Jump to content
Ki Rin

Panasonic 12-60 vs Olympus 12-40 on GH5?

Recommended Posts

Which do you think will be better and why? 
There is the obvious difference of extra 20mm reach of the panasonic vs the wider aperture of the olympus.. but what else?
Early reports seem to indicate the optical performance is similar. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

http://mirrorlesscomparison.com/micro-four-thirds-lenses/pana-leica-12-60mm-f2-8-4-0-vs-olympus-m-zuiko-12-40mm-f2-8/

 

I got 12-40mm at end because : manual clutch focus, unlike 12mm 2.0's stepping focus this one is smooth, good for follow focusing, and constant F2.8 is needed for indoor.

 

Also oly 12-40mm @ 12mm is a bit wider than 12-60 @ 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ki Rin said:

Which do you think will be better and why? 
There is the obvious difference of extra 20mm reach of the panasonic vs the wider aperture of the olympus.. but what else?
Early reports seem to indicate the optical performance is similar. 

Get the Olympus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I already have the olympus 12-40, but I was all set to get the Panasonic 12-60 for the extra reach and video features... But now I'm not so sure. 
I wonder how the 12-40 will perform on the GH5 in terms of AF and IS. If the dual IS is a lot better, I think that tips in favor of the 12-60, even if its slower. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Ki Rin said:

Actually I already have the olympus 12-40, but I was all set to get the Panasonic 12-60 for the extra reach and video features... But now I'm not so sure. 
I wonder how the 12-40 will perform on the GH5 in terms of AF and IS. If the dual IS is a lot better, I think that tips in favor of the 12-60, even if its slower. 

 

Sounds like you've already made up your mind then. If it's any help, the AF is still not going to be as good as PDAF, and for serious video work, I wouldn't rely on Panasonic's AF anyhow. And dual IS is only going to add an extra half a stop or so of stabilization: I shoot with non-Panasonic lenses all the time, IS works fine. To me, an extra stop of light is worth more than a 1/2 stop of extra stabilization or whatever. Save your money, spend it on lights or something. My two cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ki Rin have you pre-ordered yet? I wouldn't get the 12-60mm unless it's in a kit with a GH5 as I have the 12-35mm already. I will see which I like better when my GH5 arrives, hopefully in mid April, and sell the other one. I can probably get almost the same as I'm paying for Leica if I sell the 12-35mm. Otherwise I don't think it's worth it.

For those who hasn't read the MirrorLessons review the Leica performs very similar to the 12-40mm but it's a little bit slower but with a longer reach. The Oly zoom is very highly regarded amongst photographers so the Leica seems to be pretty decent, as expected. The bokeh is really disappoint though, was hoping for more. 

It's worth noting that Ming Thein recommends the 12-100mm over the 12-40mm for video (not stills) if you can live with f/4.0 instead of f/2.8 because of ugly OOF transistion, see in the comments of his EMII review.

Also worth noting that the MirrorLessons review is aimed at photographers and the Leica is said to be built for video use so I would say more reviews are needed at this point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Sounds like you've already made up your mind then. If it's any help, the AF is still not going to be as good as PDAF, and for serious video work, I wouldn't rely on Panasonic's AF anyhow. And dual IS is only going to add an extra half a stop or so of stabilization: I shoot with non-Panasonic lenses all the time, IS works fine. To me, an extra stop of light is worth more than a 1/2 stop of extra stabilization or whatever. Save your money, spend it on lights or something. My two cents.

Well, I HAD made up my mind, but now I'm rethinking, especially after seeing that mirrorlesscomparison review. I hadn't realized the 12-60 is only really 2.8 at 12mm. 
As you said, I could save myself quite a bit of money if I just stick with the 12-40mm... 
I will  have to do some more research about the performance of the IBIS vs dual IS, since I don't have any recent panasonic cameras to test that. 
I intend to do a lot of run and gun travel video work, so stabilization is key. 

I'm also curious to see if there is much difference with the behavior of the AF on the GH5 with these lenses. I guess no one can really answer that yet. 

13 minutes ago, Fredrik Lyhne said:

@Ki Rin have you pre-ordered yet? I wouldn't get the 12-60mm unless it's in a kit with a GH5 as I have the 12-35mm already. I will see which I like better when my GH5 arrives, hopefully in mid April, and sell the other one. I can probably get almost the same as I'm paying for Leica if I sell the 12-35mm. Otherwise I don't think it's worth it.

