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

First review of Panasonic 12-60 isn't pretty

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by tkbslc, May 5, 2016.

  1. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Last edited: May 10, 2016
    • Useful Useful x 1
  2. MJL

    MJL Mu-43 Regular

    199
    Feb 24, 2016
    Katikati, New Zealand
    Marinus
    I wonder if the numbers shown on the charts are correct, will have to wait until someone else tests it and either confirms or else. Have said this, some of the pictures show softness in the corners, more than I am prepared to put up with. I'll save my money and stick with the Panasonic 14-42 II, perhaps spend the money on the Panasonic 42.5 f1.7 or Panasonic 45-150 instead if I have a GAS attack.
     
  3. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I don't see how they made the lens as large as the 14-140 and it's worse optically with half the zoom range. Hoping it's a bad test or decentered copy or something.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. MJL

    MJL Mu-43 Regular

    199
    Feb 24, 2016
    Katikati, New Zealand
    Marinus
    Previously ePhotozone did not have numbers with their tests and I wonder if their numbers are off. It may be some simple that the camera body they used and the IOS did not agree with each other, who knows.

    I like to see some more tests because Panasonic's own MFT graphs are giving the impression it is a lot better than this. If the test results are accurate then I rather stick to the 14-42II and use Ex Tele (1.4*) and have similar results while being smaller and lighter and it does not extend as much (pumping in less moist air / dirt and not noticeable that the lens is ready for action in street photography).
     
  5. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    Performance at the long ends looks pretty terrible too. If this proves to be a fair test, then the lens seems to be a dud!
     
  6. rbelyell

    rbelyell Mu-43 Veteran

    356
    Sep 15, 2013
    Mountains of NY
    imo, 3.5-5.6 in m4/3 is nothing to get excited about.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  7. fredlong

    fredlong Just this guy...

    Apr 18, 2011
    Massachusetts USA
    Fred
    No, not exciting, but I'd be happy to swap out my 14-45 for a similar quality 12-60 for the range.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  8. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    Yeah, I have a hard time believing the results aren't a product of a bad sample.

    As I mentioned in the other thread on this, if those numbers are accurate, this would take the crown as literally the least sharp lens ever made for M4/3, specifically at the tele end. Worse absolute resolution figures at 60mm than the first cheap 14-42mm kit lens - at any point in the zoom range - on the first 12MP sensor.

    I find that difficult to believe. Need to see some other results from SLRGear at least. Probably too much to hope that lenstip or photozone.de will test this one since it's fairly mundane.
     
  9. Klorenzo

    Klorenzo Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 10, 2014
    Lorenzo
  10. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Even if the first test does turn out to be a bad sample, now you have to worry that the one you buy will also be just like it. I'm sure I'm not the only one that has been spooked away from this lens. With Panasonic now moving to better IBIS in the GX85, I think I'd rather just get the 12-50 for $200-ish used (or continue to rock the kit lens).
     
  11. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    Those PhotographyBLOG samples don't look nearly so bad. Even at 60mm (120mm, as they label it) and f5.6, it looks pretty uniform across the frame. And not worse than the output you'd expect from a regular lens shot on JPEG, which the previous report would indicate.

    http://img.photographyblog.com/revi..._vario_12_60mm_f3_5_5_6_asph_power_ois_07.jpg
     
  12. DHart

    DHart Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 7, 2010
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Don
    That first test has been disconcerting, but as others have said... It would be very surprising if this lens isn't a good performer. I'm still holding out hope based on additional input. It the lens doesn't pan out, we've got a lot great lenses to choose from.
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2016
  13. srhphoto

    srhphoto Mu-43 Veteran

    245
    Feb 26, 2012
    My pre-ordered lens has come into stock here in the UK. With Ephotozine repeating testing with a different lens and the chance that other reviews will start to appear online soon, I'm going to hold out for as long as I can on the pre-order before deciding what to do. If performance turns out to be inline with the initial Ephotozine test, then I'll have no choice but to cancel. I am however struggling to believe that Panasonic would release a lens that performs so very, very poorly given their track record. I really hope it was just a duff lens, although that in itself is a worry, as on paper this lens ticks just about every box for what I'm after.

    Fingers crossed :)

    Simon.
     
  14. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    I must say, since I do a lot of landscapes this lens looks like a very interesting option - but only if it performs. I'm keeping my fingers crossed too.

    PS - Some great shots on your Flickr page - fantastic advert for u43!!!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. srhphoto

    srhphoto Mu-43 Veteran

    245
    Feb 26, 2012
    Thanks Paul :)

    As you'll have seen from my Flickr feed, I enjoy landscape photography too and couldn't agree more about how interesting this lens looks on paper. However, the Ephotozine test shows it to be significantly worse than my 14-42mm mk II kit lens. I'm struggling to believe that at the moment, but it will be a colossal own goal from Panasonic if it proves to be true.

    Cheers,

    Simon.
     
  16. sriracha

    sriracha ballistic photons

    68
    Jan 22, 2011
    i don't see an issue, perhaps someone can point me to an example?

    all the sample image posted on ePhotozine were shot at f8 and looked fine to me... the few that were not great indicators (portrait, flower bokeh, store front). checked the PhotographyBLOG images and those looked fine as well.
     
  17. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    Well, the MTF plot at 60mm shows the lens struggles to hit 1000 lw/ph wide open and barely makes 1300 at f11. The reviewer saw fit to say this at 50mm (it gets worse at 60mm):

    Damning by faint praise!! Look at the Panasonic 35-100 f4.0-f5.6 to see how it should be done:

    Panasonic Lumix G Vario 35-100mm f/4.0-5.6 Asph Mega O.I.S. Review
     
  18. NWright

    NWright Mu-43 Regular

    193
    Jan 13, 2014
    Michigan
    It'd be a shame if this lens doesn't perform like we're hoping.

    I actually shot a preproduction copy this weekend and the form factor is just fantastic for what I'd use it for (rigorous hiking/backpacking).

    I couldn't tell much by way of image quality of the copy I had. Fingers crossed results from elsewhere are a bit better.
     
  19. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    Do you mean that you weren't able to do any critical testing, or that you didn't notice that the image quality was noticeably worse than the lenses you are familiar with?
     
  20. NWright

    NWright Mu-43 Regular

    193
    Jan 13, 2014
    Michigan
    I was not able to do any critical testing. Thanks for helping me clear that up! :)

    Only time will tell (and a few more lens tests) if my newest lens will be a used 12-40 or the new 12-60.