"If it is too anything for you, you don't have to buy it." - I was thinking this for the whole video. I wish more people on the internet would get that. And not just about this lens, every product has its buyer, even if that's not you, so lots of people should just stop spreading hate and not buy the stuff that they don't like. You're not obligated to buy anything.
@@marcheathrow8930 I'm not sure complaining about a lens being big is so much an opinion when it's obvious this lens is bigger than your typical MFT lens. Anyone who is buying this lens knows that it's bigger and complaining that it's too big is having a problem with physics. It can't be made any smaller. This lens coming out doesn't change any pre-existing smaller compact lens either.
@@marcheathrow8930 no, I am not saying that you shouldn't voice your objective opinion and say if the lens is very big, bulky, heavy, if the autofocus is slow etc etc. You should say these things, especially if you're a reviewer. What most people here do, however, is that they express their subjective opinions even if they never intended to buy the lens in the first place. And it's not just about this lens, people do it all the time about all different kinds of things. They just want to spread hate on everything that disagrees with their personal opinion. If a product is not for you, why would you talk s..t about it, when there are people who the product is aimed at?
@@marcheathrow8930 I didn't say that you specifically said that. I guess you're putting words into my mouth. The OP and I were addressing the fact that people complain about size with this lens. I think it's good to compare it to other lenses for size, but to complain about size as a generalization without context is silly. Big compared to what? A 70-200mm F2.8 FF?? No it's not. It's definitely lighter too. The great thing is MFT has a choice to go smaller and lighter. Sure I can make it DSLR sized, but I can also make it much smaller and a DSLR can't shave anymore off. All I'm saying is if anyone is going to have any complaints then I don't think size should really be the one to complain about. This lens can't physically be made much smaller, so this lens isn't really marketed to the person who complains about size.
This lens is a phenominal lens for people like me who do both wedding photography and wedding video. I recently shot back to back weddings almost entirely with this lens on a Panasonic GH5. I shot a wedding video 100% with this lens, then did photography the next day for a second wedding, and I used this lens paired with the Panasonic 35-100mm 2.8. The low aperture of the lens, mixed with it's immensely useful zoom range made it a godsend for wedding work. I was able to get wide shots, and close ups super quick and painless. No lens switching. The close focus at 25mm meant I could use it for portraits, and then immediately back out to 10mm and get full body shots in the church. It's pricy, and will probably remain a rental lens for me for the time being, but I have been seriously considering just selling off my primes, and buying this guy!
@@no15minutecities I don't have endless amounts of money. If I get hired to shoot a wedding, I allocate a bit of the money I'm making towards rental gear. A simple 15-20% of your total revenue will rent you a few good lenses. That's why I said it will remain a rental lens for me for now. However, I also actively save some money from every job I do, and eventually use those savings to buy a new piece of gear. I realize that this isn't feasible for everyone, but if you're a working professional, and not a hobbyist, than this is generally what you are going to do.
As with any business there's a judgement to be made and when you use something a lot, there's a point at which it is cheaper to buy than rent. I can fully understand why this lens works so well for you in your business and quite likely you are the kind of photographer Panasonic had in mind when they decided to make this lens.
I am not going to lie. This lens is the only one I bought without first watching DT's review. I would normally watch his review at least a couple times over a period of time to 1. Consider if I really need it and 2. Find out if the value for money is there and the pros and cons of the lens or gear. So number 1 I don't always think that through carefully. However, for number 2 I'm covered and solid because David clearly defines the facts, the case to buy or not to buy, the logic that one needs to discipline ourselves with and not emotion. Add in years of experience and you have a great resource. Did I need it? Well, could have gotten by without but using it pretty regularly. David's take on it, especially sharpness and comparing it to primes is dead on. No surprise there. I still don't get it that he has only 30K subscribers.
I'm a video guy and have the Sigma/Metabones combo. For what its worth, this lens does not replace that. I think this lens will be more 'valuable' if they made a 25-50mm f1.7 and these 2 lens as a set would be the only 2 lens you really need for video. If they make this lens, I will strongly consider getting them as a 'set' and do away with my Sigma.
I'm no lens designer but I would think a 25-50mm f/1.7 would be easier to design and make than a wide zoom so maybe Panasonic will do that. Now you mention it, I can see how useful two native lenses like those would be. Might be worth putting it to Panasonic?
@@TopshelfJunior I would love love love to have them, but unfortunately Covid ruined my business and I have no need for them now. But if I were still at it, a great set for a lot of reasons, one being when doing interviews, you get the wide and the teli. See, when cutting 2 cameras, you want the same camera with the same 'Color Science' as with the same lens. This will save a ton of color grading. As far as losing a bit of light, trivial and not something I'd worry about at all. If your shooting wide open and not exposing, no lens is supposed to fix that. That's what lights are for. And if you got good lights, even F2.8 is fast enough. So even though the Sigma is good, these lens as a pair are better. I hope that helps. :)
@@chrisklugh As a photographer I find the 10-25 very useful but the 25-50 not near as useful because of the added weight, space taken up in a camera bag by both lenses AND having to switch lenses just for slightly more reach. However I can totally see this being amazing for film making. Since more range is not really necessary for video.
Thank you for another thoughtful, thorough and clever review. This lens reminds of my experience with the Sigma 24-35 f/2, weighing over 33 ounces, bulky and absolutely wonderful in it’s function and build quality on my D750. I was loathe to attach it to my camera, anticipating a long day carting it around, but always thoroughly delighted with the experience of a very capable three primes in one lens that was luxurious to use. I am not much of a videographer so the this lens will not find my M4/3 camera bag but I can appreciate why someone would want to keep company with it.
Your reviews of m43 camera gear are the best on RUclips. I pined over the 10-25mm f/1.7 for the past 3-4 months, and finally bought it. It is better than I imagined, and absolutely the perfect addition to my kit. The only wide-angle lens it hasn't replaced is my beloved Sigma 30/1.4. The rest, I've sold.
Ι guess there are a lot more guys producing high quality footage than we imagine. I think that the evolution of photographic cameras and lenses inevitably led to some great videography implementations at a far lower cost than we couldn't even imagine less than a decade ago.
Sold mine to mpb several weeks ago. Still unsure I did the right thing. Problem was the weight and space. I didn't do a precise comparison, but would guess it's similar in heft to my Sony GMaster 16-35 2.8. But that, on a A7R3, takes better pictures. And the Sony body is smaller than my G9. Focal range is better on the Lumix, as is the aperture, and I loved the quality of the construction. But is it M43? It is similar in size to my Olympus 12-100 f4. That has really effective stabilisation, half second exposures easily attainable so you don't miss the f1.7, and of course it doubles as a telephoto. So after the initial novelty the 10-25 felt superfluous, a testament to my 'must have' incontinence. Back to the 8-18 now, and very happy with the quality. Not the best, but it possesses all the advantages of M43, and is good enough for A3 printing or 4k tv.
It's funny, Tony - you have the same general air of undecidedness about this lens as I do. The only way to truly know what you think is to watch your own behaviour, see whether you use it or not. Expensive, though!
Debate ended; lens acquired. Truly a stunning optic. Its performance at 25mm at 1.7 boggles. This is a zoom? Not a walk around lens, but it’s everything else. Thanks again for all your reviews.
Yes - the 12-40 for may photographers would be the only lens they'd need. The 10-25mm is less of an all rounder, far more specialised. The 12-40 is about the sharpest standard zoom I've ever tried.
Pretty much. I use it with the 25mm 1.8 and 75-300mm for travel/birding and haven't needed another one since. Though I admit the 12-100mm (which wasn't available when I bought it) is tempting.
@@andersistbesser It'll certainly cut down the depth of field, though it doesn't have the zoom range to replace your 12-40mm. You'd miss that longer end for portaits I'd think.
David Thorpe i have my 42 , 1.7 lense. In my opinion this is the sharpest lense panasonic made. It is better than the also great 15 mm 1.7 and of course better than the not so sharp 25mm 1.7 i love the 42. i wish the 25 mm was that good. I guess i have to buy the olympus 1.2 pro lense to match this quality
Put this on a G9 or GH5 and you get MFT stability with full frame heft -- it's a small niche, but apparently it exists. I appreciate the more uncommon types of lenses, like this or the Olympus Pro 8mm fisheye. There's a time and place for them, and it's great to have native options rather than having to hope there's something in another system and speedboost it with subpar AF results. I really see this as a wide-to-normal do-it-all, as well as a competitor to the Sigma 18-35 1.8 with speedbooster which is still a bit heavier (and bigger). For those using that lens, they won't mind the size of this one, and they'll likely appreciate the savings in size and usable AF rather than relegating it purely to a manual focus video setup. For most everyday MFT use, or with smaller bodies, I think the Panasonic 12-35 and Olympus 12-40 fit better -- the Panasonic for small GX bodies, the Olympus for medium size ones like the E-M1 II or G90.
