"Panasonic G series" Owners Thread

[srhmoto]

Have any of you owned both the Panasonic 12-35 2.8 V1 and the Oly 12-40 2.8? If so, which did you prefer? was there much of a difference in IQ, AF, colour reproduction? build quality?

I researched this ad nauseum before buying an Oly 12-40mm f2.8. The only real world differences I could see was the additional 5mm on the long end and closer minimum focus distance of the Oly. That’s what swung it in favour of the Oly for me.

Simon.

 

[srhmoto]

Holy Jesus grant me patience, that Nikon mirrorless thread ... I'm not even religious

To be fair, I understand and agree with where they’re coming from on some of the points made. I used to cover motorsport events for the Gazette Media Group, Autosport Magazine and occasionally Motorsport News. I used 1 series Canon bodies. As much as I love my G9 and current lenses and would not give them up, if I were to go back to doing that, I’d use a different system. As good as the G9 and recent m4/3 cameras have become, they are no where near as good as certain DSLRs for reliable AF-C in my humble opinion. The G9 is still too inconsistent, and that just wouldn’t work for me if I had to nail certain shots in a brief first time.

Simon.

 

[Cagey75]

I researched this ad nauseum before buying an Oly 12-40mm f2.8. The only real world differences I could see was the additional 5mm on the long end and closer minimum focus distance of the Oly. That’s what swung it in favour of the Oly for me.

Simon.

I've seen a few vids showing the Oly being much better for video, the AF is very quick, where the 12-35 tends to hunt in and out much more, but most of these comparison vids were done pre-latest body firmware so could be misleading. Video is only a side for me, but I still like to have decent AF. There's one up for sale locally, if I can sell a few bits I might be able to haggle the guy down a bit. I would prefer the Oly I think but I'll never snub better value.

To be fair, I understand and agree with where they’re coming from on some of the points made. I used to cover motorsport events for the Gazette Media Group, Autosport Magazine and occasionally Motorsport News. I used 1 series Canon bodies. As much as I love my G9 and current lenses and would not give them up, if I were to go back to doing that, I’d use a different system. As good as the G9 and recent m4/3 cameras have become, they are no where near as good as certain DSLRs for reliable AF-C in my humble opinion. The G9 is still too inconsistent, and that just wouldn’t work for me if I had to nail certain shots in a brief first time.

Simon.

They're wedding photographers, y'know the ones who think they do the most 'pro' type of shooting? There's nothing M43 systems can't do that they require, they're just a bit up themselves. There's a guy in that thread who keeps ranting about M43's "teeny" sensor and how useless it is, you'd have to look back a bit, but it's laughable.

 

[srhmoto]

I only read the bit about BIF and as I’ve never photographed a wedding professionally, I’d have no idea about what real world equipment demands were for that genre.

To be honest, life is way too short to waste any energy at all over arguing over such things anyway

Cheers,

Simon.

 

[srhmoto]

All I can say about the AF of the Oly 12-40mm f2.8 was that it was damn near instantaneous and deadly accurate in AF-S on my GX8. I use my iPhone if I want to shoot any short video clips.

Simon.

 

[Cagey75]

I only read the bit about BIF and as I’ve never photographed a wedding professionally, I’d have no idea about what real world equipment demands were for that genre.

To be honest, life is way too short to waste any energy at all over arguing over such things anyway

Cheers,

Simon.

Too true, I decided to just let them at it. It's like arguing with a brick wall at times trying to make people see sense, end of the day, stubborn minds won't be changed no matter what.

Now ... will someone go buy my 100-300mm?

 

[srhmoto]

Too true, I decided to just let them at it. It's like arguing with a brick wall at times trying to make people see sense, end of the day, stubborn minds won't be changed no matter what.

Now ... will someone go buy my 100-300mm?

Never mud wrestle a pig. You both get dirty and eventually you realise the pig actually quite likes it LOL

Can’t help you with the 100-300. Sorry.

