biglouis
Well-known member
I have the first version Lumix 12-35/2.8 and I never fail to be impressed with the image quality. I know it sounds unlikely but I really feel it delivers IQ which is almost identical to a prime lens. I've never liked zooms but the 12-35, with its longer sibling the 35-100 are great lenses. It really set the rot in with respect to my Sony kit when I started processing my photographs and along with the Oly 7-14/2.8 lead me to change systems back to m43rds.
This week I took delivery of a Lumix Leica DG 15/1.7 'Summilux'. I'm not that impressed so far, which is strange because the Lumix Leica DG 25/1.4 'Summilux' is a fantastic lens. I decided to test the 15/1.7 against my 12-35/2.8 to see if there was a significant difference between the prime and the zoom.
This is far from a scientific test but I remain amazed at the IQ of the 12-35. I don't think there is any significant difference in quality between the lenses, at least for all practical purposes, e.g. printing and reproduction. I actually think the rendering of the 12-35 is nicer than the 15/1.7.
All photography is with the GH5, f4, iso200 - handheld.
Here is the test subject, a building nearby which I need to photograph for my next book project. You can click through to the full frame. Both are jpegs exported from LR. The only adjustment I have made is to use the 'Auto' function on the RAW file to balance the light and shadow areas. You can click through to the full size file on the full images (12Mb).
Full frame: 15/1.7
Full frame: 12-35/2.8
Centre frame: 15/1.7
Centre frame: 12-35/2.8
Edge of frame: 15/1.7
Edge of frame 12-35/2.8
For history buffs, this is a spiritualist church in Camden Town and its significance is that the foundation stone was laid by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (of Sherlock Holmes fame) who was a great supporter of the spiritualist cause.
This week I took delivery of a Lumix Leica DG 15/1.7 'Summilux'. I'm not that impressed so far, which is strange because the Lumix Leica DG 25/1.4 'Summilux' is a fantastic lens. I decided to test the 15/1.7 against my 12-35/2.8 to see if there was a significant difference between the prime and the zoom.
This is far from a scientific test but I remain amazed at the IQ of the 12-35. I don't think there is any significant difference in quality between the lenses, at least for all practical purposes, e.g. printing and reproduction. I actually think the rendering of the 12-35 is nicer than the 15/1.7.
All photography is with the GH5, f4, iso200 - handheld.
Here is the test subject, a building nearby which I need to photograph for my next book project. You can click through to the full frame. Both are jpegs exported from LR. The only adjustment I have made is to use the 'Auto' function on the RAW file to balance the light and shadow areas. You can click through to the full size file on the full images (12Mb).
Full frame: 15/1.7
Full frame: 12-35/2.8
Centre frame: 15/1.7
Centre frame: 12-35/2.8
Edge of frame: 15/1.7
Edge of frame 12-35/2.8
For history buffs, this is a spiritualist church in Camden Town and its significance is that the foundation stone was laid by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (of Sherlock Holmes fame) who was a great supporter of the spiritualist cause.