Agreed, Jenny. My main liking for this lens is that it covers all normal wide to standard situations as well as any other choices could do but all in one lens. With the penalty being size and, to some extent, price. As ever, there are no free lunches. It will be interesting to see if it sells well.
This is the lens I have been waiting for. A very very long time . Kind like science fiction, but if you live long enough optical design and consumer demand will get you it. 40 years ago some of the lens for 16 mm move camera are insanely amazing and showed it could full the focus area of. This 4/3 format . Time to sell the wife . Fine review
Thanks Tom. It's not cheap and its not small (by Micro Four Thirds standards) so It's not a lens that everyone will want but if you do have uses for it, there's nothing about it that will disappoint. And nothing else in one package that will do what it does, either.
Hi Mr. Thorpe. I’ve been looking at your content for some time now. I finaly decided to subscribe to the channel, not just because of your commitment to the micro four thirds platform, but your well thouht out and orginized opinions and reviews. Thank you so much and keep up the good work.
Another gem (of a review as well as a lens!) in video world this is a native version of the Sigma constant f1.8 that many videographers go for. How expensively enticing...
Thanks! Yes, expensively enticing. Also, as they used to say of Stella Artois in the UK ads, reassuringly expensive. Mind you, since I travelled a lot I knew that Stella wasn't particularly special to the Belgians and not particularly expensive either. Maybe somewhere that applies to this lens and it is quite reasonably priced 🤔
David Thorpe 🤔 indeed. I think it’s a fair price to pay (unlike Stella Artois!) and is pure gold dust where video’s concerned. Sadly it also signals that my GH4 has become obsolete without ibis.. sigh. First world problems..
Hey David, I recently bought a Sigma 30mm f1,4 on sale and I just have to thank you for the great review on the Sigmas! It was only 230€ which I think counts as a steal!
A 12-45/1.7 would be huge. I think the 10-25mm range is better for video. This lens is mostly designed because so many people are using the Sigma 18-35 with speedbooster. Panasonic want to sell more lenses to the video people. I'm using the 12-35 much more at 12mm than at 35mm when filming. I'm sure the 10-25 would fit perfectly to my needs. Unfortunately, it doesn't fit perfectly on my bicycle (not to mention the price). But it's still tempting.
Thanks for another great video David. I have been thinking about buying this lens for some time now. I could replace a series of lenses with this one. Nokton 10.5mm f0.95, Nokton 25mm, Sigma 30 ... No doubt I would save time with fewer lens changes during shooting. But I have to admit that the issue of portability is very important to me. I work a lot with GH5 and Nokton 10.5 (sometimes activating the tele ext.) And also Lumix 12-35mm (when I need IBIS) and got used to these sets. As a hobby I really like my GX80 + Leica 15mm or Oly 25 f1.8. The only really big mft lens I really like to use is the Leica 100-400 in my free time in the wild. Anyway this 10-25 lens is very attractive.
This lens would only replace your Noktons if you're happy with shooting at f1.7 and the rendering of the Lumix lens. The Noktons particularly have an organic rendering that this zoom seems to lack, so if the Nokton visual character is important to you, the tradeoff for an all in one zoom might not be worth it.
David I'd like to thank you for your excellent reviews, they are really helpful! I also like your take of the number of choices we have with MFT and I think this 10-25mm fills a nice gap for people wanting a premium rugged standard-wide zoom. I don't fully understand people complaining about the size and price of the 10-25 when equivalent FF zooms (16-35 2.8 or 24-70 2.8's) are just as expensive (at least here in Australia) and typically slightly larger. You always have the option of the tiny Olympus 9-18mm 4-5.6 for travel which from I've been told is a superb lens, or the 8-18 2.8-4 Panasonic Leica which is half the cost/weight of the 10-25. Anyway, I'd like to wish you a prosperous 2020.
Nice video! If the lens came out a year or two ago, I might have kept my m43 equipment because I was longing for F2 weather sealed lenses. There were non at the time. So I left m43 😭
Thanks! It's expensive to change camera systems and especially so to then change back again. Hope you're happy with whatever you are using now. I bought in to Micro Four Thirds for specific reasons but in the modern market there are no bad cameras, so I could happily work with a Sony or Fuji or whatever if necessary. But Micro Four Thirds just has that blend of attributes that I like.
Exactly, interesting but specialist. I came across Feathers McGraw in the same way as you and took to him as a character. Brilliant moment when he first sees Gromit and stops and glares at him though the open door..
Nice review! This is a lens I feel is aimed at pro video/event shooters using GH5 or GH5S. Pair with a second body with a 35-100 or 42.5/1.2 and a monopod and you’re set.
As exclusive m43 user, shooting 50:50 photo:video and grativating more toward zoom, I am thinking to get this lens, or going to Canon FF route with RF 24-70/2.8..
Very similar in some ways. The loss of speed on the Canon lens is compensated by the 2 stop noise improvement from the FF sensor. The Canon is £250 more expensive but weight and sizes are not so different. The main thing in my mind would be the sheer loss of money when selling equipment to change systems. Plus the extra size of other FF lenses, especially the fast zooms. Yours really is a personal decision - the only overall view I have is that you cannot buy a bad camera today, so whatever you decide cannot be a disaster, even if it was a mistake.
Good job David! Definitely one to watch for me. Been relying on the PL 12-60mm as my go-to for video & stills. My heart is set on a PL 15mm f/1.7 to complement my PL 42.5mm Nocticron for client tasks tho
I have seem a set of photographs done by this Leica DG... Bokeh was incredible for a wide-standard zoom at wide open. It would be strange to found out that the lens is not sharp on wide shooting. While i was shooting on film, i never used any lens wider than 35mm, simply because of barrel distortion. Once the photo was taken, you could only crop it to remove at least edges. That issue can be corrected nowadays, partially optically and later digitally. Would i add the most expensive M43 lens to my arsenal? Probably not as I already own 12-40mm Olympus which is far wider i would usually need. I am not a videographer, also the size of this lens is probably a problem.
I own this lens, sigma 1835 with cheap speed booster, and Olympus 40150pro. This lens feels much lighter than sigma, and is much cheaper than full frame 1635 plus 2470, which it can replace. However I will not sell the sigma, because when boosted, it’s not sharp, imperfect, has unique characteristics, which I fell in love with. I do both video and stills with gh5, the sigma is too soft for stills, and autofocus is a pain (when doing video I use manual so it’s fine). This Pany lens really solves the problem. When I know I will only shot video, it’s not raining, and I need a “Classic “ look, I will pick up sigma definitely.
I looked up the Sigma 18-35mm and the metabones 1.7 speed booster and the Sigma is 810 grams, the speed booster 300 g. 1110g for the set and 690g for the 10-25 Panasonic seems more like a feather in comparison.
I’m not sure if or how often you receive review units, but I would be interested to hear your take on the Olympus E-M5 Mark III. I’m disappointed that, like with the E-M10 III, they’ve gone with polycarbonate top- and bottom-plates, but it also looks to have come with some meaningful improvements over the E-M5 II which make it a compelling product (particularly phase detect autofocus). However, given its price, I’m not sure how well it sits alongside adjacent products, like the E-M10 III, E-M1 II or even GH5. If you ever get the chance to be sent one from Olympus, consider this my registration of interest to see your review.
Hi Jasper - I don't get anything from Olympus (or Panasonic), not even a reply if I email them. So I buy the equipment myself. I currently have an E-M5 III and am working with it. It takes me a while longer than most because I actually work with the camera and get to know it before I write a review. When Olympus or Panasonic lend stuff, you have a 2 week window, I'm told. So, watch this space, before Christmas, I hope. My preliminary take is favourable, very much so.
great review David as always it looks an amazing bit of kit and on the G9 the lens combo would be amazing but way out of my price range for the time being, maybe in a few years when hopefully the price falls
I guess I don't understand why people criticize any of the big lenses for m43rds. You don't have to buy it and there are already countless small lenses of every focal length available. Lenses like these are amazing for people that shoot Pictures AND Video. You can have a couple of lenses in your bag, instead of 6 small ones. "You should just get Full Frame" argument is bogus because video options are poor on most Full frame cameras and image quality is only marginally better if you are shooting in bad lighting. If you strictly shoot photographs and don't care about video at all or changing lenses all the time... then I get it. But I think it's great that you have all these options.