Simon.

 

[Cagey75]

Never mud wrestle a pig. You both get dirty and eventually you realise the pig actually quite likes it LOL

Can’t help you with the 100-300. Sorry.

Simon.

I decided to sell it as it's not getting any real good use for now, I will probably get another tele lens for the winter, I tend to use one much more then for garden birds.

Selling that will allow me to get the Oly 12-40, got £200 from the sale of another lens put by.

 

[woof woof]

I decided to sell it as it's not getting any real good use for now, I will probably get another tele lens for the winter, I tend to use one much more then for garden birds.

Selling that will allow me to get the Oly 12-40, got £200 from the sale of another lens put by.

I could be interested... I keep thinking of getting a long lens but so far think is all I've done.

 

[Cagey75]

I could be interested... I keep thinking of getting a long lens but so far think is all I've done.

It probably won't shift in a hurry, so think it over. Be cool to see a regular buy and use it though

 

[the black fox]

gatekeeper from the other day wanted to see how far I could push the files ,happy enough with this result
the gatekeeper by jeff and jan cohen, on Flickr

THE FULL SIZE UNCROPPED PIC
full size by jeff and jan cohen, on Flickr

 

[badlywornroy]

I went to the Leyburn (North Yorkshire) annual 1940's weekend .

I have tried to present these pictures 'sympathetic' to the 1940's fully prepared to be told 'I got it wrong'


Darby & Joan gx8 Lumix 12-35mm f2.8

The Green machine gx8 Lumix 7-14mm f4

Hopefully, more from the same venue another time.

 

[the black fox]

Looks good to me

 

[Gandalf]

Hi Guys,

A little advice is required regarding the Panasonic 100-300 mkII. Is the Chromatic Aberration and Purple Fringing as bad as people say. Is it only noticeable as the longer focal lengths?

 

[Cagey75]

Hi Guys,

A little advice is required regarding the Panasonic 100-300 mkII. Is the Chromatic Aberration and Purple Fringing as bad as people say. Is it only noticeable as the longer focal lengths?

I only have the mk1 [the II should be a bit better as it has supposedly different coatings] and can't say I have ever found CA or PF an issue, and I mostly used it for perched birds in trees where these issues tend to present themselves. I had the Oly 40-150 before that and mine at least, had woeful CA

 

[CSB]

Hi Guys,

A little advice is required regarding the Panasonic 100-300 mkII. Is the Chromatic Aberration and Purple Fringing as bad as people say. Is it only noticeable as the longer focal lengths?

I've not noticed any when using mine, although I've not used it that much yet. I can take some test photos for you if that would help?

 

[Gandalf]

Hi Keith,

Was that the Oly 40-150mm F2.8.8 Pro lens?

Sam,

I would appreciate some test photos thank you.

 

[Cagey75]

Hi Keith,

Was that the Oly 40-150mm F2.8.8 Pro lens?

Sam,

I would appreciate some test photos thank you.

Nah, just the cheapy 40-150 kit lens, great little lens for the money [got mine £80 used] but it did show strong CA at times around branches when shot against harsh back light. On both am em5 and the G80

 

[the black fox]

one from earlier this month 100-400 + g80 hand held
passing through by jeff and jan cohen, on Flickr

 

[Cagey75]

FINALLY!!! over a month waiting on the Canon FD to M43 adapter to show up from China, it arrived today:

I get to finally test out this little beauty - Canon FD 50mm f/3.5 macro. It is a 1:2 without the original adapter that would have come with the lens, but with the Raynox 250 it pushes just above 1:1.






Fully extended to 1:1 here, where it'll get most use. It'll make a nice portrait lens also, though only f/3.5 it is 50mm so will get that bit of compression. I'll directly compare it in standard mode to the sigma 60mm, see which is sharper.




