Panasonic Lumix 12-35 f2.8 & 12-60 f3.5-5.6 Compared

I have the Lumix 12-60 that came with my G95 and I enjoy using it for photo walks. But I also have the Lumix 12-35 f2.8 for professional work. I compare and contrast the two in this video.
0:00 Introduction
0:49 Upgradeitis
1:10 Thoughts on kit lenses
1:44 Image quality
2:26 Build quality and other differences
4:19 Lateral chromatic aberration
5:09 Automatic chromatic aberration correction
5:14 Weight difference and sample images
10:05 Lightroom masks can increase visible chromatic aberration
10:59 Review
Please Like and Subscribe!
Follow me on Instagram: / todd.bannor
Twitter: @BannorTodd
My ebook, Starved Rock State Park, Through the Seasons, is available for both Kindle & Apple Books:
Kindle: www.amazon.com...
Apple Books: books.apple.co...
My fine art photography:
pixels.com/pro...

[@walterzannoni]

Thanks for the video. I have both lenses (the 12-35 is from my office and therefore not exactly mine even if I can use it). I have done some significant tests and I can confirm that with PhotoLab DXO the chromatic aberration is perfectly corrected even at ul 12-60. My thought is that DXO has worked a lot on optical correction and this allows you to use even relatively cheap lenses without having to put up with their defects. I must say that with my triad, 35-100 mark 2 (wonderful) and with the 25 1.4 Leica (in my opinion one of the best lenses for the M43) I can face any situation, even if my dream remains the 12 mm 1.4. Thank you and have a good day

[@chrisbrown6432]

Thanks Todd. Most useful. I am photographing exhibition openings and the lighting is a bit dark. So I am going to get this lens to go with my Panasonic G9 and my Panasonic GX8 cameras.

[@laddrob]

Thanks Todd. I had both the Pan 12-60 3.5-5.6 and the 12-60 2.8-4. My copy of the 12-60 3.5-5.6 was actually slightly sharper than the 2.8-4 in my tests. It is a great little lens, light enough to carry around everywhere. I made the mistake of selling my copy (when I was flirting with the Fujiflim system) and just ordered a replacement.
Also I just ordered the Lumix 35-100 2.8 II based in part on your recommendation. l have and like very much the 45-150 4-5.6, but decided the wider aperture of the 35-100 would be good. The 12-60 F 3.5-5.6 paired with either of these longer zooms makes a nice portable kit. Thanks again, Robert

[@ToddBannor]

You’re welcome!

[@michaelwrest6145]

Thanks for a helpful and informative video. The kit lenses for MFT seem to be better than average quality.

[@ToddBannor]

Yes, I haven't found one that's lacking yet. Always test a new one though because a bad one can occasionally get through QC.

[@christophm.9131]

I have the 12-60 Lumix and the 25/1.7 and consider(ed 😂) the 12-35 to replace them for photographing our children playing indoors and as an allround Zoom. But 2.8 is even to slow for indoors sometimes. And I really like the range and quality stopped down from the Zoom and the light-gathering power from the prime. On the other Hand 1.7 Aperture makes the Depth of field very small at close distance. I think I’ll keep both and about the 40-ish mm primes. But I can do most things with 25 mm.
Thanks for giving some food for thought.👍

Conseguí poco a poco lentes para mí Gh4, ninguno de estos dos. Los lentes de kit siempre me han servido bien. Solo está vez compré sin lente y la única razón era que no tenía más dinero.

[@bingbong4848]

I use the 12-60 daily. Great kit lens 24-120 equiv. For jobs I sometimes rent the 12-35. Awesome and fast compact lens. Expensive for my budget though, so I wouldn't want to use it daily for fear of damage.

[@billb8262]

Curious what a pro with a 2.8 zoom uses it for versus primes? Do you do any portraiture with the pro level zooms or other types of images? Everything for me will be personal shooting except when I do portraiture. For that I will have the 56mm Sigma 1.4, 45mm 1.8 Oly, 25mm PL 1.4, and 15mm 1.7 PL. Do you do portraits with the 35-100mm?
Edit: On micro four thirds. Many pros use 2.8 zooms on FF for portraiture along with zooms, but I haven't ever tried a 2.8 zoom on M43 to see how it fares.

[@ToddBannor]

I use both the 35-100 f2.8 and the 42.5 f1.7 for portraiture, depending on the situation. If I'm outside and I want shallow depth of field, I use the 42.5. If I'm shooting headshots inside with a white background, I use the 35-100 set to f2.8 to f4. I've seen several portrait how to videos where the photographer stops down to f8 or f11 with full frame, to get the head in focus from front to back.

[@billb8262]

@@ToddBannor Great, thanks! I'm looking at lens choices and didn't prioritize a long zoom as much as fast primes for portraiture. On FF it's a bit easier due to DOF with a zoom, but at 5.6 equivalent FF DOF it'd probably have to be a headshot or something quite zoomed in on the person to render a pretty soft background. I'm not all about bokeh since I'm purposely switching FF to M43, but still desire some opportunities like with the 56mm 1.4 Sigma or 42.5/45mm 1.7/1.8 options. I don't do enough portraiture to justify the cost of the 42.5mm 1.2 or 45mm 1.2 options, so I appreciate your insight.

[@paulemma8125]

I’m sure that 12-35 is great. And getting Bokah at f2.8 would for sure be better. But I have that 12-60 and it’s is razor sharp. Go ahead pixel peep it’s an amazing lense. Not going to lie I still want both 😂