The basic point you make is that the existence of this lens doesn't mean that you have to buy it, given that there are so many cheaper and less exotic alternatives. I couldn't agree more. One of the reasons that Nikon cameras were so popular in film days is that their lens range covered everything, from 2000mm mirror lenses to rising front to dental lenses to what have you. Hardly anyone needed these lenses but if they did they were there (at a price, of course) and that's what made it a professional system. Micro Four Thirds is edging that way and I'm all for it, as you obviously are, Bob.
@@DavidThorpeMFT I'll say that I understand the concern that m43 will not go back to improving or making new small lenses and camera bodies. I would like to see new tiny 20mm primes with updated technology and a return of super tiny pocketable bodies. I just also love the G9 for it's versatility and do-anything abilities.
With apologies for being totally off-topic, may I suggest that you make a video explaining your approach to the “Simplified” series of books you’ve written? Also, including a link to the series as part of the descriptive notes accompanying each video would work well in your behalf. I bring this up because in wading through the menu structure and the manual for my new G9 I found the need for a better structured approach and more clear, understandable information. It was only after Googling about for tutorials and searching Amazon that I came across your book - despite being a subscriber to your channel. Precisely what I need and it was there all the time - yet I was completely unaware of it. Please, do not hide this stuff. You can sell more books and help more people. With the market for used cameras growing daily there’s a growing number of people who need what you’ve written...even if the cameras may be several years old. Your backlist of titles can be extremely helpful to them today.
No apology needed! You bring up some interesting points, Michael which I will address in the new year. It never occurred to me to make a video about the books but now you have I can see it as a very interesting idea. I was thinking it would look like rampant self-promotion but the reasoning behind the books and why I started them would be enjoyable to lay out. It will take me a little while but I'll start making notes right away - thanks for a very good idea.
Hi, David, long time, no see... Great video, as usual! And thanks for your hard work trying to help us all. I'm using a Sony a9 for wildlife photography these days, but still love my Pany GH5 for family photos and will probably never sell it! Would the Pany 10-25 work for 4k photo mode clips of my grand kids in motion, which is how I like to catch their candid and funny "decisive" moments? Or would I have to stop down the lens too much, thereby negating any reason to buy it? Any thoughts? Right now I'm still using my Pany 14-140 mm lens, 3.5 - 5.6, which is nice and sharp, but not great in low light. Just wondered if you're still loving the 10-25 lens as much as you did, and also wondered how it works for family pics, kids or adults. Thanks much for your input!! Linda from Texas.
Hi Linda, nice to hear from you again. I still like the 10-25 but I find my main use for it now is making my videos where the aperture and zoom range gives me good scope for making the product shots. I tend not to take it out much because of the size, unless I have a specific reason to do so. I think it could work well for you but I'm not sure the money spent would be justified given the restricted zoom range. Something like the Olympus 12-40 f/2.8 might be better? Shooting at f/2 with children moving around as they do would be a big ask, as you say, but when you get a good shot it would sparkle. My big question is whether the zoom range is enough for your needs. Only you can know that but in principle I'd say it isn't.
@@DavidThorpeMFT Thank you for your thoughts, and I'll have to say I agree; I was worried about the limited focal range and also the concerns about aperture and movement. Have a great weekend. 👍🏻😊
Hi David, thanks for another nice review! My criticism of this lens and the Olympus pro-series primes is not merely that they are bulky, but that they are bulkier than they could be -- this lens has similar focal range, light-gathering power, and depth of field (at the maximum aperture) compared to some APS-C counterparts, e.g., the 20-40mm f/2.8-4 by Pentax, or the 18-35mm f/1.8 by Sigma. The Sigma is almost 2x larger in physical aperture while maintaining a similar size and focal range. Fairer comparison can be made between the Olympus 17mm f/1.2 and the Canon RF mount 35mm f/1.8 -- how come the Olympus is ~1.8x smaller in physical aperture and significantly heavier and bulkier!? While I own these lenses, I am truly disappointed by m43. My scenario is that m43 companies are being lazy in optical designs, and resort a lot to trivially larger image circles than the sensor to achieve corner-to-corner sharpness.
Larger aperture lenses are basically always going to be bigger, no matter the system. F1.2 lenses in particular are very hard to make if the optical quality needs to be kept up to a high standard.
I'm not that up on lens design so I just accept that they are what they need to be. Luckily there are other, often tiny lenses available so we're not short of choice. Are lens designers lazy - I have no idea. Enlighten me, anyone?
@@DavidThorpeMFT - I am not a lens designer by any stretch of the imagination, but many factors undoubtedly go into the effort. One of those factors would be the cost of engineering. I've got to believe that the the 10-25 is as compact as funds would allow. I would hardly call it a lazy effort. It's already an exotic masterpiece.
You said what I've been saying for years: If you think lenses like this are too big for the MTF system, no one's forcing you to buy it, so why is it a problem? And these people completely miss the point that it doesn't stop you replacing it with a smaller lens two minutes later, it's like they don't understand the concept of an "interchangeable" lens system...
Proper niche, coming over from a couple of night time shooting videos, and having sun up at 0901 and sun down at 1511 hours, leaving 6 hours and 10 minutes, with at best bleak daylight, there may be a suitable niche for it up here in the Northern parts of the world. It is a large one though.
I was in Oslo one Christmas and it occurred to me how necessary fast lenses were in northern climes. On the other hand all you Scandinavians are big, tough, hardy outdoor folk so the size shouldn't be a problem for you 😀
I didn't mean to imply - or say - that Olympus invented it, I have no idea. Simply that among Micro Four Thirds lenses it was only implemented by Olympus up until this lens.
The zoom range and max aperture is unique. But if you can live with 24mm (equivalent) at the wide end, and a stop slower at the long end, the lens on the Panasonic LX100 II is lighter, cheaper and comes with a free camera body :-)
Some comparisons make you scratch your head, don't they? I needed a tiny to mend an electric clock recently - cheaper to buy the whole thing than the part!
How much practical difference is there between f1.4 and f1.7 indoors? Can we say it can replace the PL f1.4s with complete confidence? Also, How significant is the 2mm difference at the wide end between the 10-25 and the 8-18? Trying to decide trade off between low light and wider. I have only budget for one of these at the moment and need to be using them equally indoors (video) as well as for landscapes (photos) on the G9. Might be worth mentioning I got the PL 15 for indoors. The light is good but I find the fixed focal length a bit limiting for video work.
I've just done a practical test (at ISO200) with the camera on a tripod. In a situation where the PL gives 1/125th @ f/1.4, the zoom gives 1/80th at f/1.7. For stills, a trivial difference - a difference nonetheless - but one most could live with for the extra versatility. The 8-18mm or the 10-25mm, that's hard. 8mm is a bit wide for video I find, tending to look unnatural so I'd go for the 10-25. Personally, I find 10mm amply wide for landscapes and prefer 25-50mm ish lengths since there is more to landscape than just getting a lot in frame. I'd put it like this - the 8-18mm is a wonderful general purpose, mainly stills lens. The 10-25 is more specialised, especially good for video but overall sounds the best for you if you don't mind the size. You could sell the 15mm and buy the bargain price - but superb performance - Olympus 45mm f/18. That'd give you a very capable all round outfit. And - in my personal view - the 45mm is a lovely lens for landscape, giving a very natural perspective.
I'm glad you asked me that because it has made me think sort out what I really think about this lens. I find I don't take it out with me because it's too big and the 8-18mm is so much smaller and more versatile. I really like it for video shooting of products for my channel here but it's a luxury. It's a bit like they said of the laser beam when it came out, it's a solution in search of a problem.
