Which lens to replace my PL 12-32 f/3.5-5.6 on a Panasonic body ?

[SojiOkita]

Thanks ! Such distortion doesn't bother me much really. I can't say I havent noticed it before either, maybe because i is so well corrected in DxO Photolab ?

Yes, exactly.
DxO's correction for the 12-32 is pretty good.
Better than the built in correction.

 

[LucDeSchepper]

Thanks Luc, glad you did. Do you use the 12-40mm on a Panasonic body ?

Hi Joris, I use mine on an Olympus E-M10 and E-M10II.

 

[Joris]

Resolving power in many landscape compositions---and I think alsoResolving power in many landscape compositions---and I think also quite a few your rural architecture images I'm aware of---is depth of field, rather than MTF limited. I'm aware of---is depth of field, rather than MTF limited (archaeopteryx 2018).

Ok, I am seriously sparring above my weight here... But I think I understand that theoretically in some of my photos DoF issues must be more prominent than lack of MTF. I will admit that, if I got that right, I still reckon that most of the time I hardly push my Lumix 12-32mm f/3.5-5.6 to the limits of DOF it might be capable of. Choosing the hyperfocal distance diligently, at 12mm-f/5.6, DoF to infinity starts from 90cm. Usually in my frames the closest objects are several meters away.

I trust your insight in that the Lumix 12-35mm f/2.8 will not show better MTF in this given setting. Even though my images are visible here and on 500px and elsewhere on the web, still having more potential in my raw files remains tempting. Thanks again for your help and patience.

Maybe something in this one

I must say that that one isn't mine

 

[SojiOkita]

Choosing the hyperfocal distance diligently, at 12mm-f/5.6, DoF to infinity starts from 90cm. Usually in my frames the closest objects are several meters away.

Be careful with hyperfocal calculations. Most of the calculators give values that won't mean that you'll get sharp results when looking at 100% on your computer.
This is a only a zone of "acceptable sharpness".

 

[Joris]

Of course

 

[roelwillems]

Be careful with hyperfocal calculations. Most of the calculators give values that won't mean that you'll get sharp results when looking at 100% on your computer.
This is a only a zone of "acceptable sharpness".

True, and I once read a tip to do the calculation and then approximately double it for the focus point (so 90cm would result in focussing on around 180cm). This technique still results in enough DoF but limits the risk of focussing to close (80cm vs 90cm) which would result in an unsharp background.

 

[Joris]

You might check the maths .... If you wish to pursue the details the underlying maths are convolution and are described in introductory signal processing textbooks.

I must admit, dear archaeopteryx, that rather than doing the math, I prefer to concentrate on "which stand point and framing" to exploit the charm of my subjects as much as I can in a "fetching" composition, and an optimal exposure, rather than to rely on the maths of depth of field.
I simply tend to focus on an object with some contrast in the "distant foreground", roughly 1/3 into the image. If that object is closer, I juggle with a slightly smaller aperture than f/5,6. I know this is an unreliable procedure, but it usually seems to work from what I see later at 1/1 on my computerscreen.

 

[SojiOkita]

I thought you were saying that you used hyperfocal:

most of the time I hardly push my Lumix 12-32mm f/3.5-5.6 to the limits of DOF it might be capable of. Choosing the hyperfocal distance diligently, at 12mm-f/5.6, DoF to infinity starts from 90cm. Usually in my frames the closest objects are several meters away.

If you don't, then there's no issue there...

 

[Joris]

I thought you were saying that you used hyperfocal

No, in order to answer I only checked on a DoF calculator what theoretically is "acceptably" possible at 12mm-5,6 In my images, I believe that usually I do not push DoF to its limits. It might sometimes be an issue at longer focal lenghts.

 

[Mike Wingate]

As 12-32mm is quite a wide range. How about the PL12-60mm, faster at the wider end and longer. Still got everything covered in just one lens.

 

[Joris]

How about the PL12-60mm, faster at the wider end and longer.

Indeed, that is a lens I have been taking in consideration in my original post. Since I own the Lumix 35-100 2.8 II, the 12-35mm 2.8 II seems the best option. I have seen it new for only € 480 !

 

[Sleepy Capybara]

I read the whole thread, I'm now very curious which lens you end up getting.
I won't toss that 12-32 though.

 

[Joris]

I read the whole thread, I'm now very curious which lens you end up getting.
I won't toss that 12-32 though.

So am I I won't !

 

[SojiOkita]

Yes, I think if I buy another lens covering the 12-32 range one day, I'll also keep the 12-32, because I won't get much from selling it, and it's so tiny that if you don't think your gonna use it, you can take it with you anyway.
Personnally, I'm looking forward to the future Olympus 12-45 f/4...
Most of the lenses discussed here are very good (I would be tempted by the PL12-60 2.8-4), but also pretty large... the new 12-45 is supposed to be compact.

