Panasonic Lumix 12-60mm Real Life Experience

Shortly after I posted an article about testing the Panasonic Lumix 12-32mm, 12-35mm, and 14-140mm lenses, I was seduced by the new Lumix 12-60mm f3.5-5.6 lens. Two of my favorite lenses that I no longer have were the Olympus Zuiko 12-60mm f2.8-4.0 SWD (for 4/3 cameras) and the Olympus M.Zuiko 12-50mm f3.5-6.3 (an MFT "kit" lens). The former was a great lens and the latter was a very versatile lens that included macro capability. The memory of these two lenses made me buy the new 12-60mm even though I didn't need it for anything in particular. I justified the purchase to myself as being a replacement to my 14-140mm as a primary travel lens. I should have put the $500 into my GH5 fund.

After receiving the 12-60mm lens, I did some testing and determined that it was on par with the 14-140mm as far as sharpness in concerned. So I headed off to Europe with the 12-60mm in my bag instead of the venerable 14-140mm. I did appreciate the extra 9 degees field of view that the 12mm afforded but, at the same time, I occasionally missed the reach of the 14-140mm. But the results of my shooting with the 12-60mm were somewhat disappointing. Though my preliminary testing showed both lenses to be similar in sharpness, I (subjectively) didn't like the images taken with the 12-60mm - maybe not enough contrast, I'm not sure. But the biggest problem was with lens flare whenever the sun was not at my back. Many an image was degraded when the lens was even slightly pointed toward the sun. This issue was relatively insignificant when using the 14-140mm.

Bottom line:  the 14-140mm is back in my travel bag.

Here is a slideshow from the trip that included Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, France, and Switzerland. Some of the images were captured by my wife on her phone camera and most of the rest were taken using the 12-60mm lens on my Lumix GX8. The worst of the flare images were culled before creating the slideshow.

Equipment Update and Lens Test

Since we last discussed hardware in the MFT Lenses post, I've had a few changes in my equipment. I sold the GM5 (and with it the 12-32mm collapsible lens). Also, I gave the 35-100mm f4 compact lens to my grandson. I also sold my GX7 along with the 14-42mm lens. On the plus side, I bought a GX8 because I coveted the 20 mega-pixel sensor. And I also acquired the new Panasonic Leica 100-400mm super-telephoto lens.

After a few months with the GX8, I miss the GX7. Here are some of the reasons. It's as large as my GH4 (minus the hump),  I really liked the tilt-up LCD on the GX7 though I know most people prefer the fully articulating screen of the GX8. The thumb pad of my hand constantly pushes buttons on the back of the camera; to the extent that I have had to assign Fn13 to toggle the cursor button lock feature. Beyond 4K video, the HD options are not very interesting. And I'd like a pop-up flash.

An then, along comes Panasonic with the GX85. It has a tilting LCD, is back to the size of a GX7, and no anti-aliasing filter on the sensor. It also has a pop-up flash. Of course, I bought one. Luckily, it is quite a bit less expensive than a GX8; under $800 with a kit lens (the 12-32mm again). I haven't sent the GX8 to eBay quite yet, but I probably will.

I am pausing this post for a short rant about Panasonic camera naming. GX85? And in Europe, it is the GX80. Why? In Japan, it is called a GX7 Mk II. The Mk II name is probably the most accurate because that is about where the camera falls, feature-wise. A good alternate might have been GX75. But GX85/GX80? C'mon, Panasonic. Also, why can't we buy the camera sans lens?

Speaking of the kit lens, it is the collapsible 12-32mm f3.5-5.6 zoom lens, first seen on the GM1. It looks good on the GX85 but it is all downhill from there. No focusing ring makes this lens a nightmare to use in manual focus mode. When manual focusing, you must first select the focus magnification zone on the LCD screen and then change the focus using either a slider on the screen or the left and right cursor keys. Good luck trying to manually focus on anything but a very stationary object. Lens stabilization also must be turned on and off in the camera, though that is a lesser offense.

So I was thinking: do I want to take the 12-32mm lens when traveling. It is small and light. It is also slow and difficult to operate in manual focus. I might be interested in traveling with it if it is sharp. So I decided to test the lens for sharpness. Not contrast, color, distortion - just sharpness. The test included three lenses: the Lumix 12-32mm f3.5-5.6, Lumix G 14-140mm II f3.5-5.6 (this is my normal travel lens), and Lumix GX 12-35mm f2.8 (my premier and most often used lens except for travel) and three cameras: GX85, GX8, GH4 (I wanted to see if the removal of the anti-aliasing filter was an improvement).

The test was outside in shaded natural light. I photographed a little display of items with a couple I would pay close attention to: the hedgehog and my pet baby cactus. All images were captured at a focal length of 23 mm (+ or - 1 mm), ISO 200, f5.6 (usually near the sweet spot of many lenses), with a shutter speed of about 100. The cameras were on a tripod and focusing was manual. Here's a picture of the layout.

Overall test view: Lumix GX85 and 12-35mm f2.8 - ISO 200 f5.6 1/100 sec.

After capturing the image with all of the combinations, I examined the jpgs and raw files in Lightroom. Since they were about the same in sharpness, I used the jpgs because they had better color than the flatter raw files. By the way, the text in the middle of the frame was easily readable in all lens/camera combinations.

The bottom line: the 16 MP sensor without an anti-aliasing filter in GX85 produced images that were virtually the same as those produced by the 20 MP sensor in the GX8. As for the lenses, the 12-35mm was the clear winner and both the 14-140mm and the 12-32mm were roughly the same as each other. So, the 12-32mm lens will go the eBay route and will not travel with me. The 14-140mm will go in the closet for now and I will experiment with traveling with the 12-35mm f2.8 and the 35-100mm f2.8 as a combined substitute for the 14-140mm. I have a couple of short trips coming up to help me decide between sharpness and versatility.

In these samples, first off is the 12-32mm. Not bad, but not near as sharp as the 12-35mm (not surprising, given the 4 to 1 price differential).

12-32mm f3.5-5.6 1:1 crop

Below is the 14-140mm version, very slightly softer than the 12-32mm version. This is somewhat disappointing to me as this is a versatile travel lens and now I may decide to leave it at home.

14-140mm f3.5-5.6 1:1 crop

Below is the 12-35mm version, easily the sharpest hedgehog in the lot. Look at the grey-black hair on the right and the two stray hairs near the eye.

12-35mm f2.8 1:1 crop

Looking at the cactus will show similar results. The needles on the top of the cactus almost look out of focus in this 12-32mm version.

12-32mm f3.5-5.6 1:1 crop

Here is the 14-140mm version, even softer than the 12-32mm version.

14-140mm f3.5-5.6 1:1 crop

Finally, the superb 12-35mm version. Look at how sharp the needles are (no pun intended) and look at the texture on the surface of the cactus - a world of difference.

12-35mm f2.8 1:1 crop

Both the hedgehog and the cactus were near the edge of the frame which probably exacerbated the softness in the 12-32mm and 14-140mm images. Edge softness might be perfectly fine in portrait photography; but, oftentimes in a travel photo, the most interesting part is near the edge.

This little test was enlightening to me, I hope you found it useful as well.