Amazing Lens, and I‘m considering to sell another lenses to buy this one. But how difficult it is to sell lenses that have always been excellent. In my case I would sell 1 Nokton 10.5 and a 25 f0.95, I would sell the Lumix 12-35 f2.8 and Sigma 30mm f1.4. I would exchange several excellent lenses, special and compact, for a single lens, giant for the mft standards !! I would exchange the comfort of the reduced size for the comfort of not having to change lenses. Another lens that is on my radar is the Olympus 12-100 f4, which is also large, and which would replace the 12-35 / 35-100 f2.8 and 14-140! always commitments! David, what do you think about the Olympus 12-100 f4?
There's always a compromise for a wide range zoom and 12-100, while a good lens I'm certain , I doubt will be up the standard of the 12-35/ 35-100 combo as well as a stop slower. The 14-140 I wouldn't sell under any circumstances! The 10-25mm, think long and hard about it. Mine gets little use because it is bulky and heavy on my video sliders and most of what it does I can do on my 25mm f/1.4 in combination with the 8-18 Panasonic. Yes, you lose speed but the bulk of the bog zoom really is a bit off-putting. It's a lens you really have to need rather than want!
David Thorpe Thank you David! Good to hear your opinion! I tend to be very slow when it comes to selling the equipment I have, especially lenses. The 14-140ii is really special, compact, versatile, lightweight, OIS, weather-sealed and with the same diameter as the 12-35 and 35-100. My Nokton are also precious! :) It seems better to stay with the lenses I already have. Each lens with its virtues for the right moment. The sets I use most at the moment: GH4 for wildlife (my em-1 iii has not arrived yet) + Leica 100-400 or Lumix 14-140; GH5 for video work + 12-35 f2.8 or Nokton 10.5; GX80 for compact + Leica 15 or Oly 25 or Oly 12-50.
It's a small amount, BJ, 15mm. Not enough to upset the balance on a G9 or GH5 though possibly on a GM1. I'd certainly prefer no tromboning but as far as I know there is no standard zoom that has fully internal zooming.
I don’t suppose I’ll find one of these under my Christmas tree. A lump of coal more likely. Dear Santa, I’ll be better next year! I promise. All the best to you on this holiday, David. Thank you for a great year! Happy New Year!
David, I have been gifted a G80 for Xmas, a request based mainly on watching your hypnotic reviews. As a novice with exchangeable lenses I am hoping for a little advice. I have the perfectly fine 12-60 kit lens. It is ok, but lacks the low light capability for general family photography, at least in the current winter month. I picked up a cheap 25mm f/1.7 that was great for indoor snaps over the Holidays but now I want to plan longer term Lenses. I am planning on picking up, one at a time in order the 12-35mm f/2.8, 35-100mm f/2.8, adding the 42.5mm F/1.2 and possibly the 100-300mm. For general mixed hobbyist use, both still and moving does this seem like a reasonable approach? I would look to stick with the M4/3 beyond the G80 life so looking to acquire a small lens set that will cover me for the foreseeable future. Many thanks for the great content.
Thanks for the kind comments. I'd say your plan for lenses is ideal. They are all compact and excellent performers and won't date. You might want to add a 15 or 17mm prime f/1.7 for 1.8 at some point for a speedy wide-angle but it'd be a nicety, not a necessity.
Very nice lence indeed, I just dont see how an f1.7 zoom can really replace f1.2 or even f1.4 primes on mft cameras where shallow dof is so hard to achieve.
If shallow depth of field is your main criterion, then no, it won't replace them though the difference is quite small. On the speed, it is a moot point. If I take an Olympus 12-40 and this lens, both on 25mm with the same subject, ISO and camera, the Olympus requires a 20% slower shutter speed for what it deems correct exposure. There's a case for T stops for still lenses, I think.
The 10-26 would be great for the interiors and the 40-150 for the off the cuff stuff. I don't think you'd need more, though I'm not an expert in that field.
Excellent review! As mentioned here already, we especially loved the "If it's too anything for you, you don't have to buy it." Perfect! I rented this lens a month ago and thought it was absolutely fantastic. My briefest summary for this is: If you need a top lens for use in that range, this is it. I also desperately want it as I shoot in churches much of the time and flash photography is usually not allowed. I can make f/2.8 work but f/1.7 is a godsend. But it's not meant for everything. I think it's a bit over-kill for things like street photography. My Nocticron got a lot of slack for being a big lens. This 10-25mm make it look tiny in comparison. So it's not discreet. But it's surprisingly light so you won't get tired too quickly carrying it. The image rendering isn't quite as nice as my Nocticron. But it's extremely close to it. Paired with the 50-200mm f/2.8-4, the two-lens combo can pretty much do anything you'd want a camera to do. Add a Nocticron, which I consider one of the ultimate portrait lenses, and you might be set for the next 5 - 10 years for any kind of photography.... And be able to fit it all in a medium-sized camera bag.... Fantastic work Panasonic!
Yes, it's quite a lens. It's great that with what is now a mature system, Panasonic continue to fill in the niches. For the photography in church that you mention, this lens and the electronic silent shutter are answers to a prayer. Not for everything and not for everyone, as you say but combined with the 50-200, amazing!
They are all so different, Romain. You'd really need to decide what you wanted to do with the lens and then choose. Especially at the prices that lineup is :-)
I'd prefer it had stabilisation, especially at the price. It's not crucial in that the wider aperture means you can use higher shutter speeds but even so, stabilization extends that use.
@@DavidThorpeMFT please do. It's my all-time favorite lens that almost lives on my GH5S. I have many of the popular glass but truly find myself with the Oly 12-100 Pro f4 mounted to my GH5S almost always. The range, sharpnes, ois, clutch focus, parfocal like, AF and smoothest zoom ring make it a killer lens for video. Many have the panny 12-35 and 35-100, I have (but since sold the 35-100). They are f2.8 I understand but with enough light and or taking advantage of the dual iso of the GH5S, make it a mute point. I also own the PL 12-60 2.8-4 but zoom is not as smooth and you can get more compression bokeh with longer throw of the 12-100. I think (as many others) that you David are the premiere lens reviewer so I would love to see a review from you on the Oly 12-100 Pro f4 Thank you for your time and take care ❤
Has anyone compared quality of photographs made with this lens versus a full frame camera? There's an opinion that it's not that easy to tell, what sensor format (m4/3 or full frame) was used to take a picture, when latest m4/3 cameras (say, G9, GX9) and top optics have been combined.
It's going to be nigh impossible tell until you get to ISOs over 3200/6400 on normal viewing media. For prints it can matter buyt you'd see the difference only printing very large. Take a look here for a good rundown on printing with Micro Four Thirds - ruclips.net/video/qQ1rzSReQ1A/видео.html
MFT has always suffered from the too big, too expensive brigade. Some of us do not use MFT because of size and the system has always needed these lens choices as proved by the popularity of the Sigma alternative. I prefer this to the Sigma because it is wider and lighter.
As you rightly imply, the availability of a lens like this is important to some photographers. There's no argument against it, really because no-one forces anyone to buy it and there are plenty of cheaper, smaller alternatives.
I have used many Nikon long zooms, their 2000mm prime mirror (that _is_ big), a few Canon ones and have worked with 5x4 camera lenses. You don't need to tell me what big is! I try to inject a bit of humour in my reviews and most people get it - for those who don't, there are probably better reviewers than me.
@@DavidThorpeMFT I get the humour in the "body building" line. If you were complaining about an actually heavy lens it would be a funny way to say it's heavy. For a relatively lightweight lens, though, it's just misleading - and "I was joking" is not an excuse to be misleading.
Rent? Food? Who needs them? This is art! Seriously, I don't think the price will come down on this one because it is quite a specialist item. Good to have a dream, though!
It's always "dangerous" to my wallet everytime I watch David's video 😀.. I have no doubt this 10-25 Leica is a great lens.. A dream lens.. But how do you compare this lens to Oly 17/1,2 Pro?.. 17mm is exactly mid point between 10 and 25, literally half weight/size/price.. 17/1.2 has similar DoF as 25/1.7, and sharpness should be at the same level.. Which one to choose? (not both please 555) I have a tiny 15/1.7 but it's a bit wide and flat sometimes, 20/1.7 but it's a bit slow to focus, and 25/1.4 and it's a bit narrow so sometimes.. Thank you..
I can only apologise for the assault on your wallet, Kent :-) There's so much choice now in Micro Four Thirds lenses. It would be easier to dismiss a this lens if it was in any way only half-good.
Nicely reviewed David. It's big, it's heavy and it does the job especially for video. As the fans at Goodison Park used to sing about Peter Reid in the 1980's. "He's fat, he's round he's worth a million pound."
