Depends a lot on the kind of portraits you take. For a tight head shot, probably not, unless you stand back some and crop. A 70mm equivalent positioned close enough to fill the frame with a headshot will show some distortion of things like noses. Probably ok for children, not so good for a subject with a larger nose to begin with.

For head and shoulder shots, probably OK, but not as flattering as the 45 unless, again, you back up and crop a little. There's a reason the 85 - 100mm lenses were favored for portrait use with 35mm cameras.

For environmental portraits, it'll be perfect.

I think Panasonic really did their homework.

Firstly, the most important was the glass, and from the limited research I did, it seems as though Panasonic 'borrowed' the optical glass ideas from the Pana-Leica Summilux 25/1.4. In other words, I believe the 25/1.4 and now the 12-35/2.8 are the only two Pana lenses to use UHR glass (Ultra High Refractive). I think Pana learned from the Summilux delicious rendering and borrowed the same lens elements. Plus, in addition to Aspherical glass, they added UED elements (Ultra Extra-Low Dispersion).

Now, does all this Ultra Ultra Ultra-ness really make a difference? Seems so. The semantics and marketing claims of "Ultra" can be debated, but the results will speak for themselves.

As for the 12-50 vs 12-35, again I think Pana did their HW and realized that 24-70/2.8 is a hugely popular range for both Nikon and Canon who make this kind of lenses (at 2.8--even though given the sensor limitation here; it's not the 'same' 2.8 since you lose some DOF).

Personally, the 12-50 lack of mechanical zoom -- meaning the lens barrel moving in-and-out as opposed to the internal movement is very distracting to me. guess I'm used to the 35mm days of actual lens movement,...

I agree. It is 'useable' as a portrait lens, but not the standard ideal. I used an 85mm/1.8 on my Canon D60 back in 2002 - and THAT was an awesome portrait lens.

And I think the zooms will... ZOOM! I think most folks really don't want to be buying and carrying a lot of prime lenses and spending more time swapping lenses than they shoot images. Two or three excellent quality zooms (like this one!) and a fast prime -or two- should cover most folks needs quite well indeed.

Many of us won't let go of some of our primes, but I think this zoom will spend more life on camera bodies than off.

General/travel kit (ZOOM Holy Grail?) I'm thinking of: Pany 7-14, Pany 12-35/2.8, Pany 35-100/2.8, with the addition of a fast prime (like the Pany 20/1.7 pancake) will certainly cover most bases, with awesome image quality.

And of course, some of us will want to add in just one or two more lenses, or alternate lenses, esp. for more specialized applications. I'm thinking Oly 75/1.8 (portrait), Pany 100-300 (wildlife), Pany 25/2.8 (macro), Oly 9-18 (solo walkaround), etc.

__________________
Don

Got it to work thanks! Would love to know if you get any clicking on the E-M5.

__________________
Professional Photographer using Micro 4/3 Gear
Find me online here-
Blog Small Camera Big Picture
Flickr Small Camera Big Picture Flickr Group
Portfolio - Giulio Sciorio

I have the PL 25/1.4 as well, and believe me, after handling this lens for just 30 minutes tonight, that PL 25 is going on the chopping block. Going through my photos - I'm not sure the 1.4 is used often enough for me. Not that the 25/1.4 is a slouch, but at a resale value of $500ish, it's about half of the money toward this lens.

I would not sell the 45/1.8 in favor of this lens for portrait applications. That said, I would gladly let the 45/1.8 go for the 75/1.8, for portrait use.

I'll buy this lens for general use, not for portrait and not for UWA.

__________________
Don

Great stuff Ezra, and thanks so much for sharing with us. I'm frankly astounded by the image quality of that lens -- even on my computer monitor... Dare I say its sharper than my $2000 Nikon AF-S / D3 combo... Wow.

Anyone have an idea as to when these lenses will begin being available state- side?

Oh, I'm also located in NYC, so how about it E, coffee and doughnut outing on me?!?

Wes

__________________
Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst. – Henri Cartier-Bresson


OM-D | E-P3
14 | 20 | 45 | 7-14 | 14-45 | 40-150

Thanks for the quick review. may i know what is the damage for this gem?

__________________
PANASONIC GH13|OLYMPUS 17MM F2.8| PANASONIC 14-42

Cliff... I too am sorry that the 12-50 isn't faster AND sharper - but it's unrealistic with that range. That wonderful range is a bit much for fast & sharp optical design at earthly pricing. But if it were done as well as the Pany 12-35 was done, it would be amazing, though dramatically more expensive.

It looks like the 12-35 was done superbly and I'm thrilled to see 12mm as the wide end instead of 14. For the vast majority of how I "see" imaging, the coverage of 7mm to 35mm (14mm to 70mm in 135 equiv.) covers most imaging subjects wonderfully. Except for professional portraits... and for that, I think the upcoming 75/1.8 will be a stellar choice. Certainly wildlife photo fans will also want the very long end as well, but personally, I rarely desire to use exceptionally long lenses in the general course of what I like to shoot personally and for travel.

__________________
Don