom in your pocket. The 12-32 for me is an iconic lens, like the 20/1.7.

Always back to the question of what and how you shoot, how you view it and what you look for in an image. If something is missing, you may need to spend quite a bit extra to get it.

Andrew

 

[Rens]

Do more testing before acting on my observations made from these small, over-sharpened JPEGs (over-sharpened for the purpose of comparing detail, not necessarily practical use).

These are the images I put on DPReview. I of course have the original full size images to compare.

 

[Rens]

All the same, the Leica-branded lens can still be seen to have less chromatic aberration in the corners (unless the tree branches and specular highlights on the road at bottom-right of the 12 mm frames were really purple), less vignetting, and clearer detail rendition.

After a couple of days and more images, the Leica 12-60 is looking better to me.

Less promisingly, the right side of both 12–60 frames looks weak. You might have a bad lens or a bad camera (mount not parallel with sensor). These are common problems with both Panasonic cameras and lenses in my experience. I wish it weren’t so. Olympus products have been more consistent for me, especially when talking about zoom lenses.

Oh dear. Time to do something I've never done in all my years taking photographs. I'll have to find a brick wall.

Do more testing before acting on my observations made from these small, over-sharpened JPEGs (over-sharpened for the purpose of comparing detail, not necessarily practical use).

I didn't think to cancel ACR standard sharpening, thanks for pointing this out.

 

[Adam-T]

I have the PL 12-60. It is the greatest lens ever made. Its IQ is so crisp and clean I was using it to check the sex of ants. If it wasnt that good, I wouldnt own it.

I dont own the other lens mentioned. Ive never used one. Therefore, it sucks.

Yeah - the DP-Review way

the DPR charter .....

1:- What I have is the best

2:- If I`ve not got it , it must suck obviously

3:- when I change to something else , that becomes the best and what I had before now sucks

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

 

[norman shearer]

An unheard lens "Panasonic Leica 12-60 f3.5-4".

Pannasonic Leica 12-60 F2.8-4 exists and is a very good lens.

Panasonic Lumix 12-60 F3.5-5.6 exists and is a good lens, but not Leica-good

Sorry, Leica f2.8-4. I've been using it at f3.5 to compare with the 12-32.

But once again, it's not noticeably better, I'm wondering is it a poor copy.

I've used the Panasonic 12-60mm and found it was noticeably less prone to flare than the 12-32. That and the extra range will give you more photo ops/keepers. I don't really see the 2 lenses as comparable because the 12-32mm has an unbeatable size and weight advantage and if that's your thing then you would not even consider the Leica lens. Likewise if you wanted the very best the 12-32mm would not be a consideration because it was never designed with best in class image quality in mind.

 

[buratino]

Oh dear. Time to do something I've never done in all my years taking photographs. I'll have to find a brick wall.

do not do it. find a landscape or remote cityscape with a detailed horizon, tilt the horizon diagonally to cross the corners, focus, and take pics. Compare results. repeat with different focal lengths. if the corners are acceptably sharp and not different, your lens is probably ok to use.

for example, my 12-32 produced better corners than my Pana 12-60 (not PL) at 12mm.

 

[Rens]

This is a barn gable end I shot this morning. The Lumix 12-32 is at 32mm but it seems I had the Leica 12-60 at 31mm.

The two photos were shot with the same settings, there may have been slight light changes as it was windy and the cloud cover varied.

Both images were opened in ACR with no adjustments, default sharpening and noise reduction were cancelled.

The details are all full size and all are temporarily on my DPReview gallery. All were across the centre, I haven't even begun to check the corners. I think I need a proper brick wall for this.

On my good screen (4500 x 3000) The difference between the complete images is not very obvious, with the Leica showing better contrast, and slightly stronger colours
But 100% shows the Leica to have similar centre sharpness to the Lumix, but inferior sharpness on both sides.

In 20 years of digital photography I've never checked a lens this carefully before. I'm wondering is the poorer sharpness a product of the Leica having a greater FL range and wider maximum aperture, or should I expect the much more expensive lens to do better than this?

I've had the lens only a couple of days so I presume I can ask for a different example.

Here are left, centre and right details. I welcome opinions and advice.




Barn gable end, RAW file from Leica resized




Leica left detail




Lumix left detail




Leica centre detail




Lumix centre detail




Leica right detail




Lumix right detail





--
Rens
Every silver lining has a cloud

 

[ahaslett]

What did you think?

I’d say that Sam Dilworth was spot on. You can’t really tell on the left. The 12-60 is noticeably better in the centre and the 12-32 on the right.

Both images would be perfectly acceptable for viewing at iPad sizes.

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

 

[Rens]

What did you think?

I’d say that Sam Dilworth was spot on. You can’t really tell on the left. The 12-60 is noticeably better in the centre and the 12-32 on the right.

Both images would be perfectly acceptable for viewing at iPad sizes.

Andrew

The side wall in the left Leica detail is noticeably fuzzier too. And while the Lumix centre detail is not as sharp as the Leica, the difference is not as marked as the difference the other way at the edges.

As for what do I think? I'll make my mind up in a while, it just takes a little time.

And when asking for advice, I'm not asking to be told what to do, just getting an overview of the situation and my options.

And as well as viewing on a good monitor, I also print, mostly at A4 but some at A3.

 

[ahaslett]

What did you think?

I’d say that Sam Dilworth was spot on. You can’t really tell on the left. The 12-60 is noticeably better in the centre and the 12-32 on the right.

Both images would be perfectly acceptable for viewing at iPad sizes.

Andrew

The side wall in the left Leica detail is noticeably fuzzier too. And while the Lumix centre detail is not as sharp as the Leica, the difference is not as marked as the difference the other way at the edges.

As for what do I think? I'll make my mind up in a while, it just takes a little time.

And when asking for advice, I'm not asking to be told what to do, just getting an overview of the situation and my options.

And as well as viewing on a good monitor, I also print, mostly at A4 but some at A3.

It’s certainly been helpful for me, as I might consider the Leica at some point.

Andrew