This is looking really good, but time will tell for sure. I'm glad Panasonic appears to have been willing to produce a potentially expensive lens (assuming it performs as such). If it does as well as their 7-14 it will be a great thing for the system. Initial tests look good.
The big question, and the elephant in the room, is about the OIS. Is it broken like the 14-42X and 45-175X? One would hope not!
Anyway, this and the forthcoming 35-100/2.8 will fill in the last significant hole in the m43 lineup. I'm pretty impressed where it has gotten in less than four years. You can make a body in a hurry, but a full line of optics is harder.
Looks pretty good. Panasonic says it's available in August, so I'm guessing we'll see the first US shipment sometime around February 2013 and supply will be extremely constrained for another twelve months after that
DPReview has sample images up. Looks very sharp across the frame. Hard to tell on their distant shots, but it looks like the very extreme corners can still be a bit less sharp than one would hope at F/4. Wide open over the greater part of the image it looks really sharp as well.
Also, like most Panasonic lenses it is using software correction of CA. DPR has their roof top shot done with both the G3 and EM-5 and you can see obvious CA in the wide E-M5 shot that isn't present (i.e. is corrected) in the G3 shot. For RAW shooters with the right software not a big deal, but always a slight annoyance of Panasonic lens on an Olympus body.
The bokeh in close-ups looks pretty nice. In their more "portrait" distance shots it seems a bit "energetic" to me - but maybe that is just the result as the relatively small blur circle produced from a 2.8 lens on the MFT format. I know from other lenses that when the blur circle is small and the background busy even a "good bokeh" lens can start to look harsh.
Oh, and their shots are with a "pre-production" lens so maybe the final results will be slightly different.
Not sure how a 12-35 for m4/3 can cost similar money to a 24-70 for FF. Needs to be a lot cheaper than €1100, which what you pay for the Tamron 24-70 OS and not much less than current 24-70L.
kwalsh wrote:
Also, like most Panasonic lenses it is using software correction of CA. DPR has their roof top shot done with both the G3 and EM-5 and you can see obvious CA in the wide E-M5 shot that isn't present (i.e. is corrected) in the G3 shot. For RAW shooters with the right software not a big deal, but always a slight annoyance of Panasonic lens on an Olympus body.
Sorry to hijack the thread a bit. Is the correction data added by the lens or the camera? In other words, if I use a Panasonic lens on a Olympus body and I shoot RAW, is the correction automagically handled by the RAW converter?
What are the software correction implications of mixing Olympus/Panasonic hardware?
Back on topic, I think this and the upcoming 35-100 are going to fill the last major gap in Micro 4/3. I can see a Micro 4/3 in my future and a 12-35 f/2.8 would be the perfect lens to get started.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Not sure how a 12-35 for m4/3 can cost similar money to a 24-70 for FF. Needs to be a lot cheaper than €1100, which what you pay for the Tamron 24-70 OS and not much less than current 24-70L.
As itai says, good luck getting one this year.
It's a LOT cheaper than current 1st party 24-70's (which are generally double that, IIRC the Sony is the cheapest at around $2000 and the Canon 24-70LII is closer to $2400 with the Nikkor in the middle) and comparable in cost to Nikon's 17-55/2.8 and Canon's 17-55/2.8 IS for APS-C, more expensive than Sony's admittedly cheap 16-50 (which ironically is actually the best of these).
You can't really compare it to a 3rd party lens and the original Canon 24-70L is long in the tooth and well known to be the worst 24-70 on the market today and is also constrained by price points set over a decade ago when f2.8 normal zooms were a LOT cheaper than today (good lens? yeah, but no better than a good copy of Tamron's 28-75/2.8).
So is the 12-35 overpriced? Maybe a little compared to the best lens in its class, but Sony oddly decided to be VERY aggressive in pricing the 16-50 so I can't really hold it against Panasonic for pricing against the CaNikon equivalents.
Massimo Foti wrote:
Sorry to hijack the thread a bit. Is the correction data added by the lens or the camera? In other words, if I use a Panasonic lens on a Olympus body and I shoot RAW, is the correction automagically handled by the RAW converter?
What are the software correction implications of mixing Olympus/Panasonic hardware?
Back on topic, I think this and the upcoming 35-100 are going to fill the last major gap in Micro 4/3. I can see a Micro 4/3 in my future and a 12-35 f/2.8 would be the perfect lens to get started.
Correction data is from the camera, which is why you get CA correction with Panasonic cameras and not with Oly's. Of course you can do this in post in LR, especially if there's a lens profile available.
The 12-35 is weathersealed, at least in some way (I haven't seen details on the lens weathersealing, but the press release points out that it is dust and splash resistant and has a rubber ring on the mount for sealing the mount.)
It's an attractive lens too, and very small considering the range and aperture. I will likely not get the 12-35, as I have never owned a standard zoom that I actually regularly used...I much prefer primes in this area. But, it appears that the upcoming 35-100 f/2.8 will have similar construction and hopefully really solid optics, and that is a lens I may be very interested in. (I'd have to choose between that or the Oly 75/1.8, as I can't afford to have both).
Jman13 wrote:
The 12-35 is weathersealed, at least in some way (I haven't seen details on the lens weathersealing, but the press release points out that it is dust and splash resistant and has a rubber ring on the mount for sealing the mount.)
