Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8 revisited

[Dick Barbour]

I've been on a mission to reclaim the best m43 lenses I had before foolishly selling them all some years back, to go off into the full-frame weeds. Now that I'm back I've been enjoying getting reacquainted with these lenses. So far I've gotten the PL 100-400, PL 8-18, Lumix 20 f/1.7, and the Oly 12-100 f/4. The latest, and I think the last that I will acquire, is the Lumix 12-35 which I just received. It's the original version from 2012, and I got it used for about a third of the original cost of $1300. Now I really remember what a wonderful lens it is for sharpness, color rendering, and bokeh, and the size is perfect for the GX9.

****

 

[Ranlee]

I've been on a mission to reclaim the best m43 lenses I had before foolishly selling them all some years back, to go off into the full-frame weeds. Now that I'm back I've been enjoying getting reacquainted with these lenses. So far I've gotten the PL 100-400, PL 8-18, Lumix 20 f/1.7, and the Oly 12-100 f/4. The latest, and I think the last that I will acquire, is the Lumix 12-35 which I received yesterday. It's the original version from 2012, and I got it used for about a third of the original cost of $1300. Now I really remember what a wonderful lens it is!

****

Yes, its really is a great lens. Like you I had the original and sold it to make room for a 12-40, then a PL12-60 and then a 12-100. The 12-40 was nice except at about 19mm where it was terrible for some reason. The PL12-60 is sharp in the center but wanting on the edges. The 12-100 is overall very good with a little softness on one side at the wider end but is just too large for an urban walk around. So, back to the 12-35 for me. I got the new version but it was also soft on one side so I sold it and picked up a used first version from MPB. Wow! This older lens was in the original packing, looked as if it had never been used - just perfect. Testing showed it well centered, a little soft overall at f2.8 but sharp as the dickens at f4 which matches my first version. It tests the best of all 3 that I have so the 12-100 goes for now.

Very nice pic by the way.

--
Randy

 

[Dick Barbour]

I've been on a mission to reclaim the best m43 lenses I had before foolishly selling them all some years back, to go off into the full-frame weeds. Now that I'm back I've been enjoying getting reacquainted with these lenses. So far I've gotten the PL 100-400, PL 8-18, Lumix 20 f/1.7, and the Oly 12-100 f/4. The latest, and I think the last that I will acquire, is the Lumix 12-35 which I received yesterday. It's the original version from 2012, and I got it used for about a third of the original cost of $1300. Now I really remember what a wonderful lens it is!

****

Yes, its really is a great lens. Like you I had the original and sold it to make room for a 12-40, then a PL12-60 and then a 12-100. The 12-40 was nice except at about 19mm where it was terrible for some reason. The PL12-60 is sharp in the center but wanting on the edges. The 12-100 is overall very good with a little softness on one side at the wider end but is just too large for an urban walk around. So, back to the 12-35 for me. I got the new version but it was also soft on one side so I sold it and picked up a used first version from MPB. Wow! This older lens was in the original packing, looked as if it had never been used - just perfect. Testing showed it well centered, a little soft overall at f2.8 but sharp as the dickens at f4 which matches my first version. It tests the best of all 3 that I have so the 12-100 goes for now.

Very nice pic by the way.

I got mine at MPB, also, a great source for used gear. I'm keeping my 12-100, though; it's a very nice copy, also bought used for a good price, and works well on the G95.

Thanks for the comments. That Esperanza bush at the front door gets a lot of work as a test subject for new lenses!

****

 

[dwkyre]

The 12-35 is amazing. I bought mine while still a bit undecided, "well, I guess I could use a fast zoom and the image quality is supposed to be good". Now I only use other lenses if I have some very specific purpose.

The 12-35 has actually become a staple of my "small-ish" travel setup: Mounted on the GM5, the setup is barely bigger than the lens itself and has versatility, image quality, and stabilization.

