• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

Leica 12-60mm f/2.8-4 OIS is on its way ...


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#21 otola

otola

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 14 May 2017 - 07:54 PM

I get that, Wim, that there are many factors that contribute to pricing of an item. I won't dispute that. BTW, the cheapo Lumix is also weather sealed ("Durable splash and dustproof-sealed body is ideally suited for all-weather travel, when combined with splash  and dustproof LUMIX G Mirrorless camera models").

 

But, having said that, in the end I am looking at my images and then that's all that counts and it doesn't really matter how many switches etc I had on the lens that I used. If I have to "study" the images to differentiate (...would you pass a blinded test... and bet the farm that you can correctly identify which lens shot what?) ever so subtle differences in IQ between the $1k PanaLeica and the $cheap kit Lumix, then I (personally speaking - you seem to be OK) would be disappointed in the PL.

 

Regardless, I am really interested in hearing Klaus' findings so let's see if the price difference is indeed justifiable (in my eyes). I do expect to see a clear winner in IQ with the PL outside the additional factors that drive up price of a product. if that's the case, it would be very attractive for sure.

 

Actually, the price difference is less than with lenses which are similar from other manufacturers (they're often a factor 2.5 to 3 going from consumer grade to pro lenses). Essentially the 12-60 PL is a professional grade lens, 2/3 to a full stop faster, has switches for IS and MF, unlike the consumer version, and is weatherproofed.

 

Also, if you study the image samples carefully, you may find that contrast with the PL is better than with the Lumix.

 

All in all, the price difference is not unreasonable IMO.

 

Kind regards, Wim



#22 eggybread

eggybread

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 15 May 2017 - 04:10 PM

Very keen to see how this stacks up to the Oly 12-100 that you've just reviewed. If the quality is as good as the Oly's 12-60 range then it's a shoo-in.

I have been wanting to replace my Oly 14-150mm mk2 for a while now, but need to know that the loss of range is made up for in noticeably IQ. Not hugely worried about the 'slow' 2.8-4.0 aperture, I'll cover low light with a 17mm f1.8. Unless the 17mm f1.2 turns out to be great...



#23 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,404 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 16 May 2017 - 12:10 PM

I will start testing tomorrow ...


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#24 thxbb12

thxbb12

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 588 posts
  • LocationGeneva, Switzerland

Posted 16 May 2017 - 12:13 PM

I will start testing tomorrow ...

 

Nice, looking forward to seeing the results :-)


--Florent

Flickr Page


#25 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,526 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 16 May 2017 - 02:11 PM

Even worse. There's the phenomenon that DSLRs are getting bigger & heavier the higher you climb up a mountain!

 

Back in the days I once carried an EOS 3, a Tokina 28-70mm f/2.8 and 100-300mm f/4 across a 5000m pass in the Himalayas - 3Kg or so. I think I had balls of steel back then. But no longer ...   :lol:

 

I'm still wondering how many mummies with (D)SLRs are hidden in the ice there because they didn't make it!

Wow, steel indeed. Just climbing 150 meters to 3718m - the top of the Teide peak on Tenerife - with all my gear at the time (Canon 1D Mark II N camera, 14/2.8, 16-35/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 lenses) was not an experience I'd like to repeat, and you went to 5000. I wonder what kind of gear I would carry next time I try for the mountains (3600 metres up in Karakorum was, in contrast, much easier, despite the fact that I was also carrying a beater 20D as the second body).

 

Maybe I should really stop sinking money into the DSLR system after all... nobody's getting younger anyway. :)



#26 admin

admin

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 26 posts

Posted 18 May 2017 - 12:16 AM

6.15% distortions at 12mm ...



#27 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,526 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 18 May 2017 - 08:23 AM

Well, think of this as a fisheye-wannabe (after all, a lens with 10% of barrel is already considered fisheye). :D



#28 thxbb12

thxbb12

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 588 posts
  • LocationGeneva, Switzerland

Posted 18 May 2017 - 08:43 AM

6.15% distortions at 12mm ...

 

Ugh... quite disappointing.

I understand manufacturers are taking advantage of in-camera processing, but really > 6%? That's borderline absurd (as with some other "pro" lenses).

This type of distortion is unfortunately not a trend anymore (in the MFT world), but a reality: none of the manufacturers do even try to optically correct for distortion.

That's really a shame.

Sure, we get great center performance but  the borders miserably trail behind. 

Over are the days of homogeneous performance across the frame.


--Florent

Flickr Page


#29 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,227 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 18 May 2017 - 10:36 AM

Well with evolution of sensors I expect this to be unfortunately the future trend, since we have too many megapixels, why not lose some to correct distortion we will have enough anyway.