For those who hasn't read the MirrorLessons review the Leica performs very similar to the 12-40mm but it's a little bit slower but with a longer reach. The Oly zoom is very highly regarded amongst photographers so the Leica seems to be pretty decent, as expected. The bokeh is really disappoint though, was hoping for more. 

It's worth noting that Ming Thein recommends the 12-100mm over the 12-40mm for video (not stills) if you can live with f/4.0 instead of f/2.8 because of ugly OOF transistion, see in the comments of his EMII review.

Also worth noting that the MirrorLessons review is aimed at photographers and the Leica is said to be built for video use so I would say more reviews are needed at this point. 

Actually the GH5 kit lens here (in Japan) is the OLD 12-60 F3.5-5.6 lens for some bizarre reason! So I would have to buy them separately, which gets quite expensive. 

I've been very happy with the 12-40 lens for photography, but haven't really used it for video, as I don't have any good m43 video cameras (yet). Thanks for the information about the 12-100. I had thought this lens was too big and slow, but I will have another look at it. Although, I think if I went for that one, it makes more sense to get the 12-60. 

If the 12-40 will perform well on the GH5 though... I might just stick with it for now. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Fredrik Lyhne said:

@Ki Rin have you pre-ordered yet? I wouldn't get the 12-60mm unless it's in a kit with a GH5 as I have the 12-35mm already. I will see which I like better when my GH5 arrives, hopefully in mid April, and sell the other one. I can probably get almost the same as I'm paying for Leica if I sell the 12-35mm. Otherwise I don't think it's worth it.

For those who hasn't read the MirrorLessons review the Leica performs very similar to the 12-40mm but it's a little bit slower but with a longer reach. The Oly zoom is very highly regarded amongst photographers so the Leica seems to be pretty decent, as expected. The bokeh is really disappoint though, was hoping for more. 

It's worth noting that Ming Thein recommends the 12-100mm over the 12-40mm for video (not stills) if you can live with f/4.0 instead of f/2.8 because of ugly OOF transistion, see in the comments of his EMII review.

Also worth noting that the MirrorLessons review is aimed at photographers and the Leica is said to be built for video use so I would say more reviews are needed at this point. 

Ming Thein does know his lenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Ki Rin said:

Actually the GH5 kit lens here (in Japan) is the OLD 12-60 F3.5-5.6 lens for some bizarre reason! So I would have to buy them separately, which gets quite expensive. 

I've been very happy with the 12-40 lens for photography, but haven't really used it for video, as I don't have any good m43 video cameras (yet). Thanks for the information about the 12-100. I had thought this lens was too big and slow, but I will have another look at it. Although, I think if I went for that one, it makes more sense to get the 12-60. 

If the 12-40 will perform well on the GH5 though... I might just stick with it for now. 

 

That sucks! Then I would wait and see for now. I actually startet thinking about the 12-100mm too for a brief moment after reading the ML review, but 60mm is usually enough for me, and it's a lot bigger and heavier. 

 

40 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Ming Thein does know his lenses.

He sure does, but sometimes a little too good if you know what I mean ;) He has a very high standard and most of his opinions his based on print. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure about the f/2.8-4 either, it kinda sucks that it's not a constant aperture one. Atleast the 12-100mm f/4 is and so far I've heard a lot of positive things. Had a very brief hands-on with it myself end of last year, it did handle great. Still though, I have no use for f/4, as I usually shoot at f/2.8 or faster. But... I might get the GH5 with the new 12-35mm f/2.8 (so, version II), see what that's like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cinegain said:

Not sure about the f/2.8-4 either, it kinda sucks that it's not a constant aperture one. Atleast the 12-100mm f/4 is and so far I've heard a lot of positive things. Had a very brief hands-on with it myself end of last year, it did handle great. Still though, I have no use for f/4, as I usually shoot at f/2.8 or faster. But... I might get the GH5 with the new 12-35mm f/2.8 (so, version II), see what that's like.

Gotta question the integrity of a reviewer (Mirror Lessons) who says (about the Leica 12-60) that the only apertures to avoid are f/16 and f/22 due to diffraction, but this applies to all m43 cameras. I'm curious to know what you think of that statement? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jonpais said:

Sounds like you've already made up your mind then. If it's any help, the AF is still not going to be as good as PDAF, and for serious video work, I wouldn't rely on Panasonic's AF anyhow. And dual IS is only going to add an extra half a stop or so of stabilization: I shoot with non-Panasonic lenses all the time, IS works fine. To me, an extra stop of light is worth more than a 1/2 stop of extra stabilization or whatever. Save your money, spend it on lights or something. My two cents.