I had complained to Amazon because the adapter had missed 2 deadlines for delivery, they reimbursed me, I also complained to the seller, who also are supposedly refunding me .... but yesterday I went and ordered another adapter which will probably arrive next week Must get another Canon FD lens to go with. Something about these old lenses just feels so good. Built like tanks, usually very sharp [I expect this macro to be tack!] and fun to play with

 

[the black fox]

Look forward to the results Keith .presume for static macro

 

[Cagey75]

Look forward to the results Keith .presume for static macro

All kinds, bugs, flowers, anything interesting looking up close. I only ever use MF for macro anyway so it's no problem. Quick tested it in the garden, will take a little getting used to the very long focus throw, fully extended is too close for larger bugs, just gotta get the hang of how far to pull it back when going for those, pre-set it and do the ol' rocker motion

Compared to the Sigma 60mm in standard shooting mode it definitely has much lower contrast but I'll have to upload today's shots to see how they really compare in LR. Macro lenses do tend to improve a lot the more stopped down they are

 

[badlywornroy]

More from the Leyburn (North Yorkshire) 1940's weekend. (see above)

All gx8 and either Lumix 12-35 f2.8 or 35-100 f2.8


1. Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.

Mrs Doubtfire.

Pretty boy & Moll.

French Resistance fighter.

 

[cardiff_gareth]

One with the G3 with kit zoom lens

Paulton Campsite Glamping Tipi by Gareth Williams, on Flickr

 

[Cagey75]

Order a Pana-Leica 15 1.7 today. I pondered long enough, my choice was between that and the very large Sigma 16 1.4. Pros and cons for both, but in the end the travel friendliness of the 15mm won out. Really hope to get it by Monday as I'm heading away for a few days.

 

[woof woof]

Lately I've been loosing a bit of interest in the gear and maybe that's a good thing. I started with a Kodak Instamatic and I've always liked simple and basic and I've been thinking about getting back to a more simple way of taking pictures. So the last couple of times I've been out I've taken a camera and a kit lens. Last time it was my A7 and 28-70mm and today it was my GX9 and 14-42mm. I think that a kit lens and a wide aperture prime might cover the vast majority of what I want.

Anyway...

This first one was really just a bit of a torture test for the GX9 and it managed it without blowing the highlights to bits. There was a lot of glare in the sky and I was sure large parts would blow but the camera held on to the highlights and didn't seem to do so at too much expense to the non sky parts of the picture.



Same here, the highlights held well. Tide in.



I like the colours



I don't know if I'll stick to my little back to basics experiment but I might and I have been thinking about selling most of my lenses and keeping just the minimum but then again I don't need the money so why should I sell stuff even if I only use it now and again.... Choices Choices.

I'm also trying to stay away from razor thin DoF. This is a good read and I think I agree...

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/06/in-defense-of-depth.html

 

[Cagey75]

Lately I've been loosing a bit of interest in the gear and maybe that's a good thing. I started with a Kodak Instamatic and I've always liked simple and basic and I've been thinking about getting back to a more simple way of taking pictures. So the last couple of times I've been out I've taken a camera and a kit lens. Last time it was my A7 and 28-70mm and today it was my GX9 and 14-42mm. I think that a kit lens and a wide aperture prime might cover the vast majority of what I want.

Anyway...

This first one was really just a bit of a torture test for the GX9 and it managed it without blowing the highlights to bits. There was a lot of glare in the sky and I was sure large parts would blow but the camera held on to the highlights and didn't seem to do so at too much expense to the non sky parts of the picture.

View attachment 131120

Same here, the highlights held well. Tide in.

View attachment 131121

I like the colours

View attachment 131122

I don't know if I'll stick to my little back to basics experiment but I might and I have been thinking about selling most of my lenses and keeping just the minimum but then again I don't need the money so why should I sell stuff even if I only use it now and again.... Choices Choices.

I'm also trying to stay away from razor thin DoF. This is a good read and I think I agree...