 

[brentbrent]

Years ago I bought a used copy of the original 12-35, and I still have it and like it a lot. When I bought the 12-100 I sold my Panasonic 14-140 and 35-100 f/2.8, but the 12-35 still has a place when I want something smaller and lighter, or a bit faster, than the 12-100. Nice lens!

 

[baxters]

It's a wonderful lens. I got to try one out where it was first released, but I thought it was too expensive.

Finally hopped on board the P12-35 ship a year ago with a used model, In comparoison to what I owned, P20mm, O17mm, O45mm, it just blew them all away. I don't need to test it. It's probably flawed on one side or another, who knows, but still a darn good lens,

 

[Trolleyman]

I sold my 12-35 and 35-100 when I got the 12-100, no regrets. Won't be buying again now I have the superb 12-45.

It's an ok lens, but limited at the tele end and the newer mk ii is a bit pricey for a standard zoom.

 

[mmartel]

I welcome input from Oly 12-40mm F2.8 owners, also.

I've never owned either one but nonetheless flirted with the idea of getting the Pana 12-35mm f2.8 or Oly 12-40mm f2.8.

However, I've never judged (for micro four thirds) f2.8 to be sufficiently wide enough for low-light shooting without flash with moving subjects; and if my dimly-lit subjects aren't moving, then a slower, stabilized kit lens or, of course, a prime would suffice (assuming I haven't had too much coffee).

Therefore, for a mainly good light (but occasionally dusty/wet/muddy conditions) shooter, the pros of these f2.8 lenses vs. say, a weather sealed 12-60mm Pana f3.5-5.6 kit lens, seems mainly down to slightly better edge and corner resolution, slightly better background blur (within the overlapping lengths), better flare and CA resistance, and better build quality/pro feels when you handle it.

Is that right?

Does this account for the secret "gorgeous rendering magic pixie dust" sprinkled over these lenses when they leave the factory and you have to just try it to discover it's totally worth giving up the added 35-60 (or 40-60) focal length?

GAS me up, folks.

 

[brentbrent]

I've never owned either one but nonetheless flirted with the idea of getting the Pana 12-35mm f2.8 or Oly 12-40mm f2.8.

However, I've never judged (for micro four thirds) f2.8 to be sufficiently wide enough for low-light shooting without flash with moving subjects; and if my dimly-lit subjects aren't moving, then a slower, stabilized kit lens or, of course, a prime would suffice (assuming I haven't had too much coffee).

Hmmmm, you seem to have divided low-light subjects into two distinct categories: (1) moving subjects for which f/2.8 is not fast enough; and (2) non-moving subjects for which your P12-60 or P12-32 are fast enough. I don't think it is that simple. If you are indoors shooting at 32mm, f/2.8 can be a significant advantage over f/5.6. I have often gone out with just the 12-35, expecting that the range would be sufficient and f/2.8 would be helpful (as compared to the 12-100) and sufficient. For me, there was enough of a use case for the 12-35 to keep it after I got the 12-100.

Therefore, for a mainly good light (but occasionally dusty/wet/muddy conditions) shooter, the pros of these f2.8 lenses vs. say, a weather sealed 12-60mm Pana f3.5-5.6 kit lens, seems mainly down to slightly better edge and corner resolution, slightly better background blur (within the overlapping lengths), better flare and CA resistance, and better build quality/pro feels when you handle it.

Is that right?

I haven't used the P12-60, but it seems to be highly praised for punching above its cost. If 3.5-5.6 works for you, I'm not able to claim that the 12-35 is better in the respects that you list. Except it is obviously capable of somewhat narrower depth of field. Build quality is good, but not as stunning as Oly pro lenses.

Does this account for the secret "gorgeous rendering magic pixie dust" sprinkled over these lenses when they leave the factory and you have to just try it to discover it's totally worth giving up the added 35-60 (or 40-60) focal length?

I do like images from this lens, but perhaps that is just confirmation bias.

GAS me up, folks.

Sorry, it sounds like you are doing fine with the kit you have!

--
Brent

 

[dwkyre]

I welcome input from Oly 12-40mm F2.8 owners, also.

