–
The 12-35mm X lens just got DxOmarked (Click here to read the test). And they write: “The Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 12-35mm f2.8 ASPH Power O.I.S is the best lens of it’s type by quite a long way, but at a price that would buy better equipment if you are not wedded to the Micro 4:3 system.”
The 12-35mm X zoom beats the rest of the MFT lenses and comes very close to the Olympus 12mm and 45mm prime lens performance. Now we have to see if the upcoming new Olympus f/2.8 zoom can match or even beat the Panasonic X performance!
DxOmark writes that the X zoom is expensive but you can find some deals in US and Europe:
Panacam sells the lens for $985 via Amazon US (Click here).
Five demo lenses are for sale in [shoplink 37404 ebay]Germany (Click here)[/shoplink] for 829 Euro.
54 Responses
Sound good… ohh wait what is with the Jitter Effect… expensive unusable thing!
@Rufus – the 12-35 has really good IQ, not quite as good as the 12 mm f/2.0 – but once the jitter effect (defect) happened in a number of videos I shot, I sold the 12-35. I will try again with a MFT zoom if Olympus drops the 12-40 mm f/2.8
To pay $1200 for a lens supposedly optimized for video, and then to have the jitter effect, is absolutely unacceptable no matter how good the still image quality is.
Guess they didnt find the jitter effect in their copy
BECAUSE IT ONLY HAPPENS ON VIDEO AND DXO TESTS STILLS.
This lens lifted a veil from my GH2
“but at a price that would buy better equipment if you are not wedded to the Micro 4:3 system.”.
As usual, DxO Vs the real world.
There’s an Italian Pro Photographer(Vittore Buzzi)which use only m4/3, 12-35 included for his Job(Reportage and weddings).
And he won the third prize in Sport feature at the latest World Press Photo of the year.
Uh… and Louis Armstrong could probably make better music with a cheap plastic trumpet that many a musician with an expensive brass one.
The reasons why I haven’t sold all my Pentax equipment to “switch” completely to m43 is that, in order to replace the great Sigma 17-50 2.8 which I’m using on my K5, I would have to purchase the Panasonic 12-35. On amazon.fr, that’s 550 euro (probably 300 euro max if I sell it second hand) vs 1000 euro for the 12-35. And while I have no doubt the Pana 12-35 is very good glass, so is the Sigma! Besides, I know it has become unpolitically correct to mention DoF issues anymore in m43 related fora, but… see what I mean?
When money is not a problem, yes sure… ,otherwise, waiting for Sigma to join in with affordable 2.8 zooms 😛
Yep, and there are also thousands of pros using Nikon or Canon for every one using mFT . The fact that the odd person does so with mFT doesn’t change anything. Did you actually look at his “sport shots “” that got third place truth be told they could have been done with most p&s cameras. Every shot is shown in B&w to hide mFT noise, the few action shots are blurry , using motion blur is a real winner with mFT users , it helps to hide the poor AF even better if you claim it is “art” lol
A better comparison would be to throw in a prime and see how the 12-35 stacks up.
They did. It out performs the 12mm f/2 and is only marginally behind the 45mm f/1.8.
That’s pretty weird, because the 12mm f/2 is better than the 45mm f/1.8, oh wait, that’s right, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
The 12mm lens rating is damaged due to the distortion and vignetting score which is not too clever for a prime lens.
My 12-35 compared to my D600 with 24-70 2.8 or canon 5 series with 24-70 2.8
I shot canon since original 1D and am switching to Nikon so have all 3 setups at this point
I prefer my 12-35 files on the OM-D over my FF gear for wedding work
Dont do video ? Bummer about the video issues cause its a great lens
After a bunch of shooting the 24-70
Last wedding shooting the D600 24-70 combo side by side with the OMD12-35 combo
No longer have a nikon 24-70 !
Dxo has some strange ways to test lens when having a lens on one body s another gets a totally dif score ?
