GH3 GH3 - Zeiss ZF vs Lumix 35-100 comparison

Kindredmachine

Kindredmachine

Well-known member
I've been spending quite a bit of time testing the our GH3s and I'm sure there's an interest in comparing the new Lumix 35-100 f.28 lens to the classic Zeiss ZF lenses. Here are shots comparing the two with the exact same settings...

contrast -4
sharpness -4
saturation -1
noise -5

Both lenses set to f2.8, 50mm, iso 200, WB 5600 +4 green (to counter the magenta cast).

Screen 1 is the Zeiss ZF 50mm...
GH3_Zeiss.jpg

Screen2 is the Lumix 35-100mm
GH3_Lumix.jpg

At full 1920x1080 it's easier to see that the Lumix 35-100 has more contrast, sharpness and more magenta even though I pumbed up the green by +4 in manual WB. You can still tell though in the above screen grabs though...

Thoughts???
 
Last edited:
...that being said, I was still very suprised how close these lenses were. They could easily cut togeather with minimal grading in post. Personally, I'm going to continue shooting primarily on the Zeiss but it's good to know I could grab the 35-100 for run and gun work.
 
I already wiped the sources but here's the same images in a larger file size. It's not original and was exported via Jpeg 95% but you can more clearly see the difference. http://we.tl/POhEPwnmTo

the Zeiss lens is a cinemodded Zeiss ZF f1.4 50mm

... The Lumix was still much sharper wide open at 2.8 than the f1.4 Zeiss at 2.8...
 
Kindredmachine said:
I already wiped the sources but here's the same images in a larger file size. It's not original and was exported via Jpeg 95% but you can more clearly see the difference. http://we.tl/POhEPwnmTo

the Zeiss lens is a cinemodded Zeiss ZF f1.4 50mm

... The Lumix was still much sharper wide open at 2.8 than the f1.4 Zeiss at 2.8...
Click to expand...


Panasonic lenses add sharpening and correct distortion no matter what you have your camera settings too, it's the way the lenses were designed. With that said they both look good and too close to tell, I would go with whatever lens is cheaper.
 
Yep, we all know Lumix lenses are sharper but a lot of people wanted to see a comparison. you can;t just purchase whatever is cheaper because your comparing a prime to a zoom. The prime 50mm Zeiss, cinemodded was $1,200 and the 35-100 Lumix is $1,500. for serious shooters, the Zeiss still gives a more smooth and filmic feel which is easily seen at 1080 but with a little work in post, I'm sure you can get the Lumix to look pretty close to the Zeiss. The big point though is that the classic Zeiss look helps to counter the magenta cast of the GH3. With the Lumix you can still see the cast, even with the WB green at +4.

... That being said, I am suprised at how close the new Lumix lens heald up. I was expecting an even bigger difference.
 
Last edited:
I liked the Lumix version for out of the box usability*. Just as easy to change the Gamma and soften the image on the Lumix as it would be to sharpen the Zeiss version in post, particularly when you are talking film. I'd be surprised if too many people could tell the difference in motion footage versus these stills which are still very close.

*The big plus with the 35-100 is fast focal length modifications without dismounting the lens. That time saved ( and sensor protected) can pay for itself in the long run. Zeiss primes are of course, lovely, esp for stills.
 
Agreed. I'm always torn between using Zeiss and having to pull focus just to get a slightly more smooth look vs the ease of using Lumix and the "push to focus" feature. If lens firmware ever gets to the point where it doesnt have to hunt to move the focal plabe (for scenes with moving subjects) then I can finally say goodbye to follow focus wheels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top