I've never owned either one but nonetheless flirted with the idea of getting the Pana 12-35mm f2.8 or Oly 12-40mm f2.8.

However, I've never judged (for micro four thirds) f2.8 to be sufficiently wide enough for low-light shooting without flash with moving subjects; and if my dimly-lit subjects aren't moving, then a slower, stabilized kit lens or, of course, a prime would suffice (assuming I haven't had too much coffee).

I don't do a lot of low light shooting, and I will switch to a faster prime when needed, so there is that. I do find that the availability of f/2.8 gives me just enough edge in some lighting conditions and just enough reduction in depth of field for a lot of my uses over a kit lens. YMMV.

Therefore, for a mainly good light (but occasionally dusty/wet/muddy conditions) shooter, the pros of these f2.8 lenses vs. say, a weather sealed 12-60mm Pana f3.5-5.6 kit lens, seems mainly down to slightly better edge and corner resolution, slightly better background blur (within the overlapping lengths), better flare and CA resistance, and better build quality/pro feels when you handle it.

I dunno what it is exactly, but I like the output of my 12-35 much more than the 12-60 that came with my G85. Maybe something to do with the type of contrast or the sharpness? I dunno, I haven't tried to analyze it much. I prefer the 12-32 collapsible kit zoom over the 12-60, actually, so it isn't just being blinded by relative cost or pro markings. I just never got on well with the 12-60. I am sometimes tempted to try the 12-60 2.8-4 though. The range is very tempting, and I could hope that the higher end lens is more pleasing. Not sure.

Is that right?

Does this account for the secret "gorgeous rendering magic pixie dust" sprinkled over these lenses when they leave the factory and you have to just try it to discover it's totally worth giving up the added 35-60 (or 40-60) focal length?

GAS me up, folks.

Nah. If you like the output of the 12-60, I don't see any reason to go for a different zoom in the standard range. As long as you don't feel limited by light gathering at 3.5-5.6 and you like the rendering of the lens, you won't have much to gain. I think you will get similar background blur at 60/5.6 as you will at 35/2.8, you just need to frame differently, so no big gains there.

 

[jalywol]

I have the 12-32, and 12-60 kit lenses, and the 12-35mm.

For a lot of everyday shooting, the 12-32mm is very good. I never warmed to the 12-60mm, but I didn't bother to evaluate why; I just don't particularly care for its output.

The 12-35mm, however, is a much better lens in a few ways, that you may or may not see depending on what you shoot.

For instance:

When I take the 12-32mm for a walk around in town, and do architectural shooting, its output looks pretty good. However, when I go out to the same venues with the 12-35mm, there is a significant difference in how punchy and dimensional the images look. I am sure this is due to microcontrast, contrast, and color rendition that are all a step up from the kit lenses.

The other area that the 12-35mm is clearly better in, is in rendering fine detail of distant objects. For example: I have some landscape shots with distant trees, and the resolution of the 12-32mm just falls down compared to the 12-35mm in the same situation with the same lens and camera settings. It's not bad, but the 12-35mm just has better glass and better coatings which capture that kind of detail where the kit lenses do not.

Now, here's the thing: If you don't shoot in these situations, and you are very happy with the output you are getting from your lenses, then there is no need to change. These kit lenses do a lot of things very well, so if you are not pushing the envelope of where they behave the best, then you are good to go. It's just if you need better fine resolution or the faster aperture or the improved microcontrast, then they are the next step up.

-J

As to magic pixie dust? Well, I can't tell you what it is that makes a lens have that, but my favorite "pixie dust" M43 lens is the Oly 12mm f2, which is a lens with some really significant flaws (not great edge sharpness for one). In spite of those, everything that lens touches just looks beautiful. If perfect sharpness edge-to-edge is your thing, though, you will think it's not a great lens, but oh how nice the images are from it...

 

[mmartel]

I've never owned either one but nonetheless flirted with the idea of getting the Pana 12-35mm f2.8 or Oly 12-40mm f2.8.

