1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

12-35mm vs 20mm/1.7 on E-PL5?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by CanonConvert, Oct 18, 2014.

  1. CanonConvert

    CanonConvert Mu-43 Regular

    50
    Nov 22, 2012
    I already have my 12-35mm and I'm getting the 20/1.7 next week specifically for my universal studios trip at night.

    for those who have owned both - in terms of micro-contrast/color/sharpness, which is better at its max aperture? i'm referring to visible IQ difference, not statistical significance.

    As for MFD - is it correct to say the 12-35 can focus closer than 20/1.7?

    Lastly, is there any aperture/shutter speed simulator that i can use, so that I know how much shutter speed i'm gaining from 1.7 to 2.8 at given iso? i tried a bunch of them but all of them had max f2.8..

    thanks!
     
  2. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    Bit of a wash. The 12-35 focuses a good bit faster in all shooting conditions.
     
  3. EarthQuake

    EarthQuake Mu-43 Top Veteran

    833
    Sep 30, 2013
    The 20/1.7 is one and a half stops faster than the 12-35mm, this means your shutter speed can be 1.5 stops faster at the same ISO for a given exposure.

    So, with the 20/1.7 you may have a scene that requires a 1/400th shutter speed
    With the 12-35/2.8, you would need to shoot it at 1/150th or so.

    However, IS needs to be considered as well, the 12-35mm has IS, the 20/1.7 doesn't, if your camera doesn't have IBIS, the 12-35mm will allow lower shutter speeds (probably about 2 stops lower than the 20/1.7) when shooting static subjects.
     
  4. ahinesdesign

    ahinesdesign Mu-43 Veteran

    432
    Dec 6, 2011
    NC, USA
    Aaron
    The 12-35 has good OIS that makes up for its slower aperture; you can likely shoot at slower shutter speeds hand-held with the 12-35. The P20mm renders a lot differently, and IMO is preferable to the 12-35 at 20mm at the same aperture. Plus there is the size difference. The 12-35 tends to have more accurate low-light focusing, too (and much faster in all conditions)
     
  5. LowTEC

    LowTEC Mu-43 Regular

    If you intend to shoot in interior, I would highly suggest have a look at 17 1.8. It has much faster and accurate AF in dark area than the 20 1.7
     
  6. barry13

    barry13 Super Moderator; Photon Wrangler

    Mar 7, 2014
    Southern California
    Barry
    ^ this

    The 20mm are well known for poor A/F in low light.

    Barry
     
  7. CanonConvert

    CanonConvert Mu-43 Regular

    50
    Nov 22, 2012
    that would be my next question - is the 12-35 OIS more effective than my E-pl5's 2-axis IBIS?
     
  8. budeny

    budeny Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 4, 2014
    Boulder, CO
    ^ OIS is absolutely better than 2x epl5 IBIS
     
  9. nachetetm

    nachetetm Mu-43 Regular

    53
    Sep 22, 2014
    I will follow this thread with interest. I have the 20mm and I am seriously considering to purchase the lumix 12-35 or the zuiko 12-40. I am more interested in the lumix because is smaller, but I would like to know which one has the closest rendering/image quality to the 20mm, which I absolutely love.
     
  10. Johnny_Alucard

    Johnny_Alucard Mu-43 Veteran

    303
    Apr 28, 2013
    I love the 12-35, but for me the 20mm has a real magical quality that no other m4/3 lens has given me so far.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. ahinesdesign

    ahinesdesign Mu-43 Veteran

    432
    Dec 6, 2011
    NC, USA
    Aaron
    Not to get off topic too much, but the 12-35 has "busy" or "nervous" out of focus rendering often; the P20mm can produce a "swirly" rendering under some conditions, but most often has smoother out of focus rendering. Although I've only been shooting a 12-40mm for a few days, the photos I have taken so far remind be of the 20mm a lot: very sharp (maybe more so than the 20mm), similar out of focus rendering around the 20mm focal length, and has similar "3D pop" that you often get from the P20mm. Of course both the 12-35mm and 12-40mm are tremendously larger than the P20mm, so usability changes a lot compared to the P20...

     
  12. nachetetm

    nachetetm Mu-43 Regular

    53
    Sep 22, 2014
    That's exactly the kind of answer I was expecting, and it confirms my impression that the zuiko is(a bit) better than the lumix. I spent long time trying to see and hold the 12-35 to decide if I'm happy with its size or not. Finally I saw it last week at Gatwick airport.and I was surprise with its small size. The 12-40 feels a bit too big for my taste, but if I'm going to spend that amount of money, I prefer to get something that fully satisfies me.

    I assume it will not take me too long until I purchase one. Despite enjoying a lot shooting with the 20mm, sometimes I miss the versatility of a zoom.
     
  13. budeny

    budeny Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 4, 2014
    Boulder, CO
    Size can matter.. I've used tiny 12-32mm this summer much more than 12-35mm

    As for 12-35mm vs. 12-40mm - that is really like spitting hairs. I will agree with Lenstip summary

     
  14. nachetetm

    nachetetm Mu-43 Regular

    53
    Sep 22, 2014
    I almost bought a second hand 12-32. I agreed about everything, shipping, price, etc... But when the owner sent me a few pictures taken with the lens to check everything was right I cancelled the purchase. I found it very bad, quite evident distorsion, a lot of PF and not sharp, specially at 32mm. I admit that probably that was was a very bad copy of the lens, but really put me down about the 12-32. I also read people complaining that their copy of the 12-32 is decentered.

    Sorry for the off-topic, maybe is better we continue this conversation in a new thread.