Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Leica 12-60mm f/2.8-4 OIS is on its way ...
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.


Quote: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
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...

I will start testing tomorrow ...

Quote:I will start testing tomorrow ...

Nice, looking forward to seeing the results :-)

Flickr gallery
Quote: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. Smile
6.15% distortions at 12mm ...

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

Quote: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.

Flickr gallery
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.
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


Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)