However, I've never judged (for micro four thirds) f2.8 to be sufficiently wide enough for low-light shooting without flash with moving subjects; and if my dimly-lit subjects aren't moving, then a slower, stabilized kit lens or, of course, a prime would suffice (assuming I haven't had too much coffee).

Hmmmm, you seem to have divided low-light subjects into two distinct categories: (1) moving subjects for which f/2.8 is not fast enough; and (2) non-moving subjects for which your P12-60 or P12-32 are fast enough. I don't think it is that simple.

I've clustered things that way because, well, that's how I tend to shoot. Help me understand what I'm missing

For people, I usually need 1/50sec if I'm posing them, 1/80sec for general candids, and 1/125sec or faster if playing, opening presents, etc., and, of course, 1/250s and faster for sports. If I'm not using flash, I usually need f1.8 or faster to keep ISOs in the most comfortable part of my IQ comfort zone (<=3200, although as I use DxO and shoot RAW I'm willing to go to 12800 or even 25600 if that's what it takes). Thus, in general, f2.8 is still extremely marginal for me indoors unless I'm using flash or have nearby windows during daytime. And under those circumstances, I could likely shoot the same scenes with my f3.5-5.6 kit lens.

For indoor "stuff", with my G95 and 12-60mm, 12-32, or 9-18mm, I'm usually confident hand-holding down to 1/6s, often 1/3s is doable for me, and sometimes 1/2s or even a full sec is do-able, depending on whether I can brace and how much I'm being rushed by my family to stop being such an insufferable slow poke photographer. Under all but the worst lighting, such as the interiors of amusement park rides, I can typically get by with a kit lens while keeping ISO within my IQ comfort zone.

Here are two examples I took of a Harry Potter theme ride at Universal Studios with my least trustworthy combination (in terms of dual IS not really giving me a whole lot) GX85 and 12-32mm. I'm fairly sure I could have shot these a half a stop to a full stop slower on my current G95 body.


GX85 + Pana 12-32mm @ 1/3 sec, f3.5, ISO2500, RAW (DxO)


GX85 + Pana 12-32mm @ 1/3 sec, f3.5, ISO320, RAW (DxO)

If you are indoors shooting at 32mm, f/2.8 can be a significant advantage over f/5.6. I have often gone out with just the 12-35, expecting that the range would be sufficient and f/2.8 would be helpful (as compared to the 12-100) and sufficient. For me, there was enough of a use case for the 12-35 to keep it after I got the 12-100.

Indoors, I'm most commonly shooting medium to wide focal lengths rather than tele, so I feel I'm down around 1 stop to the f2.8 lenses when using my 12-60mm kit lens.

Therefore, for a mainly good light (but occasionally dusty/wet/muddy conditions) shooter, the pros of these f2.8 lenses vs. say, a weather sealed 12-60mm Pana f3.5-5.6 kit lens, seems mainly down to slightly better edge and corner resolution, slightly better background blur (within the overlapping lengths), better flare and CA resistance, and better build quality/pro feels when you handle it.

Is that right?

I haven't used the P12-60, but it seems to be highly praised for punching above its cost. If 3.5-5.6 works for you, I'm not able to claim that the 12-35 is better in the respects that you list. Except it is obviously capable of somewhat narrower depth of field. Build quality is good, but not as stunning as Oly pro lenses.

Does this account for the secret "gorgeous rendering magic pixie dust" sprinkled over these lenses when they leave the factory and you have to just try it to discover it's totally worth giving up the added 35-60 (or 40-60) focal length?

I do like images from this lens, but perhaps that is just confirmation bias.

GAS me up, folks.

Sorry, it sounds like you are doing fine with the kit you have!

Well, I'm afraid that may be the crux of my problem. I may need to become more dissatisfied somehow.

Thanks for commenting!

 

[mmartel]

I welcome input from Oly 12-40mm F2.8 owners, also.

I've never owned either one but nonetheless flirted with the idea of getting the Pana 12-35mm f2.8 or Oly 12-40mm f2.8.

