Panasonic 12-35 2.8 MFT lens vs. Sony APS-C zoom lenses

[mark_amos]

<p>I have always put a priority on having a camera be so small I could carry it everywhere while being able to achieve high quality imagery. Of late I want exceptional video capability also because I walk my daughter to school and enjoy capturing what happens sometimes. All these ideas are subjective. I would summarize my preference by saying I think the best combination for the camera is quite a bit smaller than most people think is possible for professional quality equipment and also a lot better quality imagery achieved than most people think can be done with advanced amateur equipment. I won't go on with this fascinating idea. I'll get to the point.<br>

The main appeal to me of MFT micro four thirds is the idea that they can have a constant f2.8 zoom lens that is within my size constraint. I have been studying info on their 12-35. I shoot with a Sony 5n APS-C sensor, and my only answer for an all in one general lens is a 24-70 constant f4 lens. from Sony-Zeiss.<br>

I guess my question to people that know is - does the mft constant f2.8 lens really offer no advantage at all because the image quality of an aps-c sensor in low light vs. the mft lens is such that the sony f4 lens has better lower noise at equal iso and equal dof also? I think this will be confusing to people that don't understand what I am asking but very clear to people who understand my query. </p>

[rrroger]

<p>I have an A7s with 24-70 f/4 lens.<br>

The 12-35 f/2.8 is better in every way, plus it focuses faster and more accurately on my GH4.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

Has anyone come up with a standard metric for noise. APS-C users will trumpet what they see. Or do . Micro four thirds users will defend what they see. Maybe if pressed will concede that at some real super high ISO micro four thirds will stand behind APS-C as of today this hour, but only barely, as sensors and the processing techniques change all the time. I am pleased with the image quality of the 12-35 at wide open too, supports the cost if you know what I mean. Is the question academic kind of. Sort of thing we see on dpreview forums in a lamer form of course. My guess,--thinking that no one has done such an analysis I know of,-- is that they are going to be a tie. In "image quality." I hope someone can give a more 'repeatable' quality analysis we can agree upon..Spend big bucks, better get big results. Panasonic makes some small cameras. My smallest which is easy to pop into a bag is the Lumix GX 7 which I can use with the 12-35 and still fit into a small Think Tank bag. Takes high quality video as well. Nice machine to add to the arsenal..

[GerrySiegel]

Seems like your question Mark is a variant of the standard one. Namely, is APS-C better than Micro Four Thirds? Pew research would turn it into a polling question. A. Yes. B. No. C. Don't know. Subjectivity is not a trivial matter after all. When stuff gets close and closer in features I am thinking.

 

l offer my poll answer,= C. But maybe I go for B. How about others. A, B, or C.? ( For the camera companies not a trivial answer so think on it..)

[GerrySiegel]

I plopped my Lumix GX7 into a bag with a small 20mm 1.7and a 45 1.8 mm and a flash ( actually two here) and am ready for what comes. Nothing else needed except a tripod I guess. Yes we can go small and go slick vs the DSLR package I agree.<div></div>

[mark_amos]

<p>Gerry, I really like the GX7. I like the tilting EVF. I use the tilting add-on EVF on my 5n. I went with APS-C several years ago mainly because it could make use of my Leica lenses at a reasonable crop. Frankly however, that hasn't worked out as well as I want simply because I prefer to shoot with a 35 equiv, and the options are not great for that. I should modify that a bit to say the Leica lenses are satisfying to use on the 5n, but I don't need many lenses for daily shooting. The very high quality 20 to 28 mm options to be near 35 are either not small, not economical or neither. So I use the Sigma 19 and 30 pretty much only all the time. As far as which format is better, from my experience and what I've seen head to head, the APS-C is capable of at least somewhat better quality in ideal conditions, but if a little MFT set up can be almost as good in real world situations with the right MFT lens that is actually smaller than the Sony body lens combination, it could still make sense for me. For example, I have considered a Lumix GM5 with that Panasonic 12-35 2.8. The GM5 is tiny enough that I think it might need a little add on grip, but it would still be a lot smaller than the GX7. BTW, like you, I find that having just a couple lenses is all you really need, and I would probably be set with a small 35 equiv mft lens and my tiny Leica 40 cron c as an 80 portrait lens. Frankly though, I'm not sure I've seen a super small mft 35 with awesome reviews, but fill me in if I missed one. I know the Panasonic 40 is awesome, but I really want a little wider. I have never been much of a zoom user but that is precisely because there have never been fast-ish compact lenses of near equal quality to a set of primes. The small size of the mft format may have changed that if the 12-35 is good enough because while it's size is big for an mft lens, it is small by any other measure for what it can do.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

" ... MFT set up can be almost as good in real world situations with the right MFT lens... " A lot of users think so, Mark.

 

If a camera got smaller than the GX 7 got to say, I would have a hard time handling it. Or manipulating the controls even... I like the grips on some of the other models even better. So yes it is a trade off. (I guess the idea of handling a few is not so bad after all since they both formats do a creditable job. They squeeze a lot out of the sensors I mean. 12-35 adds some bulk but is most versatile and of top finish and optical construction. Same I suppose for the Olympus 12-40 which is no slouch from all I read. Both cost accordingly.

