GH3 12-35mm zoom vs 25mm prime. Which has better image quality?

M

mustangranch99

Active member
I'm looking for versatility and I usually don't shoot lower than 2.8 because I can never get all of my subject in focus.

However, I've been reading that prime lenses destroy zooms in terms of image quality. Is this true with the Panasonic 12-35/30-100 vs the Panasonic 25mm and the Olympus 45mm?
 
This is a generalization, but I've never seen a zoom that has impressed me more than a good quality prime in a side-by-side comparison (using equivalent focal lengths). Primes can have larger apertures than zooms at a given focal length which results in more pleasing bokeh and a brighter image in lower light situations. Those Panny and Olympus primes you mention are well regarded because, well, their image quality does kick butt. If you only care for image quality, then a prime is what you seek. But if you need variable focal lengths in one package, then of course you'd need a zoom. The Panny zooms are versatile, but the primes still win out in a strict contest of IQ. But depending on your own subjective judgement maybe not by much.
 
A prime is a much simpler design. Zooms are more complex, and, typically, given an equally competent design, a prime will be faster and sharper than an equivalent zoom.

Zooms are about convenience, not ultimate quality. If you need ultimate quality, there is usually a prime that will do the job better than a comparably-priced zoom. But primes are downright inconvenient to use when compared to the flexibility of a zoom.

Premium zoom lenses can be very, very, very good indeed. But any decent prime will do a better job than a cheapo kit zoom lens.

To your specific question, I haven't tested those zooms against those primes. I would expect, but do not know for sure, that both will deliver comparable sharpness. The major benefit to the primes are the much lower cost and the more-open iris as compared to the zooms.
 
If you want a zoom that can be nearly as good as a prime, the answer is threefold: big, heavy, expensive . I own the slightly faster 14-35 Olympus 2.0 and already that is quite a fatty. And all cheaper zooms have to make some compromises.

The question is if those compromises are really that much of an disadvantage for the shooting environment you are working in. 2.8 was considered relatively "fast" not so many years ago.
 
I've had both lenses and to me the Leica designed 25/1.4 is so much more fun to shoot with. Thanks to the wider aperture you get nice looking dof.
 
mustangranch99 said:
I'm looking for versatility and I usually don't shoot lower than 2.8 because I can never get all of my subject in focus
Click to expand...

You might notice the additional sharpness of the prime lenses in still photos, but when shooting 1080 HD video ( the equivalent of a 2 Mpx still photo ) there really is no difference when comparing a premium zoom lens to a premium prime lens.

Yes the faster apertures of the primes come in handy in low light, or when you want very shallow DOF, but at the same apertures there's not much difference when shooting video. ( perhaps 4K video will different )

...Also, it's fun to shoot with old glass from the 70's - 80's - 90's, which has quite a different look compared to the high-resolution lenses made today. Sometimes lenses can be too sharp.
 
Four points is a big difference for DxO scores. The 25mm f1.4 is 2 stops faster, which means you can shoot it at 800 ISO when you would be shooting the 12-35mm at 3200 ISO.

That being said, the 12-35mm received a very high score for a zoom lens. It also includes OIS. So I'd have to pick the 12-35mm as more versatile for video than the 25mm, even if the 25mm provides greater image quality.
 
noirist said:
Four points is a big difference for DxO scores.
Click to expand...

Personally I don't have a lot of faith in the DxO scoring system. The main problem with the DxO scores is that they are largely determined by the camera body they do the test with, so lens performance on their test can vary wildly depending on the camera body used. ( you also have to remember that they are not testing video performance of a camera/lens combo, so a difference might be visible in a high resolution still photo image but show no difference at all at HD video resolutions )
 
mustangranch99 said:
I'm looking for versatility and I usually don't shoot lower than 2.8 because I can never get all of my subject in focus.

However, I've been reading that prime lenses destroy zooms in terms of image quality. Is this true with the Panasonic 12-35/30-100 vs the Panasonic 25mm and the Olympus 45mm?
Click to expand...

The advantage of the PL25 is speed; it's "different" looking than the P12-35 from 2.8-onward, but not hands-down "better" in my experience.

As to the Sigma 18-35... once it's available, I'm fixing to put one on my Nikon Speedbooster. Doesn't have a lot of range, but what it has is right in the sweet spot for where I usually use fast lenses.
 
I have both Lumix lenses & only use the prime when it's speed is needed. The 12-35mm focal range is much more versatile & image stabalization can be a huge benifit for handheld work.
 
What about vignetting? I've had a few people say there's horrible vignetting at 2.8.

Can anybody else confirm this? Will it matter since I'm using a GH2 which I think autocorrects the vignetting effect?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top