However, I've never judged (for micro four thirds) f2.8 to be sufficiently wide enough for low-light shooting without flash with moving subjects; and if my dimly-lit subjects aren't moving, then a slower, stabilized kit lens or, of course, a prime would suffice (assuming I haven't had too much coffee).

I don't do a lot of low light shooting, and I will switch to a faster prime when needed, so there is that. I do find that the availability of f/2.8 gives me just enough edge in some lighting conditions and just enough reduction in depth of field for a lot of my uses over a kit lens. YMMV.

What are those use cases where you feel the benefits of the f2.8 most? Genuinely curious.

Therefore, for a mainly good light (but occasionally dusty/wet/muddy conditions) shooter, the pros of these f2.8 lenses vs. say, a weather sealed 12-60mm Pana f3.5-5.6 kit lens, seems mainly down to slightly better edge and corner resolution, slightly better background blur (within the overlapping lengths), better flare and CA resistance, and better build quality/pro feels when you handle it.

I dunno what it is exactly, but I like the output of my 12-35 much more than the 12-60 that came with my G85. Maybe something to do with the type of contrast or the sharpness? I dunno, I haven't tried to analyze it much. I prefer the 12-32 collapsible kit zoom over the 12-60, actually, so it isn't just being blinded by relative cost or pro markings. I just never got on well with the 12-60.

Interesting. I find my own case is the opposite.

Perhaps sample variation is at work.

Or perhaps it has more to do with most of my experience with the 12-32 being on the GX85 and most of my 12-60 experience being with the G95...

I am sometimes tempted to try the 12-60 2.8-4 though. The range is very tempting, and I could hope that the higher end lens is more pleasing. Not sure.

It does have the Leica pixie dust.

Is that right?

Does this account for the secret "gorgeous rendering magic pixie dust" sprinkled over these lenses when they leave the factory and you have to just try it to discover it's totally worth giving up the added 35-60 (or 40-60) focal length?

GAS me up, folks.

Nah. If you like the output of the 12-60, I don't see any reason to go for a different zoom in the standard range. As long as you don't feel limited by light gathering at 3.5-5.6 and you like the rendering of the lens, you won't have much to gain. I think you will get similar background blur at 60/5.6 as you will at 35/2.8, you just need to frame differently, so no big gains there.

Yeah, I think that's my problem. I'm still more or less satisfied with the 12-60mm (and 14-140mm for that matter) under most circumstances. What can I say? I guess even after a couple decades of photography, I *still* haven't refined my palate enough to abandon "fast food" quality lenses. That being said, maybe that's why I still haven't had insatiable cravings for FF or medium format either...

 

[richj20]

It's a fine lens, for sure.

However, it became annoyingly heavy when mounted on my small GX7 - I wanted it as a carry around system when I'm out about town.

So I tried the tiny 12-32 and found it to be excellent for the above uses.

I still have the 12-35 - maybe I should sell it...

- Richard

 

[mmartel]

I have the 12-32, and 12-60 kit lenses, and the 12-35mm.

For a lot of everyday shooting, the 12-32mm is very good. I never warmed to the 12-60mm, but I didn't bother to evaluate why; I just don't particularly care for its output.

The 12-35mm, however, is a much better lens in a few ways, that you may or may not see depending on what you shoot.

For instance:

When I take the 12-32mm for a walk around in town, and do architectural shooting, its output looks pretty good. However, when I go out to the same venues with the 12-35mm, there is a significant difference in how punchy and dimensional the images look. I am sure this is due to microcontrast, contrast, and color rendition that are all a step up from the kit lenses.

The other area that the 12-35mm is clearly better in, is in rendering fine detail of distant objects. For example: I have some landscape shots with distant trees, and the resolution of the 12-32mm just falls down compared to the 12-35mm in the same situation with the same lens and camera settings. It's not bad, but the 12-35mm just has better glass and better coatings which capture that kind of detail where the kit lenses do not.