That’s because its not a ‘lens test’ a ‘lens test’ can only be done off camera. If they want to call it a combination test then just general photo images would have sufficed. Their ‘lens test’ is based on a subjective assessment and physical measurements as recorded by the sensor and the camera electronics and firmware. “lens test” no its not.
The 12-35 is a pretty good lens, it is as good as Nikon 24-70 f2.8 according to dxomark (just the nikon FF camera gives a final better score but not the lens itself). The only real drawback is that jitter problem but it is a problem only with video and long exposure shots and it only occures when the camera is orientated towards the floor. In other situations, it is not a problem at all.
Here some of my shots with the 12-35:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-f_leguen/sets/72157633041983751/
Fwiw… http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/960/(brand)/Panasonic/(camera1)/0/(lens2)/173/(brand2)/Nikkor/(camera2)/0/(lens3)/175/(brand3)/Nikkor/(camera3)/0
Can’t vouch for the legitimacy of the comparison, but It scores higher than the Nikon 24-70G, and 17-55G 2.8’s, except in distortion -is their measurement with or without the Pana sw correction?
The DXO cf I linked to above compares the 2 Nikkors on the D300, so 12MP vs 16MP does give some advantage in their sharpness score to the Pana. If comparing Nikkors tested on the 24MP bodies, then it’s much more of an apples to oranges in favor of Nikon.
On the 17-55 switch camera to d7000 (16.2 mp). The panny still edges it in everything. Too bad there isnt a 16mp choice in the 24-70
Try the 24-70 on the format it is designed for and it easily outperforms the 12-35 { I have and use both lenses}.
it doesnt on a D3
actually if you select the D4 (16mp) the 12-35 is almost as sharp. And the 24-70 has a massive 1.7 stops of vignetting. on a photo youll be hard pressed to notice a 2p-mpix difference but youll certainly see a stop more of vignetting difference
Last I checked, they test lenses and sell software that includes lens correction…
Some sharpness comparisons- http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/06/a-weekend-with-the-panasonic-12-35-f2-8
Imatest results vs other m43 choices, and further down, a less scientific cf to EF 24-70 (v. 1) on 5DIII where the Pana lens shows it can compete.
The pana on the omd DESTROYS the 24-70 I
A picture is worth a thousand words. Or dollars in this case.
Please jump off the tall bridge you live under. Head first.
What of what I posted offended you this time? Did you even click the link?
Poor sensitive guy
The 24-70mm is a FF lens designed for FF and when mounted on a FF low and behold it outperforms the 12-35, even wide open. At the same DOF the 24-70 is in another league try Photozone for a more life like comparison. The D300 is coming up on 6 years old and is a 12mp body .Nikon APS is now at 24mp.
Did you click on the link and actually took a look at the photos? the 24-70 I on the 5D MK III is visibly way softer than the 12-35 on the OMD. It also out performs it on the chart, despite the extra 6 million pixels
You did not look did you?
Admin, why did my comment disapeared after moderation ??
the lack of usable zoom, is why my OM-D does not get used ALL the time, rather than some the time. Over the last year I’ve just got tired of constantly switching between 14/2.5 and 45/1.8 lenses. I did consider 12-35/2.8 but 70mm equivalent is not long enough for most portraits. So if someone can make 14-50/F2.8 zoom I would run and buy it immediately. That is what my m43 system lacks, a bright professional quality normal zoom.
Buy a second body and you will switch less! 😉
This sounds a better idea 🙂
2 bodies and a small set of primes can really work well indeed.. and for the price of that lens you can easily buy a second body. I’ve spent a couple months considering either buying the 12-35, or a second body when the 12-35 became available, and ended up doing the later.
But I do find myself reverting to the 12-50 every so often for the sheer convenience a single camera + useful zoom range offers, when I don’t need the higher quality or fast aperture of the prime lenses.
Would never buy it, even it would cost only 700 $, because of limited zoom range and because there are problems with CA used with bodies from Olympus.