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/06/in-defense-of-depth.html

I prefer minimal fuss gear too. That's why I sold 3 lenses to get the 15mm, I get a bit flustered when I take too many lenses with me, I get indecisive. Better to have just a couple that cover all your needs. Now I will just have the 15mm, and a tele lens [which is up for sale, but I'll continue casually using it for now] - I do plan to get the Oly 45mm as it's cheap as chips for a nice FL fast prime but that's it for now. Well ... I say that .... knowing I'll be switching again any time

 

[woof woof]

When I go out by myself I sometimes take just one lens and sometimes three or four but just lately I've been thinking that unless I need the things that primes offer (a wider aperture / thinner DoF) a kit lens will do nicely. In reasonable light I don't need the primes wider aperture for reasons of ISO/shutter speed and if I don't want thin DoF then the zoom will do

Primes do offer another advantage though and it's size and weight. With the tiny Panasonic 14-42mm size and weight aren't issues but the 28-70mm for my A7 means that I need a bigger bag than if I just want to take a 35mm prime, both my MF f1.4 and AF f2.8 are much smaller than the zoom.

I have an Oly 45mm f1.8 and I think it's a very good lens, 15 and 45mm primes would make a nice set but at the moment I'm leaning more towards 17mm f1.8 and kit lens.

 

[Cagey75]

Kit lens are perfectly fine, but when the darker evening kick in they will struggle more so then the wide ap primes. Primes will generally be sharper too. The 17mm looks a nice lens, but the 15mm will be sharper and being a Panasonic I'll benefit from the on cam corrections. I don't think I'll ever have the perfect set up, my photographic journey has always included a lot of chopping and changing. I guess I like to switch things up now and then, keeps it fresh. I even considered a used A7 or A7II, but looking at Sony lens prices ... eurgh

 

[tijuana taxi]

Kit lens are perfectly fine, but when the darker evening kick in they will struggle more so then the wide ap primes. Primes will generally be sharper too. The 17mm looks a nice lens, but the 15mm will be sharper and being a Panasonic I'll benefit from the on cam corrections. I don't think I'll ever have the perfect set up, my photographic journey has always included a lot of chopping and changing. I guess I like to switch things up now and then, keeps it fresh. I even considered a used A7 or A7II, but looking at Sony lens prices ... eurgh

Saw you went for the 15mm, sure you will like it, you will also get to use the aperture ring (doesn't work on an Olympus)
I also went for the 45mm, it came yesterday and seems like a very nice lens at a reasonable price, no hood though.
My kit now consists of 15mm, 25mm, 45mm and 12-32mm, think that's it for me although not totally discounting getting a 12mm f2

Its a pleasure being able to use good quality primes on a stabilised body with the whole kit fitting in a small bag.
My only change could be the 25mm f1.4, lovely lens, but the Olympus version is also very good, but smaller and lighter.
Have to see how much I use it wide open and if it really makes a difference also whether I can be bothered.

Can't see me ever needing a long tele, but if I did my daughter has the Panasonic 100-400 which I could borrow.

Hope you enjoy your new purchase, look forward to seeing the photos and your thoughts on it

 

[badlywornroy]

Lately I've been loosing a bit of interest in the gear and maybe that's a good thing. I started with a Kodak Instamatic and I've always liked simple and basic and I've been thinking about getting back to a more simple way of taking pictures. So the last couple of times I've been out I've taken a camera and a kit lens. Last time it was my A7 and 28-70mm and today it was my GX9 and 14-42mm. I think that a kit lens and a wide aperture prime might cover the vast majority of what I want.

l

I empathize with what Alan and Keith are saying re the desire to travel light and 'uncomplicate' things. 'Lens choice' indecision and confusion isn't this a part of the photographers baggage ?