The football fans really have a way with words, especially the friendly (sometimes not so friendly) insult. I always loved the Millwall line that "no one likes us, we don't care".
![BRASIL vs. URUGUAY [1-1] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 12](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-hWBAuxF1eY/mqdefault.jpg)
Ohhh David, how much i miss your reviews......
I know you're watching David... Just bought mine!
"Heavy is good. Heavy is reliable. If it doesn't work you can always hit them with it." (c) Boris "the Blade".
Haha! Never thought of it as a weapon but on reflection another tick in the Pro rather than Con column 😱
"If it is too anything for you, you don't have to buy it." - I was thinking this for the whole video. I wish more people on the internet would get that. And not just about this lens, every product has its buyer, even if that's not you, so lots of people should just stop spreading hate and not buy the stuff that they don't like. You're not obligated to buy anything.
@@marcheathrow8930 I'm not sure complaining about a lens being big is so much an opinion when it's obvious this lens is bigger than your typical MFT lens. Anyone who is buying this lens knows that it's bigger and complaining that it's too big is having a problem with physics. It can't be made any smaller. This lens coming out doesn't change any pre-existing smaller compact lens either.
@@marcheathrow8930 no, I am not saying that you shouldn't voice your objective opinion and say if the lens is very big, bulky, heavy, if the autofocus is slow etc etc. You should say these things, especially if you're a reviewer. What most people here do, however, is that they express their subjective opinions even if they never intended to buy the lens in the first place. And it's not just about this lens, people do it all the time about all different kinds of things. They just want to spread hate on everything that disagrees with their personal opinion. If a product is not for you, why would you talk s..t about it, when there are people who the product is aimed at?
@@marcheathrow8930 I didn't say that you specifically said that. I guess you're putting words into my mouth. The OP and I were addressing the fact that people complain about size with this lens. I think it's good to compare it to other lenses for size, but to complain about size as a generalization without context is silly. Big compared to what? A 70-200mm F2.8 FF?? No it's not. It's definitely lighter too. The great thing is MFT has a choice to go smaller and lighter. Sure I can make it DSLR sized, but I can also make it much smaller and a DSLR can't shave anymore off. All I'm saying is if anyone is going to have any complaints then I don't think size should really be the one to complain about. This lens can't physically be made much smaller, so this lens isn't really marketed to the person who complains about size.
This lens is a phenominal lens for people like me who do both wedding photography and wedding video. I recently shot back to back weddings almost entirely with this lens on a Panasonic GH5. I shot a wedding video 100% with this lens, then did photography the next day for a second wedding, and I used this lens paired with the Panasonic 35-100mm 2.8. The low aperture of the lens, mixed with it's immensely useful zoom range made it a godsend for wedding work. I was able to get wide shots, and close ups super quick and painless. No lens switching. The close focus at 25mm meant I could use it for portraits, and then immediately back out to 10mm and get full body shots in the church. It's pricy, and will probably remain a rental lens for me for the time being, but I have been seriously considering just selling off my primes, and buying this guy!
People who have endless amounts of $$$ you mean??
@@no15minutecities I don't have endless amounts of money. If I get hired to shoot a wedding, I allocate a bit of the money I'm making towards rental gear. A simple 15-20% of your total revenue will rent you a few good lenses. That's why I said it will remain a rental lens for me for now. However, I also actively save some money from every job I do, and eventually use those savings to buy a new piece of gear. I realize that this isn't feasible for everyone, but if you're a working professional, and not a hobbyist, than this is generally what you are going to do.
As with any business there's a judgement to be made and when you use something a lot, there's a point at which it is cheaper to buy than rent. I can fully understand why this lens works so well for you in your business and quite likely you are the kind of photographer Panasonic had in mind when they decided to make this lens.
Thanks David! You keep nailing the perfect balance between information and entertainment. Keep it up 👍🏻
Thanks, Magnus.
Still loving your videos David.
This is the best review of Panasonic 10-25mm f1.7 so far. Great job !!!
Thanks!
Dear david! In my heart you are still around❤
I am not going to lie. This lens is the only one I bought without first watching DT's review. I would normally watch his review at least a couple times over a period of time to 1. Consider if I really need it and 2. Find out if the value for money is there and the pros and cons of the lens or gear. So number 1 I don't always think that through carefully. However, for number 2 I'm covered and solid because David clearly defines the facts, the case to buy or not to buy, the logic that one needs to discipline ourselves with and not emotion. Add in years of experience and you have a great resource. Did I need it? Well, could have gotten by without but using it pretty regularly. David's take on it, especially sharpness and comparing it to primes is dead on. No surprise there. I still don't get it that he has only 30K subscribers.
Thanks for the kind words! I'm sort of half amazed that I'e even got 30,000 but that's just me.
Laughing out loud here already, and only at the 2:45 mark. What a pleasure.
It's lovely to hear that, Kit, thank you.
@@DavidThorpeMFT there is little doubt more laughter is needed in the world today!
I'm a video guy and have the Sigma/Metabones combo. For what its worth, this lens does not replace that.
I think this lens will be more 'valuable' if they made a 25-50mm f1.7 and these 2 lens as a set would be the only 2 lens you really need for video. If they make this lens, I will strongly consider getting them as a 'set' and do away with my Sigma.
I'm no lens designer but I would think a 25-50mm f/1.7 would be easier to design and make than a wide zoom so maybe Panasonic will do that. Now you mention it, I can see how useful two native lenses like those would be. Might be worth putting it to Panasonic?
I completely agree with you Chris. I have the GH5/GH5s with sigma 18-35mm/Metabones speedbooster.
So they wound up making the 10-25 1.7 and the 25-50 1.7, just like you said... Thoughts ?!
@@TopshelfJunior I would love love love to have them, but unfortunately Covid ruined my business and I have no need for them now.
But if I were still at it, a great set for a lot of reasons, one being when doing interviews, you get the wide and the teli. See, when cutting 2 cameras, you want the same camera with the same 'Color Science' as with the same lens. This will save a ton of color grading.
As far as losing a bit of light, trivial and not something I'd worry about at all. If your shooting wide open and not exposing, no lens is supposed to fix that. That's what lights are for. And if you got good lights, even F2.8 is fast enough.
So even though the Sigma is good, these lens as a pair are better. I hope that helps. :)
@@chrisklugh As a photographer I find the 10-25 very useful but the 25-50 not near as useful because of the added weight, space taken up in a camera bag by both lenses AND having to switch lenses just for slightly more reach.
However I can totally see this being amazing for film making. Since more range is not really necessary for video.
Thank you for another thoughtful, thorough and clever review. This lens reminds of my experience with the Sigma 24-35 f/2, weighing over 33 ounces, bulky and absolutely wonderful in it’s function and build quality on my D750. I was loathe to attach it to my camera, anticipating a long day carting it around, but always thoroughly delighted with the experience of a very capable three primes in one lens that was luxurious to use. I am not much of a videographer so the this lens will not find my M4/3 camera bag but I can appreciate why someone would want to keep company with it.
A neat summation, Gary - thank you and for the kind remarks.
Finally getting this lens, just wish David was still with us....
"Circle of confusion" hah!
😀
Your reviews of m43 camera gear are the best on RUclips. I pined over the 10-25mm f/1.7 for the past 3-4 months, and finally bought it. It is better than I imagined, and absolutely the perfect addition to my kit. The only wide-angle lens it hasn't replaced is my beloved Sigma 30/1.4. The rest, I've sold.
Thanks Gordon. I think this is quite a niche lens at the price but for anyone who can make good use of it, it's worth every penny.
Ι guess there are a lot more guys producing high quality footage than we imagine. I think that the evolution of photographic cameras and lenses inevitably led to some great videography implementations at a far lower cost than we couldn't even imagine less than a decade ago.
It must be a mark of progress that soem things that come standard on cameras now would have cost you thousands a decade or two ago.
0:20 Yes David, if I ever get this fantastic lens. I will mount it on my GM1!
😮
I'd love to see a picture of that. Just make sure you're holding the lens and not the GM1. 😄
@@overnightdelivery LOL
@@DavidThorpeMFT We miss you!
Love from Sweden.
