Fast wide PL 12/1.4

[ptomsu]

Stop grinning like that, K-H
I do respect Peter's and Vivek's opinion (why shouldn't I), but am flabbergasted about the negative tone.

Oh well, here's a fine review to cheer you all up: Shooting new Leica Lumix 12mm f1.4 | NaturalExposures

:watch:

Knorp,

just to put it right, my intention was and is not to bring a negative tone into any discussion, if this appeared so I do apologize.

I am only not seeing the real sense behind such lens designs and as such where m43 is going as an overall system. But as I already mentioned others have different opinions and needs.

Anyway just to improve the mood here, another review/samples of this lens: Panasonic Lumix G Leica 12mm F1.4 real-world sample gallery: Digital Photography Review

 

[biglouis]

Now, this is what I call a BIG lens - the improbably sized Sony FE 90/2.8 OSS (on the right) - the lens that broke my camels back - I only wish I'd had the guts to return it immediately as although it is a stellar lens it is truly ridiculously proportioned. If you think the 12/1.4 is big then I can only ask the question of Sony engineers, "What were you thinking?"

Now a photograph showing the 12/1.4 on a GX8:

It may be big but it is in proportion to the body and for my money looks acceptable.

You really have to go to Sony for boat anchor sized lenses which bear no relation to the proportions of the body they are put on.

Just my opinion.

LouisB

 

[Vivek]

Biglouis, I have been asking the same question you ask of those boat anchor makers, what were they thinking?

My feelings about Otii, naturally, applies to the Sony Boat anchors.

I hope m43 would stick to compactness as a feature of this system.

 

[pegelli]

In the old days between men the discussion was always "mine's bigger"
Now we seem to enter the era where you want to be able to proudly say "mine's smaller"


For me, as long as both options exist I'm fine, sometimes big is what you want, sometimes small is charming. To each and every situation its own.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I really don't see a size problem here. It's smaller than the 14-50mm zoom that I use every day, and if it feels to big, there are smaller alternatives around. Illustration below: A7 II with Batis 25mm f/2 (834g), E-M1 with PanaLeica 12mm f/1.4 (832g), E-M1 with Zuiko 12mm f/2 (627g) and D750 with Nikkor 24mm f/1.8 (1,215g).

 

[Vivek]

Stop grinning like that, K-H
I do respect Peter's and Vivek's opinion (why shouldn't I), but am flabbergasted about the negative tone.

Oh well, here's a fine review to cheer you all up: Shooting new Leica Lumix 12mm f1.4 | NaturalExposures

:watch:

The feeling is mutual, Bart. None of the linkies you keep throwing are impressive. It appears that you are hell bent on getting it. That is a good thing and as Peter says, we can see some real samples with it soon.

Looking forward to that.

 

[k-hawinkler]

Well, there are small and not so small lenses.
Some have great optics, some not so great.
Some have likeable character, some don't.
Some are inexpensive, some really expensive.

I think it's wonderful to have options.
Pick and choose what you like.
I certainly couldn't care less what anybody else buys.
Nevertheless, I am inspired by the choices forum members make.

My favorites include Olympus 7-14/2.8 Pro, PL 42.5/1.2, Leica R 80/1.4, Sony FE 90/2.8 MACRO G OSS, Leica R 280/4, Olympus 300/4 Pro, and many other "large" and/or "heavy" lenses. My favorites also include "tiny" and/or "light" lenses Voigtländer 10/5.6, 15/4.5, Leica WATE, Sony FE 35/2.8, Leica TE 90/2.8, etc.

What's not to like - if used appropriately. :clap:

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

The camera this lens really seems to be created for is the GH4 with it's larger size and better grip compared to the Olympus. Illustration below: A7 II with Batis 25mm f/2 (834g), E-M1 with PanaLeica 12mm f/1.4 (832g), X-T1 with Fuji 16mm f/1.4 (815g) and GH4 with PanaLeica 12mm f/1.4 (885g). It's interesting to see how small the weight difference is between these alternatives, just 70 grams between the lightest and the heaviest alternatives.

