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

Oly SHG 14-35 vs Pana 12-35

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by jeffg53, Oct 25, 2012.

  1. jeffg53

    jeffg53 Mu-43 Veteran

    270
    Aug 22, 2012
    Sydney, Australia
    Jeff Grant
    I'm wondering if anyone has compared the new 12-35 against the 43 Oly 14-35. I have been looking at some shots from the Oly and they are really good. The only problem for me is that they use a 77mm filter which gets me right back into Lee 100mm grads.
     
  2. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    There was a thread not too long ago, search and you should find it
     
  3. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    Lloyd Chambers did on his subscription site. He may have had a bum copy of the 12-35/2.8, but the bottom line is that the 14-35/2.8 seems to have bested it in pretty much every respect. That said, it's a very large lens, and autofocus on m4/3 is both slow and hit-or-miss.

    I can't find a photo of the E-M5 and 14-35, but here's the 12-60 on my E-M5, and the 14-35 is 20-30% bigger in ever dimension.

    i-3QwHRpc-L.
     
  4. jeffg53

    jeffg53 Mu-43 Veteran

    270
    Aug 22, 2012
    Sydney, Australia
    Jeff Grant
    Got it, thanks. It did develop into a slanging match, unfortunately. I gather that teh 14-35 wins hands down.
     
  5. jeffg53

    jeffg53 Mu-43 Veteran

    270
    Aug 22, 2012
    Sydney, Australia
    Jeff Grant
    That's what I expected, thanks. A friend has just bought the 14-35. The IQ is very good. I would buy it in a heartbeat except for the filter. I'm not going back to the old Lee system. It looks really silly on M43. Now I'm wondering how teh M43 primes stack up against it.
     
  6. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    From 20mm or so on, I wouldn't worry. The Sigma 19 and 30, the Panasonic 20, 25 and 45 and the Olympus 45 are all pretty darn good - perhaps not quite as good as the 14-35/2 but the differences are quite subtle.

    The wide end is more of an issue. Neither the 12/2 nor the 14/2.5 has the same sort of uniform sharpness. The 17/2.8 is rather weak, and the 17/0.95 is MF only. Perhaps the upcoming Olympus 17/1.8 or the Schneider 14 will be more comparable, but we'll have to wait and see. Of course the 14-35/2 doesn't go to 12 to begin with (a disqualifying limitation for me), but that's a different discussion.
     
  7. jeffg53

    jeffg53 Mu-43 Veteran

    270
    Aug 22, 2012
    Sydney, Australia
    Jeff Grant
    Many thanks. So the 14-35 is better than the M43 primes, but not by a lot. I don't shoot wide often. I have the O 12 now but will probably buy the Schneider when it arrives. I would love a good 35 as I find the 25 too wide and the 45 too tight. I bought primes as I really want the best image quality that I can get. I want to be able to happily print A2 without wishing that I had my Hasselblad gear instead.

    How does the 12-60 stack up against the primes?
     
  8. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    And 2x the price,over 2x the weight, and 2x the length ... How much was the difference?
     
  9. jeffg53

    jeffg53 Mu-43 Veteran

    270
    Aug 22, 2012
    Sydney, Australia
    Jeff Grant
    I really don't give a rat's about that. I just want to know about image quality. Quality always costs, end of story.

    I have paid for, and lugged Hasselblad gear around the world for many years. I'm just trying to lighten my load but I want the alternative to be the best that I can find, hence the question.
     
  10. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    What's wrong with the filter thread on the Oly 14-35? Shouldn't need the Lee system with that lens.
     
  11. jeffg53

    jeffg53 Mu-43 Veteran

    270
    Aug 22, 2012
    Sydney, Australia
    Jeff Grant
    Amin, take a look at my website. I use grads all the time, and NDs now that I am using the E M5. When you are used to ISO 100, f/16, ISO 200 and f/8 are a challenge.

    I have just bought a stack of the Lee Seven5 gear as my Lee 100 stuff is far too bulky for M43. It looks silly, and is exacerbated by being on top of a Gitzo 3 series and Arca Cube. Unfortunately, the Lee Seven5 stuff stops at 72mm
     
  12. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    Jeff, what is it about the Oly 14-35 that makes it harder to use with filters than your Oly 12mm prime would be?
     
  13. jeffg53

    jeffg53 Mu-43 Veteran

    270
    Aug 22, 2012
    Sydney, Australia
    Jeff Grant
    Sorry Amin, I just updated my last post. The Lee Seven5 or RF75 (recent name change) only goes to 72mm adapters. The 14-35 is 77mm which would force me to use the Lee 100mm system which is a lot bulkier. Having spent the larger part of 2K on new adapters, grads etc, I don't really want to have to flog it off on Ebay.
     
  14. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    Ouch, got it. I don't think the 4/3 12-60 will offer better performance than your 12mm prime, and the Micro 4/3 12-50 definitely won't. The Oly 12mm f/2 at f/5.6 is probably as good as it gets with our cameras at that focal length.
     
  15. jeffg53

    jeffg53 Mu-43 Veteran

    270
    Aug 22, 2012
    Sydney, Australia
    Jeff Grant
    Thanks Amin. It looks like I'll stick with the primes for a bit longer.
     
  16. danska

    danska Mu-43 Top Veteran

    945
    May 21, 2012
    Portland, OR
    Joe
    I haven't printed to A2 with this lens yet but I've done A3 equivalent sizes from the 12-35 with amazing results. From a brief use of the Olympus 12mm, I don't see a sharpness difference between the two. I think the 12-35 would be a good option given that it's the sharpest m4/3 lens at 35mm. 58mm filter size would allow you to keep using your current filter system as well.
     
  17. jeffg53

    jeffg53 Mu-43 Veteran

    270
    Aug 22, 2012
    Sydney, Australia
    Jeff Grant
    Thanks. I can live with 58mm.
     
  18. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    Pretty closely to the ones I have - the 45/1.8 seems marginally better than the zoom, and the 20/1.7 marginally worse. I haven't had a chance to carefully compare with any other primes. I did a brief test with the 12/2 and the 12-60 and wasn't really impressed with the 12/2, although I'm starting to think I had a bad sample of that lens.

    Depending on how you look at it, that's either a reason to go all primes (size, convenience) or pick up the 12-60 ($500 gets you a lot of range, all of it sharp).
     
  19. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    Nothing wrong with that.

    If I photo is worth taking ... than you might as well take with the best you can get.

    Gary
     
  20. jeffg53

    jeffg53 Mu-43 Veteran

    270
    Aug 22, 2012
    Sydney, Australia
    Jeff Grant
    That's a good thought. There's one on Ebay down here now. I might just get it. I do shudder at the mention of good and bad examples of lenses. It's something that I haven't even contemplated in years.