#30 Doroga

Doroga

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 78 posts

Posted 18 May 2017 - 11:52 AM

One of interviews with Zeiss said that correcting distortion in post helps to design much smaller lenses.

I think that was one of the main reasons why m3/4 mirrorless lenses in normal and wide range are so much smaller than APS-C mirrorless lenses where only few of them have similar distortion figures



#31 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,787 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 18 May 2017 - 12:19 PM

One of interviews with Zeiss said that correcting distortion in post helps to design much smaller lenses.

I think that was one of the main reasons why m3/4 mirrorless lenses in normal and wide range are so much smaller than APS-C mirrorless lenses where only few of them have similar distortion figures

Which interview was that?

 

The main reasons why MFT lenses in normal and wide range as so much smaller:

  1. The focal lengths are smaller.
  2. The flange distance is less than half of what it is for DSLR mounts
  3. The apertures are so much smaller


#32 Doroga

Doroga

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 78 posts

Posted 18 May 2017 - 01:25 PM

Which interview was that?

 

Can't google it now it was some years ago



#33 Doroga

Doroga

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 78 posts

Posted 18 May 2017 - 01:38 PM

 

  1. The flange distance is less than half of what it is for DSLR mounts

I'm comparing mirrorless to mirrorless.

Many APS-C pancake lenses have bad distortions as well.
Fuji 18mm, Samsung 16 & 20mm, Sony 20mm.

Fuji 35/2 isn't a pancake but still with a focus on small size and distortions are bad there
 



#34 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,404 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 18 May 2017 - 01:42 PM

The thing is - a barrel distortion of 6+% limits the border resolution to roughly "good to very good". "Excellent" is just not possible when using the corrected image.


  • Doroga likes this
Chief Editor
photozone.de

#35 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,227 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 18 May 2017 - 02:07 PM

Dunmo how much it's important in the filed since I never used a rectilinear lens with 6% distortion, however I am using 24-105 on film, it has 4% distortions yet, that has never been a problem maybe because I don't do architecture.
I always set distortions correction off, however dunno if 6% is much more than 4% and is really visible in non architecture shots.
In real life with distortion correction off is anything visible ?
Klaus in the review could you post some non corrected shots with alongside the corrected version ?
Believe me guys life is much easier in film world...

#36 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,787 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 18 May 2017 - 02:49 PM

I'm comparing mirrorless to mirrorless.

Many APS-C pancake lenses have bad distortions as well.
Fuji 18mm, Samsung 16 & 20mm, Sony 20mm.

Fuji 35/2 isn't a pancake but still with a focus on small size and distortions are bad there
 

What does pancake have to do with anything, though? Many pancake lenses do not have bad barrel distortion. The many Pentax DSLR pancakes, the Canon 24mm f2.8 and 40mm f2.8 DSLR pancakes, the mirrorless Canon 22mm f2 pancake to name a few.

 

Lenses from the past which are small have no very bad distortions either. It is just that now some lens designers and brands take liberty with distortion in the lens design because they can hide it with correction in JPEG conversion.

 

My very small Canon EF 35mm f2 does not have excessive distortion either.



#37 eggybread

eggybread

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 03:22 PM

6.15% distortions at 12mm ...

thats for the old Pana 12-60mm f3.5-5.6 though right, not the new f2.8-4 ?



#38 you2

you2

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 999 posts

Posted 19 May 2017 - 10:54 PM

Aren't the borders more important at the wide end than the long end ? If so why do they design the lenses to have maximum distortion at the wide end. Is this a property of the angle or could they flip things and make the wide angle more linear and the long end more pincushion ?

 

The thing is - a barrel distortion of 6+% limits the border resolution to roughly "good to very good". "Excellent" is just not possible when using the corrected image.


I believe it is the current results from testing of this lens ...

 

thats for the old Pana 12-60mm f3.5-5.6 though right, not the new f2.8-4 ?



#39 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,404 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 20 May 2017 - 03:01 AM

Yes, the figure was about the new one.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#40 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,787 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 20 May 2017 - 09:52 AM

Aren't the borders more important at the wide end than the long end ? If so why do they design the lenses to have maximum distortion at the wide end. Is this a property of the angle or could they flip things and make the wide angle more linear and the long end more pincushion ?

 


I believe it is the current results from testing of this lens ...

 

thats for the old Pana 12-60mm f3.5-5.6 though right, not the new f2.8-4 ?

Uncorrected lenses are called "fisheye". The only uncorrected lenses you see nowadays that do not correct for fisheye distortion are very wide angle lenses, because those are for maximum effect (and of course maximum FOV).

An uncorrected lens never shows things as "pin cushion", that is an effect of over correction.

If you undercorrect at a wide angle, it shows up stronger than in longer focal lengths. 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de