 

[Vivek]

Batis is the clear winner here covering the largest real estate. :clap:

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Batis is the clear winner here covering the largest real estate. :clap:

It is if other qualities are as good as the coverage. One of the inherent advantages of a smaller format is that it's easier to deal with from a sharpness point of view. But if I was predominantly using WA lenses, an A7 would have been an obvious choice.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

But only when we compare telephoto equivalents will we get a fair picture of the situation :ROTFL: :chug: :facesmack:

Ummm... that's 2,079 vs. 346g

 

[iiiNelson]

Batis is the clear winner here covering the largest real estate. :clap:

The irony is many think the Batis lenses are too big (although they're relatively light and balance well on 1st/2nd gen bodies) for the FE bodies. I guess I agree that I don't mind if the companies make small, slow, and light alternatives. I'll pass most days on them. I don't want to have a repeat of my M system that included 2-3 35mm options and 50mm options based on weight. I'll settle on one great fast lens that I can stop down when needed.

When/if I sell my 85 Batis I'm gonna pick up a GM85 more than likely.

 

[iiiNelson]

But only when we compare telephoto equivalents will we get a fair picture of the situation :ROTFL: :chug: :facesmack:

Ummm... that's 2,079 vs. 346g

Telephoto is where Micro 4/3 makes more sense. If one compares a Olympus pro 40-150/2.8 to a Sigma 120-300/2.8 the difference is huge...

 

[k-hawinkler]

IBIS and telephoto are my main reasons for having MFT gear! :facesmack:

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Telephoto is where Micro 4/3 makes more sense. If one compares a Olympus pro 40-150/2.8 to a Sigma 120-300/2.8 the difference is huge...

Not only is it the area where it makes the most sense, but there are so many fantastic alternatives that choosing between them is really, really difficult.

 

[biglouis]

But only when we compare telephoto equivalents will we get a fair picture of the situation :ROTFL: :chug: :facesmack:

Ummm... that's 2,079 vs. 346g

Is that the new f2.8 on the left? The older f4 was a complete dog. I owned it for about 2 weeks (bought it second hand) before selling it. The IQ was mediocre.

The IQ of the 35-100 I just bought is absolutely stellar. Sharp, sharp, sharp. And about 2/3rds the price.

LouisB

 

[k-hawinkler]

Now here is an inspiration for the 35-100. Thanks.

 

[retow]

It is if other qualities are as good as the coverage. One of the inherent advantages of a smaller format is that it's easier to deal with from a sharpness point of view. But if I was predominantly using WA lenses, an A7 would have been an obvious choice.

Just checked the B&H page and the Sony & Batis 25mm combo seems to be rather around 890 grams. Still difficult to beat. I would prefer an a7II (r) with a Batis 25 & 85mm combo over an EM1 with 12mm 1,4 & Pana-Leica 42.5mm f1,2 any day. When it comes to going really light or use compact or premium zooms my conclusion would differ.

 

[retow]

Is that the new f2.8 on the left? The older f4 was a complete dog. I owned it for about 2 weeks (bought it second hand) before selling it. The IQ was mediocre.

The IQ of the 35-100 I just bought is absolutely stellar. Sharp, sharp, sharp. And about 2/3rds the price.

LouisB

That diminutive GM5 with the quite good 12-32 and 35-100mm zooms and a small and fast prime in the bag makes for an excellent travel combo.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Just checked the B&H page and the Sony & Batis 25mm combo seems to be rather around 890 grams. Still difficult to beat. I would prefer an a7II (r) with a Batis 25 & 85mm combo over an EM1 with 12mm 1,4 & Pana-Leica 42.5mm f1,2 any day. When it comes to going really light or use compact or premium zooms my conclusion would differ.

Your example looks fine until you add a 150mm equivalent and/or longer lenses. When I travel, and I do all the time, I often need lenses of 150mm eqv. or more. But needs are individual