Which Standard Zoom to Save for?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by tjdean01, Oct 22, 2013.

  1. tjdean01

    tjdean01 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Feb 20, 2013
    I have the Oly 14-42 which came with my camera. I'm actually ok with its sharpness from 14 to 30mm but it's not fast enough.

    I was thinking to get the Pan 14-45 which is sharp throughout the range all the way to 45, only $150, but still not fast.

    Now they have the tiny 12-32 coming which I'm assuming to not be as good as the 14-45, also not fast, and likely to cost $400. 12mm at the widest is a huge plus, however. As is the size.

    Or, I could sell my 11mm converter for $120, sell the 14-42 for $80, sell my Vivitar 28/2.8 for $40, and sell the Sigma 30/2.8 for $130 and use that $350 to help subsidize a Pan 12-35 f2.8 because if I had that I wouldn't need any of those (and I'd still have the 14 or 20 for when I need something compact). But then why would I pull that trigger when the Oly 12-40 reviews are coming. Ugh!
  2. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Actually, the new 12-32 has the highest MTF of all the kit zooms across the range, according to the charts from Panasonic. Plus, it's tiny! I would wait and try it out.
  3. ntblowz

    ntblowz Mu-43 Veteran

    Nov 13, 2011
    Auckland, New Zealand
    That depend you need zooms that work for indoor and outdoor? Or you use zoom for outdoor and prime for indoor?
  4. tjdean01

    tjdean01 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Feb 20, 2013
    Hmm, you know, this does make sense. I enjoy shooting with primes much more than zooms, even at higher apertures. Today I was out and I had the Oly 14-42 which gives me a broader range, of course, but I got more shots I like with the Sigma 30/2.8. So, if this 12-32 is sharp across its range like the 14-45 is, then maybe it would replace my desire for the 12-35. I could still sell the 11mm converter too. We'll have to see how the shots from the lens look and how much she costs!
  5. tjdean01

    tjdean01 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Feb 20, 2013
    Okay, what do you guys think about this.

    The 12-35 is of interest to me for A) sharpness across the range and B) a wide angle option including 12mm, meaning I can get rid of my 11mm adapter and never have to buy the 12mm f2.0. BUT, I'm not buying it to be a bokeh monster when at 2.8 I already have several lenses that can beat it there: 14/2.5, 20/1.7, 28/2, 30/2.8, 40/1.8, 50/1.7.

    Sooo, if the 12-32 really is sharp, and I obtain one for a low price, couldn't I forgo the 12-35 and save the money for the 75/1.8? What would you rather have, the 12-35, or the 12-32 + the 75/1.8?
  6. elavon

    elavon Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 1, 2012
    Tel Aviv Israel
    The 12-35 is here and you can get it now. The other options are different and are not available. Only you can set your priorities, if you need a fast standard get the 12-35. If you do portraits get any combination of slow zoom and the 45/75. do not expect the 12-30 to be cheap in the near future, the supply will be low until it will be bundled with other Panasonic cameras.
  7. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    I would only get the 12-32 for its size and decent IQ, but that alone wouldn't make me replace my O12-50 with it. The lack of a MF control is the big loss in my opinion, as well as reduced macro capability.
  8. demiro

    demiro Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Nov 7, 2010
    For me, I'm not spending $1000 on a zoom lens unless it would be my primary lens. And if that were the case, I would likely switch to a Fuji X-E1 and the 18-55, where that $1000 gets me camera and lens.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.