Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Livnius, Mar 20, 2013.
DxOMark - Panasonic LUMIX G X Vario 12-35mm f2.8 ASPH. Power O.I.S - Panasonic
hope this doesn't get incendiary Joe...
I was very careful to audit the review and I'm absolutely certain the word 'Leica' isn't mentioned.
We are safe.
nor the word 'Fuji-X'
From there results can I conclude their measurements were with out software correction?
Seems so. I believe they never factor that in on any m43 lens anyway unless I'm mistaken. Which I guess may seem a little unfair and certainly handicaps m43 lenses when they make comparisons to lenses from other formats and then draw conclusions based on those comparisons. Still, as long as one is aware of this it's easy then skip certain criticisms since we know all too well that they are corrected and thus irrelevant.
Well, if it means anything, I like my copy of it. I recall taking my first shot, thinking, well, that's one $1,300.00 photo. Took the next, and it was suddenly halved. Yadda yadda yadda, I think I'm getting my money's worth now.
Well, I guess we can't really argue over the measurements - I'm sure they've done a reliable job.
For those of us bought into m43 though, we're probably sold on the size/weight and are prepared to make some small sacrifices on IQ - so long as they're small. So, the question is, is the small size/weight of the 12-35 and its 'great but not stellar' performance a good compromise given the price?
For me the answer is yes. In any case, the 12-35 at street prices is actually about the same as, say, a Canon 24-105, and I'd guess that IQ is probably about the same so I'm not entirely convinced by their conclusion that it's a poor price/performance offering.
If you want to compare it with Canon's latest 24-70, then you'll be laying down well over $2000 - twice the price of the 12-35.
They measure lenses without corrections because it normalizes the data.
I can certainly understand their reasoning, but for a system that utilizes corrections on the RAW level, they really should reconsider their position.
Leica doubles the price
Im happy with mine. Yes its more expensive than a few lenses that are better but none of those are on m4/3 yet. As the first of the "pro" zooms I expected it to be expensive as well as being a Panasonic lens.
Im also happy to see results without software corrections. I think it gives a level playing field and given a choice Id take a lens that doesnt need them over one that does.
As with anything DXO Id also take it with a grain of salt.
To me these people really miss the whole point why one would invest/switch to MU43
Is this lens like the Lumix 7-14 with different results on the OMD & E-PL5
Just picked one of these guys up and from the test shots thus far I believe all the reviews thus far. With spring and summer coming around the corner this will be the go-to for day activities.
Yes, the price is a bit steep but there aren't other native alternatives yet.
I thought the review is fair compared to my own user experience. The lens is, by far, the best performing zoom lens available for the m4/3 format, and sharpness is close to some of the prime lenses.
I also thought the lens was really expensive when I first bought it, but given the amount of time it spends on my camera, I now think it is well worth the price. While I wish the lens could cover a wider focal length, from 12mm to something closer to 50mm, the close focusing ability of this lens adds another dimension to the lens, making it more versatile than the otherwise limited focal length would suggest...
Just like dxo only focuses on the sensor for cameras ignoring other aspects, they measure the optics ignoring packaging (size weight use). This puts a distinct disadvantage to certain cameras. Fuji EXR sensors for example are only measured at their full normal operation and neither wide dynamic range nor the high sensitivity modes are taken into consideration. All micro 4/3 lenses will also fall under the same.... no measurement or value to packaging which is the primary value proposition the system offers to consumers. As someone already mentioned they most likely ignore how much software correction contributes the final image as well.
Its just a small part of the picture one must consider..... but the review is so far on par with my experience with the 12-35.
As for price, I dont quite understand. Yes its a lot of money but its a lot of lens... the best performing one in the entire 4/3 system. Its still a relatively on par when compared to what is available new with other systems. How much is the Canon 24-70L mark II?
I also wished it covered a wider focal length, so I consider it a zoom lens that I also zoom with my feet.
I'm just glad they're using a state of the art body for these tests. Put another way, DxOMark just sucks reviewing lenses.
Limits of DXO Mark's Methodology
I just recently got my own 12-35. I like it a lot. It is far better than the Olympus 14-42 and 12-50 zooms.
I have one significant complaint about this lens though. The flare in sunny conditions is bad. I like shooting into the sun because it offers some creative options and have to avoid it with this lens. I will probably check out Olympus's rumored 12-40 f/2.8 if it comes out.
The fact that DXO failed to even mention lens flare is a serious critique of the validity of their methodology that lacks ANY real world usage.
I know it isn't a zoom but the Oly 17 1.8 controls flare very well.
Separate names with a comma.