Disappointed with Panasonic Lumix 35/1.8

[Nigel Craig]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

All my film cameras have 50mm lenses (50/3.5, 50/2.8 screw mount Elmars, Super Takumar 55/1.8, Nikkor 50/2) but I really prefer the 35mm angle of view on my Fuji X100V and I have fond memories of a favourite lens, a Zeiss ZE 35/2. Because of stretched resources I was deflected from buying (for my S1r) a Sigma DG DN 35/2 by a big promotion on the Lumix 35/1.8 - after selling a lens I had no use for, very little money in net terms. But really it doesn't seem any sharper at f5.6 than the Lumix 24-105 set to 35mm at f4. I can only conclude this lens is designed for video and if the new Leica SL35/2 is really based on this I hope they've applied some magic somewhere in their adaptation. I'm really impressed by the Lumix 24-105 as a sharp and hugely versatile lens and if I'm going to carry a prime or two (I have the Sigma 65/2 DN) as an alternative, with or without the 14-24/2.8, it really needs to be a step up optically. I'm inclined to accept I've made a mistake and take a smallish loss by trading it for the Sigma 35/2 but I could trade the 65 and the 35 for the new Sigma Art DG DN 50/1.4 which is supposed to be sensational. I think the gearhead in me wants the theoretically sharpest lens possible but find the Lumix S Pro 50/1.4 too expensive, let alone the SL APO (not to mention too big, heavy and clumsy). But the photographer says whats the point of the ultimate optical quality if the focal length doesn't inspire you as much? And it's hard to see in the real world how you could better the Sigma 65/2 DN.

[Planetwide]

Keep the Sigma 65mm F2, as it's a very good lens. trade the Panasonic for the Sigma 35mm F2.0. The Siggy 35mm F1.2 is stellar if you can carry it.

The Sigma 35mm F1.4 might be worth a look, its almost (98%) as good at F2.0 as the F2, and just as good at F2.8 - But you get softer, more gentle lens at F1.4

Edited February 15, 2023 by Planetwide

[Nigel Craig]

I think that's about right but the new DN version of the 35/1.4 makes it a very hard decision vis a vis the F2. From what I've read, there's not much between them in sharpness but the bokeh is nicer, set against the greater size and weight of the 1.4.

[MrSMW]

Had both the 35mm and 65mm f2 and thought they were perfect for my use case (photo and video) with both S1R and S5.

I have since sold them, somewhat sadly, but found I was better with the 16-28mm and 28-70mm compact zoom pairing.

Unless you really need something fast like the new 50mm f1.4, as above, I'd personally trade out that Panny 35mm f1.8 for the Sigma f2.

I really do not like any of those new Panasonic f1.8's. Had the 85mm, but moved it on for the most recent Sigma f1.4.

It's the plastic build and dull looks I mainly don't like, ie, the aesthetics.

Maybe that's a bit shallow, but MUCH prefer not only the visual appearance and build of the Sigma Contemporaries, but also the results they produce.

 

 

[huwm]

 

2 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Had both the 35mm and 65mm f2 and thought they were perfect for my use case (photo and video) with both S1R and S5.

I have since sold them, somewhat sadly, but found I was better with the 16-28mm and 28-70mm compact zoom pairing.

Unless you really need something fast like the new 50mm f1.4, as above, I'd personally trade out that Panny 35mm f1.8 for the Sigma f2.

I really do not like any of those new Panasonic f1.8's. Had the 85mm, but moved it on for the most recent Sigma f1.4.

It's the plastic build and dull looks I mainly don't like, ie, the aesthetics.

Maybe that's a bit shallow, but MUCH prefer not only the visual appearance and build of the Sigma Contemporaries, but also the results they produce.

 

 

Love the iSeries too but find the Art 1.4s (I have 35 and 85) much better if you can cope with the size

Fine on SL2 but not so sure about S5

I've kept the 35/2 but not the 65/2 or 90/2.8

It may be that the new Art 50/1.4 will displace my only Apo but I expect I will have to keep it

Would free up funds for something wide, how do you find the 16-28?

