First review of Panasonic 12-60 isn't pretty

[pdk42]

In support of the 12-35 f2.8 - I'll offer up this shot I took today. It's at 35mm (where the 12-35 is apparently at its weakest) but I think the detail in the ironwork is quite superb. Download the hi-res if you wish by going to the Flickr page. I'm pretty sure that if I had taken this with, say, a Nikon D810 and the 85mm f1.8 G then it would show more detail - but I doubt anyone would spot it on a print of anything but gigantic size.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Just Gone Quarter past 12 by Paul Kaye, on Flickr

 

[Luckypenguin]

...mostly, we just need any sort of side-by-side comparison of the Fuji 18-55 and the Panasonic 12-35 that shows how it roundly snubs it optically.

This is the only example I can find:

Re: Panny 12-35/2.8 vs Fujinon XF 18-55/2.8-4: Question for those who have used both: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

When peeped at 100% with both lenses at f5.6, the Fuji looks more consistent across the frame (a bit sharper in the corners), but produces odd-looking artifacts and false-detail in other areas. You can prefer one or you can prefer the other, but it's hard to say that one is clearly better. I find the foliage and edge-sharpening on the Fuji looks quite unnatural. The corners are definitely sharper (albeit on a narrower field of view overall), but the overall "IQ" doesn't please me in comparison to the E-M5 in this comparison. Other people have drawn other conclusions.

It's a minor issue, but the Fuji also peaks optically at f5.6, whereas the 12-35 is actually better across the frame at f2.8 and f4 due to diffraction softening afterwards. But it's a moot point, since the differences between the lenses are very small in any circumstances. We're also ignoring that M4/3 users have the Olympus 12-40/2.8 if you feel the need for better corner performance.

In any case, I prefer to let the images speak for themselves. Always. One person's trash is another person's treasure, and vice-versa.

Thanks for going to the effort of finding a visual comparison between the two lenses. The issue you raise about comparing the two lenses at the aperture that coincides with the Fuji's optical peak is a good one. In real world use I typically shoot a Micro 4/3 camera about one stop wider than I would an APS-C camera because in either case I'm trying to establish a particular depth-of-field and shoot to the strengths of each format, not shoot to a fixed aperture number. For across the frame sharpness, f/4 seems to the sweet spot for my Olympus 12-40mm, and this also appears to be true for the Panasonic 12-35mm (which I haven't used) if I am understanding the various online reviews correctly. With that in mind I don't agree with the tester's method of comparing lenses shot on different formats at equal apertures.

The main issue that I find with m4/3 f/5.6 zoom lenses like the new 12-60mm is that at the long end I only have an operating window of one stop when using f/8 as my practical limit before images start to get a bit softer than I would like. The only slower m4/3 zoom lenses that I have used extensively are the Panasonic 14-140mm and the Olympus 9-18mm, which offer a high level of flexibility (14-140mm) and a wide perspective (9-18mm) to balance the limitations imposed by their maximum apertures.

 

[Danny_SWE]

they are not sleeping...
New Panasonic patent discloses a 12-100mm MFT lens design – 43 Rumors

 

[EarthQuake]

If this 12-100mm becomes an actual thing, and it is compact, it sounds kind of cool. Seems like it's a lens geared for the GM1/GM5, for someone who doesn't want to switch between the 12-32 and 35-100/4-5.6. Not a lens I'm interested in, but if they can make it significantly smaller than the other super zooms in the system I'm sure it will have a place.

Personally, I don't think there is a lot of room between the larger, high end lenses, and smaller slow zooms. Something like the 12-60 is big, but slow and not great optically, I just don't get the point of it. If I was willing to live with slow and mediocre image quality, at the very least it I would want it to be compact.

 

[Turbofrog]

If this 12-100mm becomes an actual thing, and it is compact, it sounds kind of cool. Seems like it's a lens geared for the GM1/GM5, for someone who doesn't want to switch between the 12-32 and 35-100/4-5.6. Not a lens I'm interested in, but if they can make it significantly smaller than the other super zooms in the system I'm sure it will have a place.

Personally, I don't think there is a lot of room between the larger, high end lenses, and smaller slow zooms. Something like the 12-60 is big, but slow and not great optically, I just don't get the point of it. If I was willing to live with slow and mediocre image quality, at the very least it I would want it to be compact.

It's big-ish, but only for an M4/3 lens, and while definitely slow, it at least is weather sealed. Can you find a smaller 24-120mm equivalent zoom lens for an interchangeable lens system? The DX 16-85/3.5-5.6 weighs twice as much, and so does the Canon 15-85. The Sony 16-70/f4 has a smaller range, is faster at the long end, but is no better (and in fact maybe even worse) than the P12-60 in the corners, isn't weather sealed, is still bigger and heavier, and costs twice as much. Fuji doesn't offer any lens to compete.