Well the 12-35mm is on one of my OM-D’s nearly all the time. The OM-D doesn’t correct for CA, but it’s literally one click in Lightroom. I wouldn’t really let any lens that has CA put me off as its such a simple fix.
The zoom range, well that’s a different (and personal matter) as is the cost. But for me, it was worth it.
I don’t use lightroom, only very rarely Oly Viewer, 98% of my pics are ooc. Don’t have time for RAW, and anyway, why should I make the work if Pana failed?
But I also wonder why Olympus doesn’t correct CA in bodies…
+1000
24-70 equiv is a very popular range especially for the higher end users, one that is available in every system. As the range of a zoom becomes longer it either becomes slower or longer/heavier and more expensive. If you are happy with slower then there are options such as the 14-45 which goes out to 90mm equiv at the expense of starting at 28mm equiv, if you are happy with even slower then there is the 12-50.There isn’t anything with a longer equally fast F2.8 fixed aperture zoom in any system.
Let me guess you are one of the Olympus 12-60 f2.8-F4 fans { this lens has pretty funky distortion at the wide end, and the aperture starts to close down by 18mm} which ,weighs in at 90% more than the Panasonic and still costs a $1000 compared to the 12-35 at $1100 .You could of course go for the no compromises excellent 14-35 F2 Olympus which no doubt is a great bit of gear , unfortunately it weighs in at 900g { 40% more than the Panasonic 12-35 and 35-100 added together} and it costs a whopping $2300 only $240 less than the Panasonic 12-35+ 35-100 cost together.
The major selling point by far of mFT is its small size with an excellent size/weight-image quality ratio.The vast majority of users who are prepared to pay the prices and carry the weight of the high end FT gear are far better served by FF.In camera software correction is not a surprise in mFT lenses it is part of the design standard ,intended to keep size and weight down. The problem only appears as Olympus do not correct for CA { which is just as prevalent amongst their mFT range as Panasonic’s}automatically.The fact seems that there is a certain bias amongst Olympus users regarding Panasonic lenses when other than a couple of primes including my much loved 45mm & 75mm it is Panasonic that have led the way. The best kit lens 14-45 zoom, the best all in one zoom 14-140, the best long range zoom 100-300mm , the fast standard zoom 12-35 the best short tele zoom the 35-100 , the best standard prime 25mm, best bargain prime 14mm or 20mm . Their 45 macro matches the 60mm in quality only difference is effective focal length.
I am wondering how it is compared with Olympus 17mm/F1.8 at 17mm/F2.8?
How do they measure that P-Mix sharpness score?
12-35mm scores 9P-Mix
New Sigma 35mm f.14 scores 23P-Mix
http://nikonrumors.com/2013/03/18/dxomark-the-sigma-35mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-lens-sets-a-new-benchmark-for-optical-performance.aspx/
That’s a whole lot of difference…
The Sigma is measured on a 36MP D800, the Pana on 16MP GH2. Note the math…
Its a subjective thing.
Some one looks at it asks what lens was used and gives it a score. It is used in conjunction with an MTF assessment which is flawed as MTF used by DOX is camera based. The only real test of a lens is off camera measuring projected images, not on camera using captured images.
This makes the whole dox system a bit Ho Hum. In fact a lot Ho Hum.
The whole thing is potty. It my give an indication how a particular lens will work on a particular body as a start point for real world use. But when one takes the ‘classic shot’ no one cares what the dox score was.
No one says of classic images of the past that the photographer should have been using a xxx and not a yyy.
In 20 years time who will care. The comments will be “I like it” I don’t like it” “Ha Ha look at that hair style and those funny clothes” No one will ask what the dox score was before deciding whether to look or not.
“”””Some one looks at it asks what lens was used and gives it a score. It is used in conjunction with an MTF assessment which is flawed as MTF used by DOX is camera based. The only real test of a lens is off camera measuring projected images, not on camera using captured images.”””””
