So I've been thinking of selling my 7-14mm and getting a 12-35. Any thoughts on this? I know they are two very different lenses in terms of range. Maybe I'm just looking for a little support in possibly selling a lens that I like ;-). Just can't afford to have both and it seems like the 12-35 might be more useful. Thanks, y'all.

Could anyone give it a shot with the LA7200 and report on vignetting, etc?

He should try with a real nipple! :-)

Love that lens

I got one. Slapped it on and used it. Grossly overpriced though, IMHO.

@B3Guy I haven´t tried it yet.. But I will when I have the chance. "On paper" I really like it. Internal zooming, parfocal, no aperture glitches, good ois, lightweight.. optically very decent (as it seems). I´m relishing the 12-35, 35-100 combo for lightweight stuff. (f.i. out in the wild).

Sticking a Kowa on seems an interesting prospect! I used to use a yashica scope (super-8 anamorphic) on the 14-42 zoom in ex-tele mode with very good results. The only thing I can think of that might be an issue is close focusing.. but I´m guessing you already have a diopter for the Kowa?

@tetakpatak

Nothing wrong with the 11-16, except you need an adapter to use it on m43. Which means a lot of hassle and a lens that is only semi-functional on a m43 body. It also resolves less than the panny zoom.

You are of course free to have your own personal-view of things, but the remarks I had was above all about such things which are factual.

I don´t doubt that f.i. the Nikon zoom looks good on full frame. I´m sure it has more field curvature, or more noticable field curvature I should say (softer edges, sharp center) which again means a certain aesthetic.

As I said, the 12-35 is pretty clinical / neutral (extremely sharp) and it´s propably not for everyone, especially if you are looking for a certain aesthetic "out of the box". However, as it is a clinical lens it can also be altered in post to look like other lenses / or given a certain aesthetic which can be quite a plus for the wide end of the m43 system (with a limited number of options). Of course, if you cannot take advantage of any in-cam corrections then it´s perhaps not a lens to even consider.

@oscillian Naah, they confirmed it´s "normal"... (I didn´t push for a replacement though)

It won´t affect my use of it, but it certainly could have been a more useful lens for more people had the zoom been absolutely smooth and without the aperture "clicks". Oh, well!

The 35-100 seems to have none of these issues though, and the zoom function is internal.

The combo of these two is pretty impressive.

@B3Guy Well, the lens formula is one thing, Panny has invested heavily in certain technologies and I think hence they are not ready to make something manual just because they would face a bunch of new challenges.

The 35-100 optical formula looks ingenious though. Parfocal, internal zooming.. That would be really interesting to see in manual version.

If I´m to speculate I think that panny tech will be OK for "cine" use over time in the sense that I count on f.i. remote focus control with the addition of wifi support. Given it works well enough.

@B3Guy My guess is someone else will do it before panasonic. This should be the perfect timing for some of the zoom companies to produce a cheap "cine" zoom for m43 mount. Hell, they can even make the same zoom in two versions with different housing.

@tetakpatak

Strange comments.

Oly 12mm has 5.45% barrel distortion (compared to 5.71% for 12-35 at 12mm). Corrected on the gh2 for video it looks like shit if you try to pan / tilt. Panny 12-35 seems to have a much better correction, panning and tilting looks OK. You must have been watching a lot of gh3 test-videos or simply don´t like a "modern" looking lens..

It seems like you are complaining about the depth of field as well.. all of that is down to the user of the lens. At f2.8 it´s fully possible to have a short DOF if that is what you want.

Simply put, the 12-35 is technically the best lens on the market, between 12-16mm for m43.

With that said, everyone has to consider what fits their needs and technically good is not always the most fun.

I've decided to cancel my order for this lens.

It is indeed very sharp, but its sharpness looks somehow artificial to me on all the test shootings I saw here, it does not look cinematic to me at all. Of course many could disagree about what I say, but I can't change my feelings about this. I mean it has kind of all-in-focus like on the paintings of Hyeronimus Bosch (who I admire).

Its OIS and weather sealing are ceirtanly great features for all those who need them. I do not need them for my purposes.

The biggest disappointment for me is the barrel distortion of nearly 6% on its short end. Only Panasonic cameras seem to be capable of correcting it, @kodakmoment it is exactly what you commented here middle of July, the newest Photozone review of this lens confirms it. For my own needs, its short end was the most interesting part and I really expected less barrel distortion from a "X" lens in the price category just next to the professional Nikkors and Canons. VK has written in the GH3 topic a hard true: "X is just marketing moniker". I really don't wanna say that anybody who buys this lens does anything wrong, I don't mean that. In different shooting subjects and circumstances than I need this could be a dream lens for many and I am really happy for all of you guys who got here the one you have been waiting for. I didn't.

@valpopando WOW. great looking footage.