[mark_amos]

<p>The camera size issue is tricky. I loved the size of the Leica CL rangefinder and fixed lens rangefinder cameras like the Canonet, but when I started using a Leica M6, it inspired so much more confidence, but compact as an M6 is, it is not a pocket camera, and it's heavy. It weighs 20 oz, and with most lenses it adds up to almost 2 lbs. After using the 5n, I'm not carrying 2 lbs around my neck or shoulder ever again. There is no need for what I do. The 5n is about 10 oz, and a lens can be just 6 or 8 more, so it is half the weight of that other combo, and for me that crosses under the threshold of I-can-carry-for-an-unlimited-time. I agree the gm5 may be too fiddly. I find the very fine Oly OMDs to have the same issue: tiny buttons and switches. The 5n works because it doesn't have so many switches, which I thought I would hate, but I've learned to work with it just fine. Now I know the menus so well that it isn't really an issue at all. I never used a af slr or dslr. I always shunned the weight and menu garbage, but the capabilities of the small 5n with digital capability and lens adapters made me dive in.<br>

So I know this is kind of stupid relative, but can anybody give me a good feel for whether the 12-35 Pany is a good sub for the primes in terms of its quality at 2.8. I am fine with 2.8 as long as there is no need to stop down more. I don't think this is an absurd question because the lens is big and expensive by mft standards. Roger already partially addressed this for me with a good endorsement, but I'd like to hear more.</p>

[cc_chang1]

<p>In short the 12-35 is an outstanding lens in its own right. For the same subject and background, the 24-70 may give you better subject isolation, however, but you can easily address this with a small and fast prime such as the 45/1.8 or the 60/2.8. </p>

[GerrySiegel]

To aid your research, check out David Thorpe's user and customer review of the 12-35 from couple years' back. Also his take on the 35-100mm. The pair are a three ring circus. Maybe even four rings...

 

[Uhooru]

<p>I use a GX7 and have the 12-35. Its good. The camera takes photos up to ISO 3200 that I find usable. Don't think I would do higher. I don't know how that compares to what you have now.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

I would not call the combination pocketable if that is what one seeks. Just versatile. I am sure I could find some negatives if I tried. But not so inclined lately.<div></div>

[mark_amos]

<p>The GX7 with that lens seems like a great team. It isn't smaller than a Sony a6000 with their aps-c e mount 16-70 f4 zoom, but I'd say if the Pany lens quality is better, then it's better.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

F 4.0 jump to F 2.8 means double the light gathering capacity. To do that in a modestlysmall package with fast focus and optical stabilization and be clean from corner to corner is an accomplishment . Then put in some seals to inhibit fungus. and drizzle, and I would call it a contender. Thorpe has high praise for the optic. And even more for the longer X series telephoto which has internal zoom as well as focus. Panasonic seems to have some smart engineers on the payroll. And quality control ( knock wood). I have not even seen purple fringing or moire. I am so used to non low EV shooting that I never push far. Yet I know that I can and get a usable image. Which is what counts. Shoot in cabarets a lot, with no flash...a whole different gig. And the GX 7 menu is even sort of comprehensible. It displays a text summary on the LCD, kind of cute idea if you go for that stuff. Decent machine,though I have not seen the mighty new GX 8 which is the warrior model of the series. My videos are not bad. The wee onboard mics are not for professional productions. You would probably want to do sound synch later for hi fi recording.

[mark_amos]

<p>For anybody that might be curious, I had the chance after work today to go by a store that has a wide selection of camera equipment in my city. That is Houston Camera Exchange. They happened to have a Panasonic GX8 with the 12-35 f2.8 lens in a display case. I put a blank card in it and took some shots and took the same shots with my APS-C Sony 5n with Sigma 30 2.8. The shots were at 1/60th and f2.8 and ISO 500. I set the Pany zoom to the same 30mm setting as the Sigma lens. After some shots, I put the card in the tiny Pany GM5 with its very small kit zoom on it.<br /> I examined the pictures carefully when I got home. Frankly, the 3 or 4 year older APS-C sensor in the 5n was NOT notably better at ISO 500 in that general situation of fluorescent store lighting. That is actually a pretty good endorsement of the viability of MFT in my book. In some situations, the 5n was a tiny bit better, and sometimes the GX8 benefited from more DOF. <br /> The shots with the GM5 and slower lens were at f4.5, so it used ISO 1200, and the noise at that ISO (and perhaps a lower quality of lens, which I assume but which is speculation,) meant that the pictures were not as good as the 5n or GX8 combos with faster lenses at f2.8. My suspicion is that the GM5 would be very good at ISO 500 with a good lens, but I'm speculating. I also speculate that at higher ISOs, the 5n would show the value of the APS-C sensor. <br /> Bottom line is that in this very real world situation, the GX8 with that zoom did very well. That combo is a lot bigger than the 5n with the Sigma, but my conclusion is that for general photography in a decently lit home even at night or in a school classroom or store or offices, the MFT sensor is not a liability. The performance of the 12-35 lens at least at the 30 mm focal length was also laudable considering I was comparing it to the Sigma 30, which isn't expensive but is known by all to be unusually good for the low $200 price. But the GX8 with the 12-35 is about $1800 together and not small, so it is hard for me to recommend.<br /> My conclusion is that this informal test can't endorse MFT as a system that can compete in every situation with APS-C or full frame with all other things being equal, but all other things usually are not equal. If a particular camera size or features or a lens suits a use, MFT looks good to me. I chose APS-C to limit the crop factor of my Legacy lenses, but putting that aside, MFT looks like a great system with so many options in bodies and lenses. I realized few people if anybody needed to hear that from me. Having said all that, if Sony would offer a bit more selection in compact E mount APS-c lenses like a small 24mm and a compact affordable constant f2.8 zoom, a Sony a6000 or the successor coming within weeks would still be hard to beat. You can get a small Sony 5t body now for just $350. The EVF for $225 and the Sigma 30 for $200. That totals $775, so getting a GX8 with the 12-35 for about $1800 would require a strong desire for the zoom versatility or some other consideration.</p>