Sold mine to mpb several weeks ago. Still unsure I did the right thing. Problem was the weight and space. I didn't do a precise comparison, but would guess it's similar in heft to my Sony GMaster 16-35 2.8. But that, on a A7R3, takes better pictures. And the Sony body is smaller than my G9. Focal range is better on the Lumix, as is the aperture, and I loved the quality of the construction. But is it M43? It is similar in size to my Olympus 12-100 f4. That has really effective stabilisation, half second exposures easily attainable so you don't miss the f1.7, and of course it doubles as a telephoto. So after the initial novelty the 10-25 felt superfluous, a testament to my 'must have' incontinence. Back to the 8-18 now, and very happy with the quality. Not the best, but it possesses all the advantages of M43, and is good enough for A3 printing or 4k tv.
It's funny, Tony - you have the same general air of undecidedness about this lens as I do. The only way to truly know what you think is to watch your own behaviour, see whether you use it or not. Expensive, though!
Debate ended; lens acquired. Truly a stunning optic. Its performance at 25mm at 1.7 boggles. This is a zoom? Not a walk around lens, but it’s everything else. Thanks again for all your reviews.
You're welcome Tom. Enjoy the lens!
Great review - we miss you David
Love all the old guitars in this one
Eye candy as they say in the USA. I can't see one without wanting to pick it up.
Wow! Constant 1.7 and with smooth focus for video!
Yes, an excellent video lens.
Looks to be a nice lens, and good features. Especially if you need the 10mm end.
But for me the sweat spot is still the Olympus 12-40 pro.
Yes - the 12-40 for may photographers would be the only lens they'd need. The 10-25mm is less of an all rounder, far more specialised. The 12-40 is about the sharpest standard zoom I've ever tried.
Pretty much. I use it with the 25mm 1.8 and 75-300mm for travel/birding and haven't needed another one since. Though I admit the 12-100mm (which wasn't available when I bought it) is tempting.
I love my 12-40 but 2.8 does not give me the bokeh my 1.7 primes give me so the 10-25 is tempting to me
@@andersistbesser It'll certainly cut down the depth of field, though it doesn't have the zoom range to replace your 12-40mm. You'd miss that longer end for portaits I'd think.
David Thorpe i have my 42 , 1.7 lense. In my opinion this is the sharpest lense panasonic made. It is better than the also great 15 mm 1.7 and of course better than the not so sharp 25mm 1.7 i love the 42. i wish the 25 mm was that good. I guess i have to buy the olympus 1.2 pro lense to match this quality
Put this on a G9 or GH5 and you get MFT stability with full frame heft -- it's a small niche, but apparently it exists. I appreciate the more uncommon types of lenses, like this or the Olympus Pro 8mm fisheye. There's a time and place for them, and it's great to have native options rather than having to hope there's something in another system and speedboost it with subpar AF results.
I really see this as a wide-to-normal do-it-all, as well as a competitor to the Sigma 18-35 1.8 with speedbooster which is still a bit heavier (and bigger). For those using that lens, they won't mind the size of this one, and they'll likely appreciate the savings in size and usable AF rather than relegating it purely to a manual focus video setup.
For most everyday MFT use, or with smaller bodies, I think the Panasonic 12-35 and Olympus 12-40 fit better -- the Panasonic for small GX bodies, the Olympus for medium size ones like the E-M1 II or G90.
Agreed, Jenny. My main liking for this lens is that it covers all normal wide to standard situations as well as any other choices could do but all in one lens. With the penalty being size and, to some extent, price. As ever, there are no free lunches. It will be interesting to see if it sells well.
This is the lens I have been waiting for. A very very long time . Kind like science fiction, but if you live long enough optical design and consumer demand will get you it. 40 years ago some of the lens for 16 mm move camera are insanely amazing and showed it could full the focus area of. This 4/3 format . Time to sell the wife . Fine review
Thanks, David! I await a 7-300mm f/1.4 weighing less than 750gm and costing no more than £1250!
YES! I was hoping to see your take on this lens! Perfect for filmmaking. And it's a Leica.
Thansk you, Shaka.
I'd say it's a Panasonic designed by Leica, labeled with Leica and priced as Leica, but still a Panasonic 😊
@@frankwieczorek5112 I agree that a good chunk of the price is inflated because of the Leica name. But true Leica's are double or triple the price.
Been debating about this lens since Panasonic announced it last year. I think I’m finally ready. Great review.
Thanks Tom. It's not cheap and its not small (by Micro Four Thirds standards) so It's not a lens that everyone will want but if you do have uses for it, there's nothing about it that will disappoint. And nothing else in one package that will do what it does, either.
Hi Mr. Thorpe. I’ve been looking at your content for some time now. I finaly decided to subscribe to the channel, not just because of your commitment to the micro four thirds platform, but your well thouht out and orginized opinions and reviews. Thank you so much and keep up the good work.
Thanks, Jorge.
Another gem (of a review as well as a lens!) in video world this is a native version of the Sigma constant f1.8 that many videographers go for. How expensively enticing...
Thanks! Yes, expensively enticing. Also, as they used to say of Stella Artois in the UK ads, reassuringly expensive. Mind you, since I travelled a lot I knew that Stella wasn't particularly special to the Belgians and not particularly expensive either. Maybe somewhere that applies to this lens and it is quite reasonably priced 🤔
David Thorpe 🤔 indeed. I think it’s a fair price to pay (unlike Stella Artois!) and is pure gold dust where video’s concerned. Sadly it also signals that my GH4 has become obsolete without ibis.. sigh. First world problems..
That matches my thoughts. Fantastic lens, but goes against every single reason why I moved from Nikon FF to M4/3.
Yes, the size is the main factor against it. I guess if it could be made smaller, Panasonic would have done so.
An absolute banger of a lens!
🙂
You make the best videos for a Lumix user as myself. Thanks a lot and keep it up, bud.
Nice of you to say so - thanks!
Hey David, I recently bought a Sigma 30mm f1,4 on sale and I just have to thank you for the great review on the Sigmas! It was only 230€ which I think counts as a steal!
I love those Sigmas!
As always, rational, calm and balanced review with lots of detailed information. Thank you for your great work
Thanks very much, Marco.
Great, honest review as always. Thanks, Davo.
Thanks, Dylan
Thanks man.
The lens needed more for our mfts is 12-45 f 1.7.
That lens would be a killer!
Yes, that would be a pretty definitive standard zoom. I wonder if it will happen?
@@DavidThorpeMFT I'll wage you it will. Olympus, not PANASONIC.
@@ofmetalphilosophy4837 I wouldn't want to bet on it!
A 12-45/1.7 would be huge. I think the 10-25mm range is better for video. This lens is mostly designed because so many people are using the Sigma 18-35 with speedbooster. Panasonic want to sell more lenses to the video people. I'm using the 12-35 much more at 12mm than at 35mm when filming. I'm sure the 10-25 would fit perfectly to my needs. Unfortunately, it doesn't fit perfectly on my bicycle (not to mention the price). But it's still tempting.
@@Ulrich.Bierwisch it's for photography, not videography
Thanks for another great video David. I have been thinking about buying this lens for some time now. I could replace a series of lenses with this one. Nokton 10.5mm f0.95, Nokton 25mm, Sigma 30 ... No doubt I would save time with fewer lens changes during shooting. But I have to admit that the issue of portability is very important to me. I work a lot with GH5 and Nokton 10.5 (sometimes activating the tele ext.) And also Lumix 12-35mm (when I need IBIS) and got used to these sets. As a hobby I really like my GX80 + Leica 15mm or Oly 25 f1.8. The only really big mft lens I really like to use is the Leica 100-400 in my free time in the wild. Anyway this 10-25 lens is very attractive.
It's very attractive. I think that a set of primes has its attractions too. Very difficult decision.
This lens would only replace your Noktons if you're happy with shooting at f1.7 and the rendering of the Lumix lens. The Noktons particularly have an organic rendering that this zoom seems to lack, so if the Nokton visual character is important to you, the tradeoff for an all in one zoom might not be worth it.
@@raksh9 completely agree. I’m still with my Nokton set and love it!
David I'd like to thank you for your excellent reviews, they are really helpful! I also like your take of the number of choices we have with MFT and I think this 10-25mm fills a nice gap for people wanting a premium rugged standard-wide zoom. I don't fully understand people complaining about the size and price of the 10-25 when equivalent FF zooms (16-35 2.8 or 24-70 2.8's) are just as expensive (at least here in Australia) and typically slightly larger. You always have the option of the tiny Olympus 9-18mm 4-5.6 for travel which from I've been told is a superb lens, or the 8-18 2.8-4 Panasonic Leica which is half the cost/weight of the 10-25. Anyway, I'd like to wish you a prosperous 2020.