I have a gx7 & a gx8. For serious [sic] photography I usually take my Lumix 12-35 & 35-100 f/2.8 lens and sometimes my Lumix 7-14mm f/4 as well. Depending on the venue I will take both bodies to remove the need for quick lens changes. e.g my Leyburn 1940's trip.

I cycle a lot (like most days) weather permitting and often carry a small camera bag and explore the back lanes and bridle paths of rural North Yorkshire. This needs to be lightweight so I take the gx7 & 14-140 mk2 or sometimes the gx7 + Lumix 45-175mm for the extra reach.

I foolishly sold my 12-32mm (on here I think) which I regret because along with the 45-175mm it is a perfectly adequate cycling solution that covers 12mm - 175mm. I will probably reacquire the 12-32mm.

Alan 'woof woof' mentions the potential problem of blown highlights, which I certainly see more on M4/3's than I did on my previous Sony aps-c setups.

Alan, have you tried 'Auto-Bracket' ? I would maybe use 3 steps -1, 1 and +1 (or as required) and maybe blend the -1 sky into the correctly exposed foreground in Photoshop. Sure there are restrictions but I find it works handheld on static subjects.

I shot full-frame for a short time and aps-c for many years but have no regrets moving to M4/3rds. The bodies are adequate and the lens choice and quality are super.

 

[woof woof]

I don't use bracketing and instead I just tend to keep an eye on the in view histogram and a lot of the time the camera is clever enough to keep the histogram off the right hand side and indeed in the pictures above I could have dialed in some compensation to push the graph a little further to the right but I didn't bother as in good light you can boost the exposure or add fill light without too much trouble.

Yes the kit lens is a little soft at times and there vignetting but the former just isn't an issue in whole pictures only when pixel peeping and the latter is easily dealt with in post capture processing so that leaves the aperture range for low light and depth of field and I don't find the depth of field too limiting at all, so that just leaves low light.

I have a Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 which is in a different class to the kit lens and gives more options for DoF and low light at the cost of being bigger and heavier. This lens lets me pretty much get a very similar shot to what I'd get with FF as with FF I'd probably mostly be shooting between something like f5 and f12 and of course this lens can pretty much replicate the DoF look at f2.8 to f6.

For years I shot with fixed lens cameras or even with interchangeable lens cameras with just one lens but since going digital and specifically when moving to DSLR's and CSC's I've been spoilt with having so many lenses and I'm giving returning to a simpler life real thought... Camera and kit lens + prime or camera and 12-35mm f2.8 + prime

 

[the black fox]

I have the g80 and pl.100-400 as my daily unit of choice , and the pana 12-60 and pana 45-150 lenses as back up on the olympus om.d.10mkii .the wife is eyeing up the oly as her camera so may be looking for a 100-300 either pana or oly some time in the future the only other desirable I have my eyes on are the oly 60mm macro but its on a funds recovery wait.

the main reason I chose MFT was the weight saving so dont really want to increase my load with more gear

 

[Simon Blades]

Lately I've been loosing a bit of interest in the gear and maybe that's a good thing. I started with a Kodak Instamatic and I've always liked simple and basic and I've been thinking about getting back to a more simple way of taking pictures. So the last couple of times I've been out I've taken a camera and a kit lens. Last time it was my A7 and 28-70mm and today it was my GX9 and 14-42mm. I think that a kit lens and a wide aperture prime might cover the vast majority of what I want.

Anyway...

This first one was really just a bit of a torture test for the GX9 and it managed it without blowing the highlights to bits. There was a lot of glare in the sky and I was sure large parts would blow but the camera held on to the highlights and didn't seem to do so at too much expense to the non sky parts of the picture.

View attachment 131120

Same here, the highlights held well. Tide in.

View attachment 131121

I like the colours

View attachment 131122

I don't know if I'll stick to my little back to basics experiment but I might and I have been thinking about selling most of my lenses and keeping just the minimum but then again I don't need the money so why should I sell stuff even if I only use it now and again.... Choices Choices.