The only worthwhile lens data is how it performs on a camera, as that is how we use them.An mFT lens needs double the revolution just to compete with a FF lens on a FF body.Testing any part of the image capture process in isolation of the others tells us nothing of value. How something responds in an abstract lab test is no indicator of real life output , any way in one of your posts didn’t you say its about the pictures , a picture is the consequence of using a camera + lens + good exposure/processing , isolating any part of this chain and claiming it is the most important is nonsense.The best way to look at the potential image quality of a camera is to download the best RAW samples available,with all NR turned off and to see just what you are really capturing.
Think about it for one minute if lens aperture was comparable cross system then the 600mmF2.8 of the Panasonic FZ200 would be the choice of every user. The fact is just as you cannot reasonably compare the lens on a P&S you cannot compare lenses on a sensor four times larger than mFT. Comparing the 12-35 at F2.8 to the 24-70 at F2.8 is stupid as the reality is that for all practical purposes the F2.8 lens on FF does the same job as an F1.4 lens on FF , regarding both DOF and total light.
“The only worthwhile lens data is how it performs on a camera”
If you refer to the photograph as data, which in a digital camera, it in fact is, then yes you are quite correct in your statement “as that is how we use them”. The visual impact of the output being the real test and entirely subjective.
If you are referring to analysis of a sensor imaged chart then, no, that is not a correct or appropriate test of a lens. If a lens is to be tested technically it should be tested off camera. So it is a test of the lens. Test images taken as indicative of the lens performance on a particular camera are of interest, yes. But that is not a definitive lens test, which can only be done off camera.
Don’t confuse issues with use of words like lens data. The lens is an analogue item. The print is a digital output pretending to be analogue. In between is a sensor which is a lot of analogue collectors interfaced to dacs, amplifiers filters and injected with noise from all over. The result eventually being a digital image. This sensor data can be manipulated internally and externally by firmware and software. Data can be found at any point. It can be added to or subtracted from at any point along its path. A lens test on a camera is not a lens test it is only indicative of how the parts work together. A series of real world photos taken by photographers and others is a far better indication of the ability of a lens in use. The outcome of all photography is subjective in the reality of use.
Who really cares if a lens is not perfect, todays lenses are good enough for prints above A3 without any obvious problems unless they are highlighted and then most will not see them even when they are pointed out. Who really cares if a lens is not perfect when it is used almost exclusively for social media display. Who cares is a lens is not perfect when it cost a few hundred dollars compared to a less imperfect lens costing several thousand dollars.
The real lens tests. http://www.trioptics.com/films/ImageMaster%20Universal%202008_hr.wmv
Lens testing should be off camera. As we mostly deal with interchangeable lenses and throw away bodies the testing of a lens on a particular body is only indicative and will change from body to body.
You need to sort out and readdress your last paragraph. It makes no sense.
As links cause moderation her is another you need to see. http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/About/Glossary/Help/Sharpness-score
And another you need to see. This one for Leica and lens testing. http://www.pixiq.com/article/The%20Leica%20M%20Lens%20System
It would be nice to see how the (bargain priced) 14-45 stacks up on the DxO testing platform…
The 12-35 jitter effect is quite noticeable with the lens mounted on a GH2. Has anyone tried the lens on an OM-D? Is OIS completely disabled on an Olympus body? I’m hoping this will be fixed in firmware. Really, the lens should never have been released with this flaw.
This yt video shows jitter on the omd: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5u-J09ivUo
not many people have notice because it only happens on video
Yep, tested on E-M5, exactly same problem as other cameras…it appeares on video AND long exposure shots when the camera is pointed to the floor.If the camera is almost horizontal there is no problem…
E-M5 + 12-35 log exposure shot:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-f_leguen/7735180734/
the jitter effect is not noticable but mabe it is not as sharp as it should be, I don’t know…
Nikon D4 is 16m pixel.
Interest to see how 24-70 on a D4 VS 12-35 on OMD or GH3
of course mobility will be a concern for some people but for myself I always like to bring my D600 with AF 35-70 2.8 around or I will just mount a prime lens on my GF2 for mobility (and fun)