 

[SojiOkita]

Personnally, I'm looking forward to the future Olympus 12-45 f/4...

Obviously, not anymore... too bad there's nothing more compact in the 12-something than the 12-60s, 12-35, 12-40, 12-45.
Except the 12-32, of course, but nothing in between.

 

[Joris]

http://43addict.com/2020/01/29/olympus-m-zuiko-digital-ed-12-45mm-f-4-0-pro-press-leak/

Here's some comparative specs.

Pana X 12-35 f2.8 II

• Lens construction = 14 elements in 9 groups
• Closest focusing distance = 0.25m / 9.84 in.
• Maximum image magnification = 0.17x
  (0.34x : 35mm equivalent)
• Filter size = 58mm
• Dimensions = φ67.6 x 73.8mm / φ2.66 x 2.91 in.
• Weight = Approx. 305g / 10.8 oz.

Olympus 12-40 f2.8 Pro

• Lens construction = 14 elements in 9 groups
• Closest focusing distance = 0.2m / 7.87 in.
• Maximum image magnification = 0.3x (0.6x : 35mm equivalent)
• Filter size = 62mm
• Dimensions = φ69.9 x 84.0mm / φ2.75 x 3.31 in.
• Weight = 382g / 13.5 oz.

Olympus 12-100 f4 Pro

• Lens construction = 17 elements in 11 groups
• Closest focusing distance = 0.15m (Wide) / 0.45m (Tele)
• Maximum image magnification = 0.3x (Wide) / 0.21x (Tele) (35mm equivalent: 0.6x (Wide) / 0.42x (Tele))
• Filter size = φ72mm
• Dimensions = φ77.5 x 116.50mm
• Weight = 561g / 19.8 oz.

Panasonic Leica 12-60 f2.8-4

• Lens construction = 14 elements in 12 groups
• Closest focusing distance = 0.20m / 7.87 in.
• Maximum image magnification = 0.3x (0.6x : 35mm camera equivalent)
• Filter size = 62mm
• Dimensions = φ68.4 x 86mm / φ2.69 x 3.39 in.
• Weight = Approx. 320g / 11.3 oz.

Olympus 12-45 f4 Pro
Closest focusing distance: 12 cm at 12mm, 23 cm at 45 mm
Max image magnification: 0.25x
Filter Size: 58mm
Dimensions: 63.4x70mm (2.5" dia x 2.76" long)
Weight: 254 g (9 oz)

So, 12-45 Pro is smaller than all those other lenses. Hopefully, less expensive too!

 

[Joris]

I read the whole thread, I'm now very curious which lens you end up getting.

Well, I did not get many answers to my original query. However, notwithstanding all your well meant advice against upgrading my PL12-32mm, for which I still thank you sincerely, I succumbed for the Lumix 12-35mm f/2.8 II , offered brand new at € 459.00 all in.
I can see a clear IQ difference at 100% between my old PL 35-100mm f/4.0-5.6 and the new PL 35-100mm f/2.8 II. Will keep you updated if it is the same for the PL12-32mm vs 12-35mm.

 

[Sleepy Capybara]

Well, I did not get many answers to my original query. However, against all your well meant advice against upgrading my PL12-32mm, for which I still thank you sincerely, I succumbed for the for the Lumix 12-35mm f/2.8 II , offered at € 459.00 all in.
I can see a clear IQ difference at 100% between my old PL 35-100mm f/4.0-5.6 and the new PL 35-100mm f/2.8 II. Will keep you updated if it is the same for the PL12-32mm vs 12-35mm.

If you can see the difference in IQ, nothing else matters. The upgrade was worth it, or that is how I look at my own purchases. Besides you got it at pretty good price too.

 

[mumu]

Well, I did not get many answers to my original query. However, against all your well meant advice against upgrading my PL12-32mm, for which I still thank you sincerely, I succumbed for the for the Lumix 12-35mm f/2.8 II , offered at € 459.00 all in.
I can see a clear IQ difference at 100% between my old PL 35-100mm f/4.0-5.6 and the new PL 35-100mm f/2.8 II. Will keep you updated if it is the same for the PL12-32mm vs 12-35mm.

That's a great price. I think I paid around CAD$1000 for mine about 5 yrs ago so that was around €680.

The 12-35/2.8 and 35-100/2.8 are a nicely matched pair and they're part of my standard travel kit.

 

[SojiOkita]

Well, I did not get many answers to my original query. However, notwithstanding all your well meant advice against upgrading my PL12-32mm, for which I still thank you sincerely, I succumbed for the Lumix 12-35mm f/2.8 II , offered brand new at € 459.00 all in.

Nice price. Where did you buy it?
I'm interrested by your feedback on this lens.

If you can see the difference in IQ, nothing else matters. The upgrade was worth it, or that is how I look at my own purchases. Besides you got it at pretty good price too.

I don't agree with your "nothing else matters" comment... from my point of view, the pleasure taken when shooting is as important as IQ...