At 40mm probably F3.5 so only 2/3rds of a stop. I want a walkaround with longer reach so (trying to) sell the 12-35 2.8 (which was never bright enough inside anyway).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Orangenz said:

At 40mm probably F3.5 so only 2/3rds of a stop. I want a walkaround with longer reach so (trying to) sell the 12-35 2.8 (which was never bright enough inside anyway).

If the 12-35 wasn't bright enough, why trade it in for an f/4? 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, jonpais said:

If the 12-35 wasn't bright enough, why trade it in for an f/4? 🙂

So sometimes I do inside stuff and sometimes outside. If I go to the beach I don't want to be swapping lenses, and weather proof important, and before I'd have to swap to either the 42.5 (which I never did) or straight to the 100-400 which really is for different targets. For inside I use the 25 1.4 or 42.5 1.7. 

Sometimes I entertain the idea of getting the 42.5 1.2 but 1) price and 2) macro isn't as good and 3) weight difference :O 

It's not f/4 at 35. It would be just over half a stop at f/3.4 with a smooth aperture transition. The 12-35 was great within it's range for sure.

The swapping lenses thing is a lot to me. Want to stop peering into lens bag while friends having fun around me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Orangenz said:

So sometimes I do inside stuff and sometimes outside. If I go to the beach I don't want to be swapping lenses, and weather proof important, and before I'd have to swap to either the 42.5 (which I never did) or straight to the 100-400 which really is for different targets. For inside I use the 25 1.4 or 42.5 1.7. 

Sometimes I entertain the idea of getting the 42.5 1.2 but 1) price and 2) macro isn't as good and 3) weight difference :O 

It's not f/4 at 35. It would be just over half a stop at f/3.4 with a smooth aperture transition. The 12-35 was great within it's range for sure.

 

I do find the Leica 42.5mm f/1.2 to be a bit unbalanced on smaller bodies like the G85, should be much better on the beefier GH5. Lots of forum members talk about how difficult it is to maintain focus at f/1.4, but there are occasions where shooting wide is absolutely gorgeous, and not just for shooting stills. I can't see this being as successful if it were shot at f/4, and I already crave more bokeh than this. Sometimes. Actually, I can't recall which aperture I was using, but even more bokeh would only have helped here.

The third image is a screen grab from a shoot in Aruba with Jason Lanier. Can you imagine swapping lenses here? But he does!

And the last image is from Mirror Lessons' review of the Leica 12-60mm f/2.8-4, shot at 32mm (~64mm full frame equivalent) f/3.8, and even though it's approaching macro territory, I find the background still very distracting. I know I'm being picky, I seldom shoot wide open, but sometimes that extra stop or so of light can come in handy.

Screen Shot 2017-03-19 at 9.48.18 AM.png

Screen Shot 2017-03-19 at 9.49.13 AM.png

Screen Shot 2017-03-19 at 9.54.52 AM.png

Screen Shot 2017-03-19 at 10.10.27 AM.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope the bride was waterproof!

2 hours ago, jonpais said:

I do find the Leica 42.5mm f/1.2 to be a bit unbalanced on smaller bodies like the G85, should be much better on the beefier GH5. Lots of forum members talk about how difficult it is to maintain focus at f/1.4, but there are occasions where shooting wide is absolutely gorgeous, and not just for shooting stills. I can't see this being as successful if it were shot at f/4, and I already crave more bokeh than this. Sometimes. Actually, I can't recall which aperture I was using, but even more bokeh would only have helped here.

The third image is a screen grab from a shoot in Aruba with Jason Lanier. Can you imagine swapping lenses here? But he does!

And the last image is from Mirror Lessons' review of the Leica 12-60mm f/2.8-4, shot at 32mm (~64mm full frame equivalent) f/3.8, and even though it's approaching macro territory, I find the background still very distracting. I know I'm being picky, I seldom shoot wide open, but sometimes that extra stop or so of light can come in handy.

It's all a bit of a muchness 2.8-4 when you really want F1.0 :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12-60 is the one I would get, well I've ordered mine with the GH5.

I have also the 12-40 which go on sale once the GH5 arrives.

The 12-40 has the constant F2.8 and the MF clutch.

However, the 12-60 will give you the more versatile zoom range ( used to have the 12-60 4/3 Zuiko), the better AF as it's optimized for DFD and has the better Dual IS2. In Short it is the better lens for run and gun, for handheld works.

 

If DOF is required then if would go for a Prime anyway.

 

B

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...