Lumix GX 12-35 vs Olympus 14-54

ulisses

ulisses

Well-known member
Hello,

I have the Olympus ZuikoII 14-54mm and got nice images with that lens, but what I could gain in image quality with the Lumix 12-35 ?

Thanks,
Ulisses
 
12-35 is parfocal, has an image stabilizer, constant 2.8 all the way...

14-54 II (that I have), is a good all around lens, but not parfocal, 2.8 ramps to 3.5 when you zoom in, iris clicks as you zoom in or out (and you can see it), push focus ONLY (dont know about the 12-35), does not have an image stailizer... BUT the olympus is a little longer which is nice...

I am myself looking into getting a 12-35... waiting for a job to confirm...
 
Thanks Tim,

The differences makes it worth, but I don't zoom while shooting and most shots in tripod, crane, slider, etc, so stabilizer isn't a must.
Parfocal can speedup takes variations.
But if lens quality isn't improved over Zuiko, I'll have to think twice.

Ulisses
 
Well, it depends your position on the job...

I do not use the zoom either when I shoot, and that's true that if you use it as a variable prime, it's fine, which is the way I always use it.

But I am a camera person, not a director or a producer. And sometimes I find it a little tricky to explain to the people that are hiring me that my zoom is not a zoom, that you can't really zoom in or out in the shot. I unfortunately often see that they are not really sure what they want until we are actually shooting, and the idea of not being able to zoom in (when I tell them about it in prep) appears not very clear to their mind. But when the time comes, I usually find a way to work around this inability IF they ask for a push in...

Also, I consider myself a pretty steady hand, but I must say when you pass 30mm/40mm on the zoom, even on a monopod, I would appreciate the presence of an image stabilizer in the olympus, to get a cleaner handheld shot on the longer end of the lens...

Don't know for sure about the difference in sharpness between the two, but I am sure one of the folks around has done some testing...
 
Good points. Often I direct my videos, but you are correct about flexibility.

I saw a video with the 12-35 zooming in and some image "flicker". I thought it should be used for a power zoom.

Thanks!
Ulisses
 
timtorpedo said:
Also, I consider myself a pretty steady hand, but I must say when you pass 30mm/40mm on the zoom, even on a monopod, I would appreciate the presence of an image stabilizer in the olympus, to get a cleaner handheld shot on the longer end of the lens....
Click to expand...

Don't have the lens yet, but just wanted to say I completely agree with you. I have a fairly steady hand as well, but as soon as I throw on anything other than Lumix glass that doesn't have OIS and I zoom in around 40mm or more, the micro jitters become incredibly apparent. Especially if you've been shooting for a long time and your arms are getting tired. As soon as you decide you don't need OIS, you'll have to shoot something handheld and will be kicking yourself :P Unless of course you have a rockin', properly balanced shoulder rig and all. Just my soapbox on OIS.
 
The 12-35 does flicker while zooming but it’s not advertised as a video zoom lens. OIS is great for micro jitters( I like that term). I’m super happy with it and it’s a big deal to have constant f2.8. All lenses with a constant aperture cost more.
 
The Lumix is half the cost, wider, probably half or 1/4 the size and weight, and works with autofocus, and image stabilization, and doesn't need an additional adapter.

The only bonus to the Olympus is that it's a stop faster. Unless you really really really need that last f-stop, I say the Lumix is far and away the better buy.
 
Thank's Barry, in fact, I Just bought (a few week ago) the 14-35, but I travel
a lot for Run&Gun so weight, autofocus, and image stabilization are tempting me...because I can Buy
both new Lumix 12-35 and 35-100... what do you think?
 
I would rather have both the 12-35 and 35-100 in my bag, than just have the 14-35. For the cost of the 14-35, you could probably buy both Lumixes. And they will probably take up about the same amount of space as the 14-35.

The only advantage to the 14-35, at all, is that it's f/2 throughout. Other than that, the 12-35 just makes a lot more sense. The 35-100 doesn't exist yet, hopefully we'll hear about it being introduced on Monday.
 
In answer to the original question, which concerned image quality, I would say that there is virtually no difference between the 14-54 and the 12-35 (I have both lenses). The 12-35 seems a little colder, but that may just be because I've been using it along side my warm Leica lenses. If you work mostly on a tripod, have time to dick with focus and aren't concerned with parfocal or changing stops or noise, the Zuiko is a fine lens, I've shot a lot of nice footage with it.

However, I gave the 14-54 to my wife for her Pen as soon as I received the 12-35 because I DO care about those things. The 12-35 is just plain convenient to work with, making life easier on a tough shoot. I don't often use auto focus, but I find myself trusting it with this lens because at 12mm it's nearly impossible to eyeball focus with an EVF, and the AF hasn't failed me.

Another thing that hasn't been mentioned - the distance readout in the viewfinder is accurate with the 12-35, and is not with the 14-54 - in fact, with the Zuiko it seems completely arbitrary - but with the Lumix you can focus, glance to see that it's, say, 12 feet, focus somewhere else, then bring it back to 12 feet again.. true follow focus may not be totally reliable, but this method is.

Also, as I've said before, I'm in line for the 35-100 - with these two lenses the AF100 becomes a real contender for documentary shooting.
 
Last edited:
The 14-35/2 focus ring is superior in dampening, ergonomics, response, & rotation. The 12-35/2.8 fly-by-wire manual focus response is like most Lumixs', which can be tricky.

Just yesterday I tried a bit of push-to-focus for the first time, & was surprised how quickly the 12-35/2.8 locked on. It was during an impromptu multicam interior walk-around, which got a bit crazy, & I wasn't digging the fly-by-wire.

I need to learn how to move the AF point around for off-center framing, & practice where my hand sits when doing so, as one time I hit the auto Iris button by mistake, which was another pleasant surprise, & seemed useful in some documentary scenarios. The thought of using either of these Auto features used to made me feel dirty, but they're techniques I should have in my repertoire.

I'll definitely keep the 12-35mm, but I'm not retiring the 14-35 either. They both have strengths, & already paid for.
 
Last edited:
Has anyone tried the Lumix 12-35mm f2.8 with the Manfrotto 521PFI focus and aperture controller? I'm interested to know how well it works as an electronic follow focus with the 12-35mm. I've used the 521PFI with the Lumix 14-45mm f4-5.6 and the Olympus 12-50mm f3.5-6.3 power zooms, and it works perfectly on the AF100, complete with accurate viewfinder readouts. If the 521PFI works compatibly with the Lumix 12-35mm and the upcoming 35-100mm f2.8 zooms, they'd be really hard for me to resist.
 
Bern Caughey said:
I need to learn how to move the AF point around for off-center framing, .
Click to expand...

Try using the Function Toggle - set it up so it controls focus and/or exposure, then all you need to do is guide it to the appropriate place in the frame and push in to focus - it takes a little getting used to, some practice if you need to move quickly, but it works great. You can also track focus by following the subject and pushing the knob in when you want, but that's a little like patting your head and rubbing your stomach - new adventures for all of us old manual guys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top