+- Opticallimits (https://forum.opticallimits.com)
+-- Forum: Forums (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Just Talk (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=17)
+--- Thread: Pana 12-35/2.8 release (/showthread.php?tid=2409)
Pana 12-35/2.8 release - Klaus - 05-21-2012
Yummy ...[url="http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/systemcamera/gms/lens/g_x_vario_12_35.html"]http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/systemcamera/gms/lens/g_x_vario_12_35.html[/url]
Pana 12-35/2.8 release - Guest - 05-21-2012
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1337579386' post='18367']
Yummy ...[/quote]
Here is a first test of this lens:
http://www.dslrmagazine.com/pruebas/pruebas-tecnicas/panasonic-lumix-gx-vario-12-35-mm-f-2-8-asph-a-fondo.html
Looks pretty good, but in part not stellar. Well, it´s a very compact and light weight design.
Pana 12-35/2.8 release - Sylvain - 05-21-2012
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lumix-g-x-vario-12-35mm-f-2-8-lens-review-19240
with full size jpeg samples but they're not terribly impressive, GF3 jpegs. Not sure it's a proper way to assess the lens. Will wait for Dpreview samples that should come soon.
Eventhough the specs are high, the price is expectedly too high, IMHO. I'll probably get it, anyway.
Good to be a MFT owner!
Pana 12-35/2.8 release - Klaus - 05-21-2012
I'm slightly wondering whether this thing is worth it.
Don't understand me wrong here - I surely welcome a new high-performance option.
However, we are talking, effectively, about a "24-70mm f/5.6" lens here.
The depth-of-field argument is not that hot here in my opinion.
So technically an X 14-42 + Oly 45/1.8 could make more sense actually.
(I am not yet sure about the qualities of the X 14-42 though)
Klaus
Pana 12-35/2.8 release - frank - 05-21-2012
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1337587035' post='18376']
I'm slightly wondering whether this thing is worth it.
Don't understand me wrong here - I surely welcome a new high-performance option.
However, we are talking, effectively, about a "24-70mm f/5.6" lens here.
The depth-of-field argument is not that hot here in my opinion.
So technically an X 14-42 + Oly 45/1.8 could make more sense actually.
(I am not yet sure about the qualities of the X 14-42 though)
Klaus
[/quote]
From the review of dpreview on the lumix GX1, the X 14-42 is quite soft/blur at long end.
Frank
Pana 12-35/2.8 release - Sylvain - 05-21-2012
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1337587035' post='18376']
I'm slightly wondering whether this thing is worth it.
Don't understand me wrong here - I surely welcome a new high-performance option.
However, we are talking, effectively, about a "24-70mm f/5.6" lens here.
The depth-of-field argument is not that hot here in my opinion.
So technically an X 14-42 + Oly 45/1.8 could make more sense actually.
(I am not yet sure about the qualities of the X 14-42 though)
Klaus
[/quote]
I see your point but on the other hand I think this lens might possibly make the 12mm f/2 slightly redundant.
IMHO, the X 14-42, at least when you have been accustomed to the 14-45, is not very tempting for two reasons : the motor only operations (quite frankly, a bit of a bore, it's too slow) and the worse performances. The size doesn't quite make up for it, for me.
I never really think anymore in terms of equivalence, it's rather about the best you can get within your system.
It's a lens for maniacs, for sure.
Pana 12-35/2.8 release - Klaus - 05-21-2012
[quote name='Sylvain' timestamp='1337591260' post='18378']
I see your point but on the other hand I think this lens might possibly make the 12mm f/2 slightly redundant.
IMHO, the X 14-42, at least when you have been accustomed to the 14-45, is not very tempting for two reasons : the motor only operations (quite frankly, a bit of a bore, it's too slow) and the worse performances. The size doesn't quite make up for it, for me.
I never really think anymore in terms of equivalence, it's rather about the best you can get within your system.
It's a lens for maniacs, for sure.
[/quote]
Yeah, but regardless of whether you think in terms of equivalence or not - f/2.8 on MFT is not really something for shallow DOF photography. Just low-light.
Pana 12-35/2.8 release - youpii - 05-21-2012
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1337594888' post='18381']
Yeah, but regardless of whether you think in terms of equivalence or not - f/2.8 on MFT is not really something for shallow DOF photography. Just low-light.
[/quote]
Maybe it's for low light landscapes or indoor performance.
Pana 12-35/2.8 release - Sylvain - 05-21-2012
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1337594888' post='18381']
Yeah, but regardless of whether you think in terms of equivalence or not - f/2.8 on MFT is not really something for shallow DOF photography. Just low-light.
[/quote]
It's something for shallow*er* DOF.
Pana 12-35/2.8 release - Guest - 05-21-2012
[quote name='youpii' timestamp='1337596470' post='18383']
Maybe it's for low light landscapes or indoor performance.
[/quote]
One thing that tempts me about it is that it evens up the performance gap between met and FF in some circumstances.
I have often used f5.6 and ISO 800-1600 on FF
With this lens I can use f 2.8 on mft and ISO 200-400: thus giving the same depth of field and pretty similar IQ