I did have the 28-70 which I liked but switched to 24-70 for it's robust build and weather sealing 

[SrMi]

19 minutes ago, huwm said:

 

Love the iSeries too but find the Art 1.4s (I have 35 and 85) much better if you can cope with the size

Fine on SL2 but not so sure about S5

I've kept the 35/2 but not the 65/2 or 90/2.8

It may be that the new Art 50/1.4 will displace my only Apo but I expect I will have to keep it

Would free up funds for something wide, how do you find the 16-28?

I did have the 28-70 which I liked but switched to 24-70 for it's robust build and weather sealing 

I find Leica 24-70 better than Sigma 28-70. I assume Sigma 24-70 is similar to Leica 24-70. My Sigma 28-70 has weak corners until f/5.6. 

The 16-28/2.8 is really good, maybe my best L-mount wide angle zoom (compared to Leica and Panasonic 16-35). 

[Ko.Fe.]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

17 hours ago, Nigel Craig said:

All my film cameras have 50mm lenses (50/3.5, 50/2.8 screw mount Elmars, Super Takumar 55/1.8, Nikkor 50/2) but I really prefer the 35mm angle of view on my Fuji X100V and I have fond memories of a favourite lens, a Zeiss ZE 35/2. Because of stretched resources I was deflected from buying (for my S1r) a Sigma DG DN 35/2 by a big promotion on the Lumix 35/1.8 - after selling a lens I had no use for, very little money in net terms. But really it doesn't seem any sharper at f5.6 than the Lumix 24-105 set to 35mm at f4. I can only conclude this lens is designed for video and if the new Leica SL35/2 is really based on this I hope they've applied some magic somewhere in their adaptation. I'm really impressed by the Lumix 24-105 as a sharp and hugely versatile lens and if I'm going to carry a prime or two (I have the Sigma 65/2 DN) as an alternative, with or without the 14-24/2.8, it really needs to be a step up optically. I'm inclined to accept I've made a mistake and take a smallish loss by trading it for the Sigma 35/2 but I could trade the 65 and the 35 for the new Sigma Art DG DN 50/1.4 which is supposed to be sensational. I think the gearhead in me wants the theoretically sharpest lens possible but find the Lumix S Pro 50/1.4 too expensive, let alone the SL APO (not to mention too big, heavy and clumsy). But the photographer says whats the point of the ultimate optical quality if the focal length doesn't inspire you as much? And it's hard to see in the real world how you could better the Sigma 65/2 DN.

I'm lost in translations.

I'm also fan of small and sharp 35s from my film M days.

Are you saying Pana 35 1.8 is dull and Sigma 35/2 is sharp W/O ?

 

[Richardgb]

17 hours ago, Nigel Craig said:

All my film cameras have 50mm lenses (50/3.5, 50/2.8 screw mount Elmars, Super Takumar 55/1.8, Nikkor 50/2) but I really prefer the 35mm angle of view on my Fuji X100V and I have fond memories of a favourite lens, a Zeiss ZE 35/2. Because of stretched resources I was deflected from buying (for my S1r) a Sigma DG DN 35/2 by a big promotion on the Lumix 35/1.8 - after selling a lens I had no use for, very little money in net terms. But really it doesn't seem any sharper at f5.6 than the Lumix 24-105 set to 35mm at f4. I can only conclude this lens is designed for video and if the new Leica SL35/2 is really based on this I hope they've applied some magic somewhere in their adaptation. I'm really impressed by the Lumix 24-105 as a sharp and hugely versatile lens and if I'm going to carry a prime or two (I have the Sigma 65/2 DN) as an alternative, with or without the 14-24/2.8, it really needs to be a step up optically. I'm inclined to accept I've made a mistake and take a smallish loss by trading it for the Sigma 35/2 but I could trade the 65 and the 35 for the new Sigma Art DG DN 50/1.4 which is supposed to be sensational. I think the gearhead in me wants the theoretically sharpest lens possible but find the Lumix S Pro 50/1.4 too expensive, let alone the SL APO (not to mention too big, heavy and clumsy). But the photographer says whats the point of the ultimate optical quality if the focal length doesn't inspire you as much? And it's hard to see in the real world how you could better the Sigma 65/2 DN.

Well, that's what the reviews of the '1.8' series lenses clearly said or at least implied. In lenses as with everything, there's no free lunch... I also wonder how many other photographers (as opposed to videographers) have been disappointed with the image quality - look at the 'used' section of many photo dealers often shows a selection of the 50/1.8 for sale.