I can understand your argument, but while the 12-60mm may not meet the high standards of Panasonic's previous affordable zooms, it's not in particularly bad company when you compare it to the rest of the market it competes against, at least outside of M4/3.

 

[tkbslc]

Personally, I don't think there is a lot of room between the larger, high end lenses, and smaller slow zooms. Something like the 12-60 is big, but slow and not great optically, I just don't get the point of it. If I was willing to live with slow and mediocre image quality, at the very least it I would want it to be compact.

I think there is room as long as the optics are top notch. The 12-50 and, seemingly, the 12-60 are not up to where they need to be. I used to shoot Canon and the 24-105mm f4 and the 15-85mm were both examples of "slow" zooms that were not compact or cheap. But they gave quality as good (or better) than their f2.8 siblings. Which made them extremely attractive to those of us who like having a better one-lens solution for travel, landscapes, walkaround, etc. I still miss my 15-85mm, and especially after a trip I took this weekend where the 14-42 II often felt neither wide enough nor long enough. And caused more lens swaps than I would like. The 15-85 rarely left me feeling that way.

 

[Turbofrog]

I think there is room as long as the optics are top notch. The 12-50 and, seemingly, the 12-60 are not up to where they need to be. I used to shoot Canon and the 24-105mm f4 and the 15-85mm were both examples of "slow" zooms that were not compact or cheap. But they gave quality as good (or better) than their f2.8 siblings. Which made them extremely attractive to those of us who like having a better one-lens solution for travel, landscapes, walkaround, etc. I still miss my 15-85mm, and especially after a trip I took this weekend where the 14-42 II often felt neither wide enough nor long enough. And caused more lens swaps than I would like. The 15-85 rarely left me feeling that way.

Do you think that if you looked back now that the 15-85mm would be willing to satisfy your current standards of technical image quality? I know that when I look at my older images now taken with point & shoots, I am often still happy with the composition and overall images, but ignorance is definitely bliss when it comes to evaluating them for quality. As I've re-iterated a few times in this thread, the numbers don't seem to suggest that those Canon and Nikon zooms perform much better than the 12-60 does, despite their reputation.

 

[tkbslc]

Do you think that if you looked back now that the 15-85mm would be willing to satisfy your current standards of technical image quality?

Yeah, 2014 wasn't that long ago!

I'm hoping the 12-60 looks better once more samples and reviews trickle out.

 

[Turbofrog]

Yeah, 2014 wasn't that long ago!

I'm hoping the 12-60 looks better once more samples and reviews trickle out.

What Canon body did you have?

 

[JNB]

I had high hopes for the 12-60mm, because of the extended range. My 12-35mm covers about 60% of what I shoot, but a 12-60 would cover a bit more than 75%. Corner and edge performance is important for much of what I shoot, however. So, the test graphs aren't encouraging. Having said that, I know that early tests and opinions aren't the be-all and end-all. I often carry the M.Zuiko 9-18mm f/4.0-5.6 – a lens that typically gets faint praise in professional reviews, and garners very mixed opinions from users. I use it (almost always at 9mm and f/5.6) when the 12mm just isn't wide enough. And I have to say I'm quite happy with the results. Ditto for the 17mm f/1.8. Everyone seems to say "I wish it was better", but I've found it to be quite a good performer, and I'm happy to use it.

For now, I'll continue to pack the 12-35 and 35-100. But I'll be keeping an eye on the 12-60 as more tests and opinions accumulate. With most lenses, there is a consensus that builds over time. Sometimes it's right in line with the early reviews/opinions, and sometimes not.

 

[Wisertime]

I had high hopes for the 12-60mm, because of the extended range. My 12-35mm covers about 60% of what I shoot, but a 12-60 would cover a bit more than 75%. Corner and edge performance is important for much of what I shoot, however. So, the test graphs aren't encouraging. Having said that, I know that early tests and opinions aren't the be-all and end-all. I often carry the M.Zuiko 9-18mm f/4.0-5.6 – a lens that typically gets faint praise in professional reviews, and garners very mixed opinions from users. I use it (almost always at 9mm and f/5.6) when the 12mm just isn't wide enough. And I have to say I'm quite happy with the results. Ditto for the 17mm f/1.8. Everyone seems to say "I wish it was better", but I've found it to be quite a good performer, and I'm happy to use it.

For now, I'll continue to pack the 12-35 and 35-100. But I'll be keeping an eye on the 12-60 as more tests and opinions accumulate. With most lenses, there is a consensus that builds over time. Sometimes it's right in line with the early reviews/opinions, and sometimes not.