As you say, Terry, plenty of choice and the more the merrier. All the best for 2020 to you too!
My favorite lens reviewer! I was already planning to luchase this lens but you confirmed my decision!
I think you need to go for a pr
So I'm your excuse 😀
how has it been
Nice video!
If the lens came out a year or two ago, I might have kept my m43 equipment because I was longing for F2 weather sealed lenses. There were non at the time. So I left m43 😭
Thanks! It's expensive to change camera systems and especially so to then change back again. Hope you're happy with whatever you are using now. I bought in to Micro Four Thirds for specific reasons but in the modern market there are no bad cameras, so I could happily work with a Sony or Fuji or whatever if necessary. But Micro Four Thirds just has that blend of attributes that I like.
Yes nice lens...I may have to wait a bit. Looks nice in your new leather bag. Suit you sir!!
Thank you, sir!
Interesting lens, albeit niche use case given the cost. Btw *love* that Feathers McGraw figurine. Spent yrs watching W&G with my little ones.
Exactly, interesting but specialist. I came across Feathers McGraw in the same way as you and took to him as a character. Brilliant moment when he first sees Gromit and stops and glares at him though the open door..
Nice review! This is a lens I feel is aimed at pro video/event shooters using GH5 or GH5S. Pair with a second body with a 35-100 or 42.5/1.2 and a monopod and you’re set.
Thanks! Yes, not a lens necessarily for everyday use bit invaluable for those who can use its unique attributes.
As exclusive m43 user, shooting 50:50 photo:video and grativating more toward zoom, I am thinking to get this lens, or going to Canon FF route with RF 24-70/2.8..
Very similar in some ways. The loss of speed on the Canon lens is compensated by the 2 stop noise improvement from the FF sensor. The Canon is £250 more expensive but weight and sizes are not so different. The main thing in my mind would be the sheer loss of money when selling equipment to change systems. Plus the extra size of other FF lenses, especially the fast zooms.
Yours really is a personal decision - the only overall view I have is that you cannot buy a bad camera today, so whatever you decide cannot be a disaster, even if it was a mistake.
Good job David! Definitely one to watch for me. Been relying on the PL 12-60mm as my go-to for video & stills. My heart is set on a PL 15mm f/1.7 to complement my PL 42.5mm Nocticron for client tasks tho
Hi Ron - the 15mm would be an excellent addition.
Well done David - as always.
Thanks, Torsten!
This is lovely - I’m a big fan of the Panasonic made lenses and video lenses, so this is now on my buy list - An awesome review David 😎
Thanks! A great lens, especially for video.
I have seem a set of photographs done by this Leica DG... Bokeh was incredible for a wide-standard zoom at wide open. It would be strange to found out that the lens is not sharp on wide shooting. While i was shooting on film, i never used any lens wider than 35mm, simply because of barrel distortion. Once the photo was taken, you could only crop it to remove at least edges. That issue can be corrected nowadays, partially optically and later digitally.
Would i add the most expensive M43 lens to my arsenal? Probably not as I already own 12-40mm Olympus which is far wider i would usually need. I am not a videographer, also the size of this lens is probably a problem.
I own this lens, sigma 1835 with cheap speed booster, and Olympus 40150pro. This lens feels much lighter than sigma, and is much cheaper than full frame 1635 plus 2470, which it can replace. However I will not sell the sigma, because when boosted, it’s not sharp, imperfect, has unique characteristics, which I fell in love with. I do both video and stills with gh5, the sigma is too soft for stills, and autofocus is a pain (when doing video I use manual so it’s fine). This Pany lens really solves the problem.
When I know I will only shot video, it’s not raining, and I need a “Classic “ look, I will pick up sigma definitely.
I looked up the Sigma 18-35mm and the metabones 1.7 speed booster and the Sigma is 810 grams, the speed booster 300 g. 1110g for the set and 690g for the 10-25 Panasonic seems more like a feather in comparison.
Reverend Al Yeah, the sigma combo hurts my shoulder a lot!
You are my favorite review...bar none.
Music to my ears, Bill. Thank you!
I’m not sure if or how often you receive review units, but I would be interested to hear your take on the Olympus E-M5 Mark III.
I’m disappointed that, like with the E-M10 III, they’ve gone with polycarbonate top- and bottom-plates, but it also looks to have come with some meaningful improvements over the E-M5 II which make it a compelling product (particularly phase detect autofocus). However, given its price, I’m not sure how well it sits alongside adjacent products, like the E-M10 III, E-M1 II or even GH5.
If you ever get the chance to be sent one from Olympus, consider this my registration of interest to see your review.
Hi Jasper - I don't get anything from Olympus (or Panasonic), not even a reply if I email them. So I buy the equipment myself. I currently have an E-M5 III and am working with it. It takes me a while longer than most because I actually work with the camera and get to know it before I write a review. When Olympus or Panasonic lend stuff, you have a 2 week window, I'm told. So, watch this space, before Christmas, I hope. My preliminary take is favourable, very much so.
great review David as always it looks an amazing bit of kit and on the G9 the lens combo would be amazing but way out of my price range for the time being, maybe in a few years when hopefully the price falls
Thanks, Kurt. Yes, prices will drop and I see there are a few on S/H market already.
I guess I don't understand why people criticize any of the big lenses for m43rds. You don't have to buy it and there are already countless small lenses of every focal length available. Lenses like these are amazing for people that shoot Pictures AND Video. You can have a couple of lenses in your bag, instead of 6 small ones.
"You should just get Full Frame" argument is bogus because video options are poor on most Full frame cameras and image quality is only marginally better if you are shooting in bad lighting.
If you strictly shoot photographs and don't care about video at all or changing lenses all the time... then I get it. But I think it's great that you have all these options.
The basic point you make is that the existence of this lens doesn't mean that you have to buy it, given that there are so many cheaper and less exotic alternatives. I couldn't agree more. One of the reasons that Nikon cameras were so popular in film days is that their lens range covered everything, from 2000mm mirror lenses to rising front to dental lenses to what have you. Hardly anyone needed these lenses but if they did they were there (at a price, of course) and that's what made it a professional system. Micro Four Thirds is edging that way and I'm all for it, as you obviously are, Bob.
@@DavidThorpeMFT I'll say that I understand the concern that m43 will not go back to improving or making new small lenses and camera bodies. I would like to see new tiny 20mm primes with updated technology and a return of super tiny pocketable bodies. I just also love the G9 for it's versatility and do-anything abilities.
As always, a witty and informative review. Please keep up the good work!
I'll do my best! Thanks for the kind words.
With apologies for being totally off-topic, may I suggest that you make a video explaining your approach to the “Simplified” series of books you’ve written? Also, including a link to the series as part of the descriptive notes accompanying each video would work well in your behalf.
I bring this up because in wading through the menu structure and the manual for my new G9 I found the need for a better structured approach and more clear, understandable information. It was only after Googling about for tutorials and searching Amazon that I came across your book - despite being a subscriber to your channel.
Precisely what I need and it was there all the time - yet I was completely unaware of it. Please, do not hide this stuff. You can sell more books and help more people.
With the market for used cameras growing daily there’s a growing number of people who need what you’ve written...even if the cameras may be several years old. Your backlist of titles can be extremely helpful to them today.
No apology needed! You bring up some interesting points, Michael which I will address in the new year. It never occurred to me to make a video about the books but now you have I can see it as a very interesting idea. I was thinking it would look like rampant self-promotion but the reasoning behind the books and why I started them would be enjoyable to lay out. It will take me a little while but I'll start making notes right away - thanks for a very good idea.
Hi, David, long time, no see... Great video, as usual! And thanks for your hard work trying to help us all. I'm using a Sony a9 for wildlife photography these days, but still love my Pany GH5 for family photos and will probably never sell it! Would the Pany 10-25 work for 4k photo mode clips of my grand kids in motion, which is how I like to catch their candid and funny "decisive" moments? Or would I have to stop down the lens too much, thereby negating any reason to buy it? Any thoughts? Right now I'm still using my Pany 14-140 mm lens, 3.5 - 5.6, which is nice and sharp, but not great in low light. Just wondered if you're still loving the 10-25 lens as much as you did, and also wondered how it works for family pics, kids or adults. Thanks much for your input!! Linda from Texas.
