12-35mm zoom vs 25mm prime. Which has better image quality?

[cantsin]

Just read the photozone.de test. It might not sound pretty for people who invested money into this lens, but if you look at the objective measurements, then it's a lens that should cost at best half of what it costs right now. (It performs worse than a comparable Sigma or Tamron, at a price for which you can get a professional Canon L or Nikon lens.)

 

What has been described here as the "clinical look" of the lens is actually the product of software correction: distortion compensation, CA filtering, brightening up the margins to compensate for vignetting, software sharpening at the margins. It looks clinical and artificial because it's not naturally sharp, but in-camera photoshopped to look better.

 

These are tricks adopted from consumer camcorders and compact digital cameras where it's normal to design lenses with optical flaws and compensate them in the camera firmware. Which explains why this and other Panasonic zoom lenses look "camcorderish" or "video-ish" when mounted on a Panasonic G body.

 

You'll encounter compatibility problems as soon as you mount the lens on any non-Panasonic body because even Olympus' Micro Four Thirds cameras do not support all of the software corrections (such as CA filtering).

 

- Btw., you can test all of the above yourself even with a Panasonic camera body if you isolate the electronic contacts of the lens (with a thin piece of plastic or paper) before mounting it. Then the camera will no longer recognize it as a system lens and skip software corrections. I once tried that with the Panasonic 14-140mm zoom, and it was quite an eye opener.

[Guest 89e2bdf5797fbbdc17c2cc6da1413fa0]

I love the character and uniqueness of vintage and legacy glass, but they sure have their restrictions too. I have wasted several shots in run and gun style interviews because the focus wasn't right or because there was horrible shake and rolling shutter.

Does IS reduce rolling shutter?

[etidona]

Does IS reduce rolling shutter?

Rolling shutter is a characteristic ehm.. of the shutter. Reducing the shakiness you reduce the jello effect

[cantsin]

The Tamron and Sigma lenses you mention are not as wide as the 12-35mm, they have no stabilisation and they are not weather sealed. In fact, there aren't many lenses around to compare the 12-35mm with. Hence the high price, I guess. 

 

Hello, I agree with your points on stabilization and weather sealing. But if you combine those 17-50mm lenses with a Metabones MFT 0.71x Speed Booster, you get a 12-35mm/f2.0 [!] lens for the total cost of $400 (Tamron) + $400 (Speed Booster) vs. the Panasonic's $850.

 

You gain a better focus ring for pulling manual focus, a stepless aperture ring on the Speedbooster adapter, one stop aperture, better natural resolution and a better out-of-the-lens picture thanks to the combination of APS-C glass + Speed Booster, and you get the Speed Booster (easily the most useful accessory to any MFT camera) as a factually "gratis" extra in the whole package.

 

So I agree that it depends on your priorities. Since this forum is mostly crowded by people who want to shoot cinematic video rather than camcorder/ENG style, I have a hunch that the Speed Booster combination provides some real advantages, and that the Panasonic 12-35mm is overrated.

[etidona]

Hello, I agree with your points on stabilization and weather sealing. But if you combine those 17-50mm lenses with a Metabones MFT 0.71x Speed Booster, you get a 12-35mm/f2.0 [!] lens for the total cost of $400 (Tamron) + $400 (Speed Booster) vs. the Panasonic's $850.

 

You gain a better focus ring for pulling manual focus, a stepless aperture ring on the Speedbooster adapter, one stop aperture, better natural resolution and a better out-of-the-lens picture thanks to the combination of APS-C glass + Speed Booster, and you get the Speed Booster (easily the most useful accessory to any MFT camera) as a factually "gratis" extra in the whole package.

 

So I agree that it depends on your priorities. Since this forum is mostly crowded by people who want to shoot cinematic video rather than camcorder/ENG style, I have a hunch that the Speed Booster combination provides some real advantages, and that the Panasonic 12-35mm is overrated.

 

You also loose decent autofocus and gain some extra weight. I suppose you're right: it depends on how you shoot.

[Guest 89e2bdf5797fbbdc17c2cc6da1413fa0]

Rolling shutter is a characteristic ehm.. of the shutter. Reducing the shakiness you reduce the jello effect

ehm ... your reply added no information to this discussion. You told me that rolling shutter involves the shutter (thanks for that). And that reducing camera shake reduces rolling shutter artefacts. Yes, someone has already said that - that's what I asked about. I was hoping for more of an explanation than "rolling shutter is to do with the shutter".

 

I'm happy to believe IS helps, it's just that the major rolling shutter problems I see are caused by fast pans and tilts, or fast-moving subjects - not camera shake. But maybe I'm just not noticing it. Interesting.

[Guest 89e2bdf5797fbbdc17c2cc6da1413fa0]

I think I came to the wrong party.

 

I'm entirely aware of the problems of camera shake! I'm talking about rolling shutter in relation to stabilization and camera shake. 

 

Micro shudder is where you're going to get the LEAST rolling shutter artefacts!!! It is big, fast movements that cause noticeable rolling shutter artefacts. Not tiny little shakes!