Now, here's the thing: If you don't shoot in these situations, and you are very happy with the output you are getting from your lenses, then there is no need to change. These kit lenses do a lot of things very well, so if you are not pushing the envelope of where they behave the best, then you are good to go. It's just if you need better fine resolution or the faster aperture or the improved microcontrast, then they are the next step up.

Makes sense. I'm a suburban-living American, so as you might imagine I tend to shoot a very small amount little fine architecture — especially the slow down, take-your-time-and-plan-it-out style architecture stuff. A bit of it when I travel to cool places, but otherwise, I mainly shoot people, landscape, wildlife/nature/flowers, sports, travel spots & museums, and occasionally some product/macro stuff.

Generally on those occasions when I want a step up from my kit zooms in quality/contrast/resolution (e.g, staged product or portrait shoots), I turn to my primes, which usually suits me just fine.

-J

As to magic pixie dust? Well, I can't tell you what it is that makes a lens have that, but my favorite "pixie dust" M43 lens is the Oly 12mm f2, which is a lens with some really significant flaws (not great edge sharpness for one). In spite of those, everything that lens touches just looks beautiful. If perfect sharpness edge-to-edge is your thing, though, you will think it's not a great lens, but oh how nice the images are from it...

Oooh, I *think* I might know what you mean.

This sounds like what I say about my Oly 17mm f1.8 lens, in fact. I really love the feeling when I look at images I've taken with this lens. Kind hard to describe.

Maybe it's the combination of focal length close to the human eye (but not quite), together with the gentleness and smoothness of the transitions from in- to out-of focus areas, and maybe this just hits your memory neurons in a way that feels familiar and recognizable but it's juuuust a bit different? Maybe it's some kind of very subtle color shift this lens produces? I don't know. But many shots I've taken with it just give me this ever-so-slightly dream-like sensation when I view them.

Examples below.


GX85 + Oly 17mm f1.8, RAW (Lr)


GX85 + Oly 17mm f1.8, RAW (Lr)


GX85 + Oly 17mm f1.8, RAW (Lr)

Perhaps this Oly lens absolutely and completely ruined me, because it made me care a bit less about ultimate sharpness/resolution than I used to. ;-)

 

[dwkyre]

I don't do a lot of low light shooting, and I will switch to a faster prime when needed, so there is that. I do find that the availability of f/2.8 gives me just enough edge in some lighting conditions and just enough reduction in depth of field for a lot of my uses over a kit lens. YMMV.

What are those use cases where you feel the benefits of the f2.8 most? Genuinely curious.

I just find that, in my comfort zone of shutter speeds and ISO selection, I manage to get the photos I want at 2.8 often enough. I treat the 12-35 as my default lens, and the most challenging thing I usually shoot without any pre-planning is my kids. Maybe I just light my living room well enough, but 2.8 tends to do it. Otherwise, it is rare I am taking photos of fast moving subjects in low light. At least not without enough planning that I do more prep. I also like using flash.

I find that, while I might want a shallower depth of field sometimes, 35mm at f/2.8 is gives me enough background separation that I am not missing opportunities just for that.

I dunno what it is exactly, but I like the output of my 12-35 much more than the 12-60 that came with my G85. Maybe something to do with the type of contrast or the sharpness? I dunno, I haven't tried to analyze it much. I prefer the 12-32 collapsible kit zoom over the 12-60, actually, so it isn't just being blinded by relative cost or pro markings. I just never got on well with the 12-60.

Interesting. I find my own case is the opposite.

Perhaps sample variation is at work.

Or perhaps it has more to do with most of my experience with the 12-32 being on the GX85 and most of my 12-60 experience being with the G95...

Could be. I use both lenses on my GM5 and on my G85. I notice the difference with the AA sensor on the GM5. You might notice the difference between the sensors.

I am sometimes tempted to try the 12-60 2.8-4 though. The range is very tempting, and I could hope that the higher end lens is more pleasing. Not sure.

It does have the Leica pixie dust.

Oh yeah, that is a convincing argument. I might have to take that into consideration.

