Lumix 12-35 or RPZ 17-50?
- Thread starter TomLenham
- Start date
Not sure whether to go for the new Lumix pair, or opt for something like the RPZ - I prefer the larger size but is it worth the extra money optically?
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
IMO opinion the two lenses are for two different shooting styles.
If you want to be lightweight and fast, the Lumix ais a no-brainer.
However if you are shooting more film style and have a 1st ac pulling focus, the RPZ cannot be beat.
If you want to be lightweight and fast, the Lumix ais a no-brainer.
However if you are shooting more film style and have a 1st ac pulling focus, the RPZ cannot be beat.
Thanks Matt, all very sensible. I'm thinking of a lens for tripod work mainly - I can use the 14-140 for handheld and walkabout work. I have to say the head says Lumix (light, practical, native mount), but the heart says RPZ (big, proper control rings, and just looks right on the camera!). Do you notice a big difference optically?
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
I've used the 17-50mm on my AF-100 and Scarlet, and on a rental F3.
it is my favorite lens right now.
Erik Naso
Veteran
Get both. I love saying that! Like Matt said two very different lenses and in a two price points. The RPZ 17-50 new is $6000. plus TAX in CA. The So thats twice the cost of both the 12-35 and 35-100 combo.
If I'm on sticks I love the RPZ. It's a great commercial production lens.
I shot 95% of this commercial with the RPZ 17-50 on a Sony F3. The tight shots of painting are a Zeiss 85mm CP.2.
Handheld the 12-35 is great. When you want to keep things light it's a dream lens. Throw in the 35-100. Sweet!
Couple questions you need to ask yourself.
Do I have a PL adapter with lens support. Expensive so add this to the cost if you don't.
Plus rails and base plate for the PL support.
Outside and with some lighting setups the RPZ can flare. A matte box is a good idea. I had a morning shoot with it and had to gaffer tape black wrap to the lens because I didn't have my matte box with me. Grrrr!
You will need to counter balance the rig with the heavier lens on the AF-100 so it adds even more to the rig.
These are a few off hand. I like the RED Pro Zoom a lot and I's a keeper. Even at $6K it's actually a bargain. Sounds crazy but price PL lenses and you will se that I mean.
You need to justify the lens for the type of work you do. If it fits the bill get it you will love it like Matt and I do. If you can find a used one buy it then you could sell it for what you paid for it since they are in high demand.
I look at it this way. My PL lenses will work on so many cameras so having them is a big plus and I do intend to get a PL type camera someday. The Lumix lenses work only on MFT cameras that have the electronics. Sorry BMD cam. I like the GH2 and will get the GH3 so even if I leave the MFT video camera world I won't sell off my Lumix or Voigtlander 25mm f0.95mm.
Hope this helps.
If I'm on sticks I love the RPZ. It's a great commercial production lens.
I shot 95% of this commercial with the RPZ 17-50 on a Sony F3. The tight shots of painting are a Zeiss 85mm CP.2.
Handheld the 12-35 is great. When you want to keep things light it's a dream lens. Throw in the 35-100. Sweet!
Couple questions you need to ask yourself.
Do I have a PL adapter with lens support. Expensive so add this to the cost if you don't.
Plus rails and base plate for the PL support.
Outside and with some lighting setups the RPZ can flare. A matte box is a good idea. I had a morning shoot with it and had to gaffer tape black wrap to the lens because I didn't have my matte box with me. Grrrr!
You will need to counter balance the rig with the heavier lens on the AF-100 so it adds even more to the rig.
These are a few off hand. I like the RED Pro Zoom a lot and I's a keeper. Even at $6K it's actually a bargain. Sounds crazy but price PL lenses and you will se that I mean.
You need to justify the lens for the type of work you do. If it fits the bill get it you will love it like Matt and I do. If you can find a used one buy it then you could sell it for what you paid for it since they are in high demand.
I look at it this way. My PL lenses will work on so many cameras so having them is a big plus and I do intend to get a PL type camera someday. The Lumix lenses work only on MFT cameras that have the electronics. Sorry BMD cam. I like the GH2 and will get the GH3 so even if I leave the MFT video camera world I won't sell off my Lumix or Voigtlander 25mm f0.95mm.
Hope this helps.
Last edited:
dustylense
Veteran
It really depends on your shooting style. If your on the go run and gun the 12-35 is going to help you. If you're on sticks and you're doing focus pulls that need repeatability, the 17-50 will help you. THey are just 2 really different lenses for really different reasons. I'm loving my 12-35 and looking forward to the 35-100.
tazza
Well-known member
Just received my Lumix 12-35, got it on ebay at a good price via Japan.
I put it on my GH2 just to get a feel for the zoom range.
While zooming in and out I hear a low level clicking, it happens 3 times throughout the 12-35 range.
When I shut camera down and turn the zoom ring there is no sound.
Anyone else have this issue?
I put it on my GH2 just to get a feel for the zoom range.
While zooming in and out I hear a low level clicking, it happens 3 times throughout the 12-35 range.
When I shut camera down and turn the zoom ring there is no sound.
Anyone else have this issue?
That's the aperture being adjusted electronically to maintain the f-stop, which also means that you will see micro-exposure changes if you shoot while zooming. ( it's too bad Panasonic could not build this lens to maintain a constant f-stop optically )
Erik Naso
Veteran
The 12-35 was designed as a stills lens first. It would be cool if it functioned more like a video zoom lens but it doesn't. No repeatable focus either. It's a great lens and I use it all the time. You just have to know it's limitations for video use. I dont zoom much anyway and if I did it would be a super slow push on a static item, and you can do that for a few seconds.