I'm also trying to stay away from razor thin DoF. This is a good read and I think I agree...

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/06/in-defense-of-depth.html

Great photos, is this Redcar?

 

[Cagey75]

Saw you went for the 15mm, sure you will like it, you will also get to use the aperture ring (doesn't work on an Olympus)
I also went for the 45mm, it came yesterday and seems like a very nice lens at a reasonable price, no hood though.
My kit now consists of 15mm, 25mm, 45mm and 12-32mm, think that's it for me although not totally discounting getting a 12mm f2

Its a pleasure being able to use good quality primes on a stabilised body with the whole kit fitting in a small bag.
My only change could be the 25mm f1.4, lovely lens, but the Olympus version is also very good, but smaller and lighter.
Have to see how much I use it wide open and if it really makes a difference also whether I can be bothered.

Can't see me ever needing a long tele, but if I did my daughter has the Panasonic 100-400 which I could borrow.

Hope you enjoy your new purchase, look forward to seeing the photos and your thoughts on it

I was almost clicking the button on the Sigma 16mm, hope I don't regret it. Trying to get MPB to ship the PL 15 asap as I'm off on a trip down to my old home town on Monday, I really should have made the decision at least a day sooner. They can't guarantee it'll be here before Mon evening. I missed a PL 15 earlier in the week for £329, the one I got was £344 but described as 'like new' fully boxed, with the hood and pouch, so worth it I think.

The Panasonic 25 1.7 is very good for the money. It's a 'plastic fantastic' but still feels sturdy enough. It's got near silent focus , it's sharp as you need, and focuses in pretty close too. I've had to trade mine in toward the 15mm, but I'm happy knowing I can buy it again at any time really. Seen them go on here for less than £100 if you catch them quick

I really like my 100-300, but find I'm just not using it enough. If I sell it I may get a Sigma 30mm 1.4, or the 45mm 1.8 Oly and look for a used 45-175 - which is a much neater lens with internal zoom, and 175mm might be just enough for my needs.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I really enjoy capturing people's fleeting expressions. The G9 + 100-400 is an excellent tool for that...

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Nice as the G9 + 100-400 is it's huge by M43 standards. That's why I have a pair of GM-5s. A GM-5 with the 12-32 lens can cover a lot from a summer cloudscape to a flower...

 

[badlywornroy]

I admit to being tempted by the Pan Leica 50-200 2.8-4.

Anyone here got one ?

 

[srhmoto]

I admit to being tempted by the Pan Leica 50-200 2.8-4.

Anyone here got one ?

I don’t have one, but am tempted. However, I already have the Oly 40-150mm f2.8 and I really can’t see how the PL could best it, apart from an extra 50mm at the long end. I do have the Oly MC14 if I want to go longer.

Simon.

 

[Cagey75]

Well I've had nothing very interesting to report from the past week. I was testing out this vintage Canon FD 50mm f/3.5 Macro lens, just casually, nothing very artistic that's for sure. Just your usual tests with macro lenses to get a feel for it. It's a 1:2 lens without an adapter or magnifier, but with my Raynox 250 it gives just over 1:1. Some quick comparison shots here:

The testers are non-cropped btw

10 cent coin - one of the smallest EU coins, lens only:

10 cent by K G, on Flickr

Same coin with the lens + Raynox:

10 cent2 by K G, on Flickr

A Pecan, which is about an inch long [I swear I didn't nibble this one, it came out the pack like this!] - Lens only

Pecan1 by K G, on Flickr

Lens with Raynox:

Pecan2 by K G, on Flickr

And an example of how the lens performs for standard shooting, Our Emily splashing in the pool - MF is easy to nail quickly for standard shooting, bit trickier for macro obviously, will get some better images once this crappy weather clears up. Using this shot as an example of how MF can work better than AF when you have a little time to set up - AF could easily get confused here between the water and her face, with MF I decide


Splash by K G, on Flickr