 

[mmartel]

I don't do a lot of low light shooting, and I will switch to a faster prime when needed, so there is that. I do find that the availability of f/2.8 gives me just enough edge in some lighting conditions and just enough reduction in depth of field for a lot of my uses over a kit lens. YMMV.

What are those use cases where you feel the benefits of the f2.8 most? Genuinely curious.

I just find that, in my comfort zone of shutter speeds and ISO selection, I manage to get the photos I want at 2.8 often enough. I treat the 12-35 as my default lens, and the most challenging thing I usually shoot without any pre-planning is my kids. Maybe I just light my living room well enough, but 2.8 tends to do it. Otherwise, it is rare I am taking photos of fast moving subjects in low light. At least not without enough planning that I do more prep. I also like using flash.

That makes sense. My house is rather dimly lit; flash can be a total game-changer, although I'll only use it bounced off the ceiling. I'm perfectly willing to use it, but I usually instead reach for a prime for kids-around-the-house stuff just because I normally like to shoot video and stills.

I find that, while I might want a shallower depth of field sometimes, 35mm at f/2.8 is gives me enough background separation that I am not missing opportunities just for that.

Yep, makes sense.

I dunno what it is exactly, but I like the output of my 12-35 much more than the 12-60 that came with my G85. Maybe something to do with the type of contrast or the sharpness? I dunno, I haven't tried to analyze it much. I prefer the 12-32 collapsible kit zoom over the 12-60, actually, so it isn't just being blinded by relative cost or pro markings. I just never got on well with the 12-60.

Interesting. I find my own case is the opposite.

Perhaps sample variation is at work.

Or perhaps it has more to do with most of my experience with the 12-32 being on the GX85 and most of my 12-60 experience being with the G95...

Could be. I use both lenses on my GM5 and on my G85. I notice the difference with the AA sensor on the GM5. You might notice the difference between the sensors.

I do like the G95 sensor more. More than I expected to, in fact, given I was reasonably satisfied with the GX85 most of the time. I was perfectly willing to stay with the GX85 but the faulty rear dial refused to stay operational, despite being replaced twice in less than three years. After the third failure, I retired the camera and got a G95 instead.

I am sometimes tempted to try the 12-60 2.8-4 though. The range is very tempting, and I could hope that the higher end lens is more pleasing. Not sure.

It does have the Leica pixie dust.

Oh yeah, that is a convincing argument. I might have to take that into consideration.

Glad I could help.

You should also consider the 10-25mm f1.7, the 42.5 f1.2, the 25mm f1.4, the 9mm f1.7, and definitely don't miss out on the 50-200mm f2.8-4. Your retirement account will be fine, just dollar cost average and keep buying through this down market cycle.

Enjoy!

 

[Jeff4500]

I am a two camera shooter and for intown stuff, I find it hard to beat G9/12-35/35-100 combinations. I am also a video shooter and with the G9 I find ISO 3200 @ f2.8 works well inside. Why two cameras, left over habit and with the cost of gas just don't want to change a camera failure after driving for a couple of hours.

However, my little Gx85 often calls with the Oly9-18/35-100 f4/5.6 for the ultimate in small for both stills and video (I am a 50/50 shooter).

After agonizing over the Em1 and Gh6, I am going with the Gh6 as video has become important and BIF's, well the G9's work for me as it is a very small part of what I image. Keeping the Oly 9-18 but adding the 7-14mm for wide on the bigger cameras and a 14-140 III to have a "camcorder" with the Gh6. But I don't ever see getting ride of the 12-35/35-100 combination due to the rendering and color match for grading in post.

 

[larsbc]

The 12-35/2.8 is really a wonderful lens. For me, its combination of size, weight, quality, performance, focal range and aperture range is superior to its competitors.

 

[JosephScha]

So, you are all tempting me to go look for a 12-35 f/2.8 used lens.

BUT I have the 9mm f/1.7 and the 15mm f/1.7 and the original 25mm f/1.4 - so far I am happy enough with those.