Unless size really matters you can use the 43rds Olympus 12-60 or 14-54 for cheaper, weather-sealed, optically great choices.

 

[JNB]

Unless size really matters you can use the 43rds Olympus 12-60 or 14-54 for cheaper, weather-sealed, optically great choices.

I've been waiting since the beginning of Micro-4/3 for a slightly smaller 12-60mm to be released. Until my most recent purchase of an E-M5 ii, I've owned Panasonics, and so was looking for a stabilized lens, and one that auto-focused well. And now? The 4/3 12-60 certainly seems like a beast. With adapter, it's only about 50g lighter than the Panny 12-35 and 35-100 combined.

 

[tkbslc]

What Canon body did you have?

60D. Prior to that, I had a 30D and a Rebel XS.

Another great series of lens that I loved for travel and walkaround was the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 (new version is 2.8-4 with OS). It was hard to part with, but the range of the 15-85 won out. Too bad Sigma can't make some zooms for us to fill in the gaps like they do with DSLR.

Unless size really matters you can use the 43rds Olympus 12-60 or 14-54 for cheaper, weather-sealed, optically great choices.

I would say those are only options if size does not matter at all and you are using an E-M1.

Here's what the 12-60 f2.8-4 looks like on a E-M1. (It also weighs over 600g with adapter)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

vs the new Panasonic 12-60:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Wisertime]

I've been waiting since the beginning of Micro-4/3 for a slightly smaller 12-60mm to be released. Until my most recent purchase of an E-M5 ii, I've owned Panasonics, and so was looking for a stabilized lens, and one that auto-focused well. And now? The 4/3 12-60 certainly seems like a beast. With adapter, it's only about 50g lighter than the Panny 12-35 and 35-100 combined.

Yeah it's a bit big/heavy after having used M43 lenses. The 14-54 though isn't too bad vs the 12-40, considering the $$ savings factor, gain in length and no loss of IQ, but I guess only if you have the EM1. I still use the 12-50mm when I want something lighter. It's not really bad. I would expect the 12-60 to be at least as good. Good enough. You have to make compromises. Lots of choices already w/primes and lots of zooms, but I don't think Olympus is going to create another 12-60 and be able to make it small enough without disappointing people. Just my $.02. Once the 12-60 is released I'm sure real world results will be ok for enthusiasts and the price will come down to match it's real value, just like the 12-50mm and 25 F1.7,

 

[AlanU]

I think there is room as long as the optics are top notch. The 12-50 and, seemingly, the 12-60 are not up to where they need to be. I used to shoot Canon and the 24-105mm f4 and the 15-85mm were both examples of "slow" zooms that were not compact or cheap. But they gave quality as good (or better) than their f2.8 siblings. Which made them extremely attractive to those of us who like having a better one-lens solution for travel, landscapes, walkaround, etc. I still miss my 15-85mm, and especially after a trip I took this weekend where the 14-42 II often felt neither wide enough nor long enough. And caused more lens swaps than I would like. The 15-85 rarely left me feeling that way.

The 24-105L is actually a pro grade kit lens that is an old design. A while back the 24-105L was very close in performance to the 24-70L f/2.8 mk1 lens. However the New 24-70L f/2.8 mk2 is as sharp as Canon's best primes and is incredible in micro contrast/sharpness. Even the new 16-35 f/4IS is as sharp as the best Canon prime!!! With a large sensor behind the Mk2 lenses the benchmark in IQ jump up a lot compared to the older gen Canon pro lenses. The 24-70Lmk2 can have incredible "pop" bokeh at f/2.8 so you can almost feel like your shooting a prime lens with smaller sensor. Just another tool i use for event work.......

The 15-85 variable aperture lens was very good for price point. I just struggle with the large changes in apertures as you zoom in and out. This is where I struggle with any variable aperture lens.

 

[50orsohours]

The 24-105L is actually a pro grade kit lens that is an old design. A while back the 24-105L was very close in performance to the 24-70L f/2.8 mk1 lens. However the New 24-70L f/2.8 mk2 is as sharp as Canon's best primes and is incredible in micro contrast/sharpness. Even the new 16-35 f/4IS is as sharp as the best Canon prime!!! With a large sensor behind the Mk2 lenses the benchmark in IQ jump up a lot compared to the older gen Canon pro lenses. The 24-70Lmk2 can have incredible "pop" bokeh at f/2.8 so you can almost feel like your shooting a prime lens with smaller sensor. Just another tool i use for event work.......

The 15-85 variable aperture lens was very good for price point. I just struggle with the large changes in apertures as you zoom in and out. This is where I struggle with any variable aperture lens.

So can we see any of your shots or what?