 

The only time I can imagine "micro rolling shutter" (as I shall call it) being a real-world problem is if you want to stabilize in post - the vertical line discrepancy between frames would be a problem.

 

I stand corrected!

[hmcindie]

Rolling shutter is visible when the camera moves. Lots of little movements will cause a lot of wobble through the rolling shutter. IS minimizes that (but the effect is still there whenever the cameras jerks or moves around).

[Guest 89e2bdf5797fbbdc17c2cc6da1413fa0]

Rolling shutter is visible when the camera moves. Lots of little movements will cause a lot of wobble through the rolling shutter. IS minimizes that (but the effect is still there whenever the cameras jerks or moves around).

OK, thanks. This clarifies things a bit.

 

Apologies all, for my frustration ...

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

I think I came to the wrong party.

I'm entirely aware of the problems of camera shake! I'm talking about rolling shutter in relation to stabilization and camera shake.

Micro shudder is where you're going to get the LEAST rolling shutter artefacts!!! It is big, fast movements that cause noticeable rolling shutter artefacts. Not tiny little shakes!

The only time I can imagine "micro rolling shutter" (as I shall call it) being a real-world problem is if you want to stabilize in post - the vertical line discrepancy between frames would be a problem.

Rolling shutter is not just an issue with long pans and vertial lines, it affects every bit of the image with every bit of movement. I have personally seen image stabilization to reduce rolling shutter artifacts enormously, and rescue shots (especially at the long end) that are otherwise a rolling-shutter hell

[tosvus]

Just read the photozone.de test. It might not sound pretty for people who invested money into this lens, but if you look at the objective measurements, then it's a lens that should cost at best half of what it costs right now. (It performs worse than a comparable Sigma or Tamron, at a price for which you can get a professional Canon L or Nikon lens.)

 

What has been described here as the "clinical look" of the lens is actually the product of software correction: distortion compensation, CA filtering, brightening up the margins to compensate for vignetting, software sharpening at the margins. It looks clinical and artificial because it's not naturally sharp, but in-camera photoshopped to look better.

 

These are tricks adopted from consumer camcorders and compact digital cameras where it's normal to design lenses with optical flaws and compensate them in the camera firmware. Which explains why this and other Panasonic zoom lenses look "camcorderish" or "video-ish" when mounted on a Panasonic G body.

 

You'll encounter compatibility problems as soon as you mount the lens on any non-Panasonic body because even Olympus' Micro Four Thirds cameras do not support all of the software corrections (such as CA filtering).

 

- Btw., you can test all of the above yourself even with a Panasonic camera body if you isolate the electronic contacts of the lens (with a thin piece of plastic or paper) before mounting it. Then the camera will no longer recognize it as a system lens and skip software corrections. I once tried that with the Panasonic 14-140mm zoom, and it was quite an eye opener.

 

For photos, I have done a similar test on m43 lenses by opening the RAW files in DXO instead of Lightroom, and disabled all corrections. You are right that it changes a lot, but in the end, I am building a system around GH3 (and later GH4), so this does not bother me, and for instance if you look at the 35-100 I own (I do not own the 12-35 yet), it is incredibly liberating to stick a camera with a 70-200 equivalent 2.8 lens in what I would consider a tiny camera-bag.

 

If you are want the ultimate in quality that works on any lens, go with a Nikon mount lens and adapt it for sure. The FF glass is of course no compromise (easier to design glass of that size), and for sure, manual focusing will be better etc. Plus if you want to leave m43 completely, you can probably use your glass on another camera-system too. (unless you go full frame)

[Guest 89e2bdf5797fbbdc17c2cc6da1413fa0]

Rolling shutter is not just an issue with long pans and vertial lines, it affects every bit of the image with every bit of movement. I have personally seen image stabilization to reduce rolling shutter artifacts enormously, and rescue shots (especially at the long end) that are otherwise a rolling-shutter hell

Yup I can see that now. I also understand now why some of my past handheld footage was unusable - and why everyone goes on about global shutter so much. Thanks.

 

Sorry Ivan for getting irate! The first reply I got rubbed me up the wrong way ...

[etidona]

Sorry for being unexplicative: I was just saying that rolling shutter is not a defect in itself, its just how the shutter works. The defect you see is called "jello" and it's the combination of rolling shutter+fast movements. IS reduces micro movements so reduces also the jello effects. Of course it can't slow down the train that passes in front of you lens ;)

[Inazuma]

I would definitely agree that the 12-35mm is an overpriced lens for its specs. The f2.8 DOF is only equal to f4 on APS-C and the range is only 24-70mm, whereas if you had a similar lens for APS-C lens it would be something like 25-82mm. And of course my biggest pet peeve is that the focus throw is huge (maybe 360 degrees?) and there are no hard stops.  However it does have very good image quality and weather sealing (if that really makes a difference). The Olympus 12-40mm would be nice too but the lack of lens IS is killer. If Olympus brought out a camera with better video capability and a more professional user interface, I would go for that. But when was the last time a manufacturer overhauled its menu system? :(