Interesting, I missed that. A little odd in that the only weather-sealed m43 body is the E-M5. Of course I think Panasonic is going to sell a ton of these to E-M5 shooters since the best combo in terms of handling I can think of for larger m43 lenses is an E-M5 with grip.
Frankly, the 12-35+E-M5+grip combo looks like a serious gem for compact, flexible & fast.
yeah, yeah...I know DOF wise it's equivalent to a 24-70 f/5.6, but frankly, it's a difference in the format that you just understand. You give up some DOF control for the considerably reduced size. It's the same compromise that was made when 35mm became the dominant format in film work (or it was an advantage...you didn't need to stop down as much to get more DOF). It's also equivalent to a 15-45 f/3.5 in Canon APS-C, but it's still massively smaller than the 17-55 f/2.8.
The speed is still there, and with the E-M5 coming pretty darn close to a lot of APS-C cameras in sensor performance, the f/2.8 aperture is still quite relevant from a speed standpoint alone. An f/2 zoom would be awesome, but a little big for the format, and massively expensive. (the 12-35 f/2 for Oly 4/3 is crazy expensive, though awesome).
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Not sure how a 12-35 for m4/3 can cost similar money to a 24-70 for FF. Needs to be a lot cheaper than €1100, which what you pay for the Tamron 24-70 OS and not much less than current 24-70L.
I don't follow your logic, why is it suppose to be cheaper? And the 24-70L is €1500.
As itai says, good luck getting one this year.
That's for sure, the combination of it being a Panasonic product and one people have been waiting for is going to make it a long wait.
Jman13 wrote:
yeah, yeah...I know DOF wise it's equivalent to a 24-70 f/5.6, but frankly, it's a difference in the format that you just understand. You give up some DOF control for the considerably reduced size. It's the same compromise that was made when 35mm became the dominant format in film work (or it was an advantage...you didn't need to stop down as much to get more DOF). It's also equivalent to a 15-45 f/3.5 in Canon APS-C, but it's still massively smaller than the 17-55 f/2.8.
The speed is still there, and with the E-M5 coming pretty darn close to a lot of APS-C cameras in sensor performance, the f/2.8 aperture is still quite relevant from a speed standpoint alone. An f/2 zoom would be awesome, but a little big for the format, and massively expensive. (the 12-35 f/2 for Oly 4/3 is crazy expensive, though awesome). ...Show more →
If the sensor performance is not there, the speed is not there either.
I'm sorry but I just don't really see the point in "pro" grade fast zooms for m4/3, any more than I would for NEX or any other compact system.
Now as a working professional, my 24-70's are a bread and butter lens for me both when I shot Canon and now Nikon. 24-70 and 70-200 2.8's are a good two lens combo that can handle a wide range of situations a working photographer, especially a working photo journalist comes across.
For something like m4/3 though, I just don't really see what someone would want to drop $1400 on. That is a lot of money, and while smaller than a 35mm lens, not exactly a compact lens either.
Isn't the point of m4/3 supposed to be a nice and compact, not to mention affordable system that you can take around for personal shooting when you don't want to lug the big DSLR rig ??
Are we going to see a whole bunch of m4/3 "pro" shooters now that think they are wedding photos etc because they have a fixed f2.8 zoom ?
With APS-C bodies, many of which are pretty small these days too there have been some 24-70 2.8 type zooms for ages, so how this Panasonic lens is so revolutionary I don't really see.
I read on other forums how people say that the m4/3 system is now complete and they can sell their DSLR rig
I just don't get it. I own a m4/3 camera myself and just fail to understand how adding a f2.8 zoom to my EP3 is somehow magically going to make it okay now for me to sell my Nikon D3s.
Even with the faster (and not doubt better optically) 12mm f2.0, 20mm f1.7 and 45mm 1.8 primes, m4/3 doesn't replace a DSLR.
Those lens make sense to me too because they are so small and light and fast.
$400 for a 45mm 1.8 ?? Sure, thats a great buy for everyone who shoots m4/3 and really adds a lot of unique ability to the system. Plus it doesn't hurt the wallet.
If this was something like a $500 zoom, then sure, I could see it making sense, but when its nearly the same price as pro grade zooms for larger formats, I just have to wonder why.
Why make your fun, personal, alternative camera system that is supposed to be an alternative to the big rig get heavier and very pricey ??
Why make your m4/3 system suddenly become an increasingly heavy rig that has a couple thousand in glass for it.
You know exactly why I originally bought into m4/3 years ago ?? Because I didn't want to carry around a bunch of larger expensive gear I use for work when I'm just out for a walk, spending time with family, on a trip etc.
alundeb wrote:
If the sensor performance is not there, the speed is not there either.
But the sensor performance IS there, at least with regards to APS-C. And we're definitely getting to a point where it's good enough for the vast majority of situations for most photographers. Also, remember that you can shoot with wider apertures for similar depth of field...so you can shoot interiors at say 12mm f/2.8 and ISO 200 where you may need 24mm f/5.6 and ISO 800 on full frame for proper depth of field. The smaller format is only at a real disadvantage when you want shallow DOF or in bright light. (which, admittedly is a good portion of the time).
Look, I'm in no way arguing that an E-M5 with this new lens is exactly equivalent to a 5D III with 24-70 f/2.8...but given the tradeoffs one makes for the smaller format, it's a pretty exciting option for a very small camera/lens combination with very high image quality. It might not be directly comparable to current full frame options, but it's pretty comparable with most APS-C options and is definitely getting to a point where it's comparable with older full frame options.