Unfortunately, in some cases (DP Review, are you listening?) there was an implication that none of the Lumix lenses was worthy of being used for stills. This is certainly not the case, as you have rightly said about the 24-105 even though this is not designated an 'S' lens (i.e. certified by Leica).

[SrMi]

DxO and EPhotoZine gave Panasonic 35/1.8 good reviews.

I do not own the lens, so I do not have an opinion, but I like my Sigma 35/2.

[scrollt]

Am 15.2.2023 um 23:32 schrieb Planetwide:

The Siggy 35mm F1.2 is stellar if you can carry it.

This lens is just a joy to use. I love it very much. But it's also huge and definitely nothing everyone wants to carry around

As long as I use a full frame camera like my S1, this lens is a must. It's very special imo

[oldwino]

I found the Lumix series to be good lenses, especially for the prices, but a little lacking in build quality. I did enjoy, however, the lighter weight when compared to the Sigma I-series (which is excellent). 

I think you got a bad lens if it is not sharp until stopped down to f5.6.

[SrMi]

2 hours ago, oldwino said:

I found the Lumix series to be good lenses, especially for the prices, but a little lacking in build quality. I did enjoy, however, the lighter weight when compared to the Sigma I-series (which is excellent). 

The difference is 30g, isn't it?

[oldwino]

7 hours ago, SrMi said:

The difference is 30g, isn't it?

Yes. 30g lighter. 

[tom.w.bn]

When I think about the Sigma 35/2, uncomfortable rough edges and cold fingers come to mind. I sold the Sigma and bought the Pana 35. I also have the Pana 24 and 50 and nothing to complain. When I look through images I don't see a difference in sharpness between the Sigma and Pana 35.

 

[Stuart Richardson]

If you really want the sharpest lens possible, it is the 35mm APO Summicron. But since price is an issue as well, have you considered the 35mm APO Voigtlander with an M adapter? The lens is around 1000 dollars, but it is sharper than either the Sigma or Panasonic. It is also very compact on an S1R body. The sacrifice is manual focus and auto-aperture...

 

 

 

[Babylonia]

On 2/15/2023 at 11:14 PM, Nigel Craig said:

I think the gearhead in me wants the theoretically sharpest lens possible but find the Lumix S Pro 50/1.4 too expensive,...

A short time ago (about 2 months ago), there was a cashback action in the Netherlands of about € 950,- for this Lumix S Pro 50/1.4
The time as for cashback "should" be extended to march 1 2023.
But seems Panasonic has sold a lot of them, as the cashback amount now is reduced again to a € 300,- cashback, instead of € 950,-

So keep in mind that from time to time a new "high" amount cashback could be possible.

Edited February 23, 2023 by Babylonia

[Babylonia]

On 2/16/2023 at 5:21 PM, SrMi said:

DxO and EPhotoZine gave Panasonic 35/1.8 good reviews.

I do not own the lens, so I do not have an opinion, but I like my Sigma 35/2.

However testing at different camera's, just look to the graphical results / bars.
The Sigma 35/2 comes to better results, specially within the corners, in comparison to Lumix 35/1.8

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/sigma-35mm-f-2-dg-dn-contemporary-review-35194/performance

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lumix-s-35mm-f-1-8--s-s35--lens-review-35757/performance

[Mak67]

More sharpness but also more CA ... 

[Archiver]

On 2/21/2023 at 5:04 AM, tom.w.bn said:

When I think about the Sigma 35/2, uncomfortable rough edges and cold fingers come to mind. I sold the Sigma and bought the Pana 35. I also have the Pana 24 and 50 and nothing to complain. When I look through images I don't see a difference in sharpness between the Sigma and Pana 35.

This might go the other way as well, because if the Sigma and Panasonic 35 have the same sharpness, and I can get the Sigma for less money, then I'd more inclined to get the Sigma. How did you find AF with the Sigma, particularly in difficult situations like fast movement or backlight? How does it compare with the Panasonic 35?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Nigel Craig]

In the end I sold the Panasonic 35 and got the  Sigma 35/1.4 DG DN Art as I thought it would give me something a bit different. Of course it’s significantly bigger than the 35/2 Contemporary lens. Not sure if I need the 24-105 now as I have the Sigma 14-24 and Sigma 65.