 

[AlanU]

So can we see any of your shots or what?

what do you want to see?

 

[50orsohours]

what do you want to see?

Examples of the huge difference that you see between m4/3 and Fuji - I checked out the links in your previous reply to me. Both are great photographers, both could make any system shine. I wanted to see the difference you speak of. Hand me the best gear in the world and guess what. My shots will look exactly like my shots with m4/3.

 

[AlanU]

Examples of the huge difference that you see between m4/3 and Fuji - I checked out the links in your previous reply to me. Both are great photographers, both could make any system shine. I wanted to see the difference you speak of. Hand me the best gear in the world and guess what. My shots will look exactly like my shots with m4/3.

As I mentioned before the workflow in LR6 is different comparing the the two systems. The photos in general have a different feel as I manipulate the Raw files. I'm finding the overall IQ to be much better than my M43 12-35f/2.8.

When your at a certain level/caliber you use tools that work. You'd never see Anne Leibovitz or even Sue Bryce use M43 camera gear for their high paying clients. Truthfully I do not have to school you on the capabilities of the M43 because we both know how it performs. I know the limitations of the system so I move on to other tools. I still own M43 because I know the applications I can use with it.

If you honestly think the best in the world is at the same level of M43 please rent and borrow this gear you speak of. The M43 has a target market that love it. This is where any experienced shooter will know how hard they can push the M43 sensor. Sports, Birding and run/gun wedding work will be a realistic jump in AF, IQ and iso performance. If you think the M43 can keep up with a Nikon or capable Canon equally as well i urge you to test those bodies again. Since you have not discussed form factor play with a hassie or PhaseOne and tell me a digital medium format will have same IQ as your E-M1. Shoot a concert using available dark lighting at iso 12800+++ and truthfully tell me the E-M1 will provide files you can be proud of to a paying client.

Fuji on the other hand is not very good at AF. However it certainly seems more accurate than most contrast detection AF M43 body. Panasonic DFD is excellent though.......

Today I had a challenging Corporate photo shoot with 4 strobes. I wouldn't touch my M43!! I left my Fuji home because I'm not confident in using it for a crucial executive photo shoot. The 5Dmk3 did a killer job in executing the task!! I choose my tools for very specific reasons. If I was allowed to do a BTS video I would have brought my Gh3 with 12-35mm. Proprietary technology even required photographic permission where I performed the photoshoot.

Any average joe (typically do not need alot of lenses to perform family documentation) needing one of the best capable Mirrorless bodies I'd suggest an A6300 both for video and stills. The A6300 is easily on par if not better than the fuji as far as high iso is concerned. Only specific people I know I'd suggest fujifilm. The latest gx8 cannot even touch the iso capabilities of the fuji or sony crop sensor.

If you test/rent "best gear" in brutal situations I'm 100% certain the outcome. Com'on let be sensible and realistic. My M43 beats my fuji in AF. However in my workflow in LR6 the fuji has much better IQ and certainly better high iso performance for my casual family documentation. At this moment in time I'd buy an A6300 before the latest gen M43 with 20mpx sensor (lateral performer against to the old 16mpx sensor.) I'm still waiting to panny and oly to meet the demands of demanding users.

No fight from me. I know the M43 limitation yet I still use it. It's a tool....... my paying clients don't care what I use but on average I only use my dslr. I'll be testing the fuji in due time but truthfully it's not good enough for my events work. If I was a portrait shooter only I think I'd welcome a crop sensor from Fujifilm or A6300 if I was forced to use crop APS-C.

50orso rent a fuji or borrow one. I know how the M43 performs. I dont think you've ever used a fuji extensively yet........ For your "car/detailing" applications M43 is good enough. If your shooting weddings........you may search for different tools.

 

[Turbofrog]

...no one is comparing M4/3 to digital medium format, or even to full frame, here. We're comparing it to APS-C, which is only modestly larger - 60% bigger, compared to a 380% bigger for 135 format, or 650% larger for Pentax 645D, and 960% bigger for Phase One. If someone is used to medium format, they'll scorn APS-C just as much as M4/3. It's why we're treating your hyperbolic language here with such great skepticism.

People seem to present this idea that M4/3 is a tiny sensor, but that APS-C is just a small gap away from the capabilities of FF. It doesn't make any sense. APS-C isn't even the half-way point between M4/3 and FF. It's just 1/3 of the way there in terms of sensor area!

Anyway, you seem quite happy to wax poetic about the capabilities of your Fuji gear without providing even a shred of visual evidence that the rest of us can judge. I'm glad you like your gear, but please don't expect us to take your opinions as anything more than opinions in the absence of anything to corroborate your quite bold claims that are contrary to any vaguely objective testing performed by others.