Hi Linda, nice to hear from you again. I still like the 10-25 but I find my main use for it now is making my videos where the aperture and zoom range gives me good scope for making the product shots. I tend not to take it out much because of the size, unless I have a specific reason to do so. I think it could work well for you but I'm not sure the money spent would be justified given the restricted zoom range. Something like the Olympus 12-40 f/2.8 might be better?
Shooting at f/2 with children moving around as they do would be a big ask, as you say, but when you get a good shot it would sparkle. My big question is whether the zoom range is enough for your needs. Only you can know that but in principle I'd say it isn't.
@@DavidThorpeMFT Thank you for your thoughts, and I'll have to say I agree; I was worried about the limited focal range and also the concerns about aperture and movement. Have a great weekend. 👍🏻😊
Hi David, thanks for another nice review! My criticism of this lens and the Olympus pro-series primes is not merely that they are bulky, but that they are bulkier than they could be -- this lens has similar focal range, light-gathering power, and depth of field (at the maximum aperture) compared to some APS-C counterparts, e.g., the 20-40mm f/2.8-4 by Pentax, or the 18-35mm f/1.8 by Sigma. The Sigma is almost 2x larger in physical aperture while maintaining a similar size and focal range. Fairer comparison can be made between the Olympus 17mm f/1.2 and the Canon RF mount 35mm f/1.8 -- how come the Olympus is ~1.8x smaller in physical aperture and significantly heavier and bulkier!? While I own these lenses, I am truly disappointed by m43. My scenario is that m43 companies are being lazy in optical designs, and resort a lot to trivially larger image circles than the sensor to achieve corner-to-corner sharpness.
Larger aperture lenses are basically always going to be bigger, no matter the system. F1.2 lenses in particular are very hard to make if the optical quality needs to be kept up to a high standard.
I'm not that up on lens design so I just accept that they are what they need to be. Luckily there are other, often tiny lenses available so we're not short of choice. Are lens designers lazy - I have no idea. Enlighten me, anyone?
@@DavidThorpeMFT - I am not a lens designer by any stretch of the imagination, but many factors undoubtedly go into the effort. One of those factors would be the cost of engineering.
I've got to believe that the the 10-25 is as compact as funds would allow. I would hardly call it a lazy effort. It's already an exotic masterpiece.
Yea, I want one.
🙂
You said what I've been saying for years: If you think lenses like this are too big for the MTF system, no one's forcing you to buy it, so why is it a problem?
And these people completely miss the point that it doesn't stop you replacing it with a smaller lens two minutes later, it's like they don't understand the concept of an "interchangeable" lens system...
🙂
Proper niche, coming over from a couple of night time shooting videos, and having sun up at 0901 and sun down at 1511 hours, leaving 6 hours and 10 minutes, with at best bleak daylight, there may be a suitable niche for it up here in the Northern parts of the world. It is a large one though.
I was in Oslo one Christmas and it occurred to me how necessary fast lenses were in northern climes. On the other hand all you Scandinavians are big, tough, hardy outdoor folk so the size shouldn't be a problem for you 😀
@@DavidThorpeMFT, well I am 6`8" and like the outdoors... :O
@@JensMHA In that case, pro rata, with me at 5'7" the 10-25mm for you is equivalent size and mass to the 12-40mm Olympus for me 😀
Excellent summarisation! 🙏🏾
Thanks, Eugene, glad you liked it.
Olympus invented the pull back manual clutch? Because I also see Fujifilm and others with a similar feature
I didn't mean to imply - or say - that Olympus invented it, I have no idea. Simply that among Micro Four Thirds lenses it was only implemented by Olympus up until this lens.
Like the 42.5/1.2 Nocticron all over again?
Love/ hate...I know!
Fantastic video. Does the aperture ring work on an Oly body?
No.
Thanks @@yangsiyuan4. Not surprising, but a shame non the less.
This lens was announced at the same time as the full frames (S1/S1R) as reassurance to M43 users, I think. Naturally, it won't be an average lens
I agree, if there was no commitment to Micro Four Thirds why bother to produce this lens.
The zoom range and max aperture is unique. But if you can live with 24mm (equivalent) at the wide end, and a stop slower at the long end, the lens on the Panasonic LX100 II is lighter, cheaper and comes with a free camera body :-)
Some comparisons make you scratch your head, don't they? I needed a tiny to mend an electric clock recently - cheaper to buy the whole thing than the part!
For me, this is the lens worth getting into micro four thirds for! Unfortunately, it is still a bit big.
How much practical difference is there between f1.4 and f1.7 indoors? Can we say it can replace the PL f1.4s with complete confidence?
Also, How significant is the 2mm difference at the wide end between the 10-25 and the 8-18? Trying to decide trade off between low light and wider. I have only budget for one of these at the moment and need to be using them equally indoors (video) as well as for landscapes (photos) on the G9. Might be worth mentioning I got the PL 15 for indoors. The light is good but I find the fixed focal length a bit limiting for video work.
I've just done a practical test (at ISO200) with the camera on a tripod. In a situation where the PL gives 1/125th @ f/1.4, the zoom gives 1/80th at f/1.7. For stills, a trivial difference - a difference nonetheless - but one most could live with for the extra versatility.
The 8-18mm or the 10-25mm, that's hard. 8mm is a bit wide for video I find, tending to look unnatural so I'd go for the 10-25. Personally, I find 10mm amply wide for landscapes and prefer 25-50mm ish lengths since there is more to landscape than just getting a lot in frame. I'd put it like this - the 8-18mm is a wonderful general purpose, mainly stills lens. The 10-25 is more specialised, especially good for video but overall sounds the best for you if you don't mind the size. You could sell the 15mm and buy the bargain price - but superb performance - Olympus 45mm f/18. That'd give you a very capable all round outfit. And - in my personal view - the 45mm is a lovely lens for landscape, giving a very natural perspective.
How are you liking it still? The size and weight scare me, but it’s not too bad.
I'm glad you asked me that because it has made me think sort out what I really think about this lens. I find I don't take it out with me because it's too big and the 8-18mm is so much smaller and more versatile. I really like it for video shooting of products for my channel here but it's a luxury. It's a bit like they said of the laser beam when it came out, it's a solution in search of a problem.
David Thorpe much thanks David, I have that same feeling with my large lenses
Amazing Lens, and I‘m considering to sell another lenses to buy this one. But how difficult it is to sell lenses that have always been excellent. In my case I would sell 1 Nokton 10.5 and a 25 f0.95, I would sell the Lumix 12-35 f2.8 and Sigma 30mm f1.4. I would exchange several excellent lenses, special and compact, for a single lens, giant for the mft standards !! I would exchange the comfort of the reduced size for the comfort of not having to change lenses. Another lens that is on my radar is the Olympus 12-100 f4, which is also large, and which would replace the 12-35 / 35-100 f2.8 and 14-140! always commitments! David, what do you think about the Olympus 12-100 f4?
There's always a compromise for a wide range zoom and 12-100, while a good lens I'm certain , I doubt will be up the standard of the 12-35/ 35-100 combo as well as a stop slower. The 14-140 I wouldn't sell under any circumstances! The 10-25mm, think long and hard about it. Mine gets little use because it is bulky and heavy on my video sliders and most of what it does I can do on my 25mm f/1.4 in combination with the 8-18 Panasonic. Yes, you lose speed but the bulk of the bog zoom really is a bit off-putting. It's a lens you really have to need rather than want!
David Thorpe Thank you David! Good to hear your opinion! I tend to be very slow when it comes to selling the equipment I have, especially lenses. The 14-140ii is really special, compact, versatile, lightweight, OIS, weather-sealed and with the same diameter as the 12-35 and 35-100. My Nokton are also precious! :) It seems better to stay with the lenses I already have. Each lens with its virtues for the right moment. The sets I use most at the moment: GH4 for wildlife (my em-1 iii has not arrived yet) + Leica 100-400 or Lumix 14-140; GH5 for video work + 12-35 f2.8 or Nokton 10.5; GX80 for compact + Leica 15 or Oly 25 or Oly 12-50.
Maybe if it had internal zoom so it was gimbal-friendly. How much does the balance shift during zoom?
It's a small amount, BJ, 15mm. Not enough to upset the balance on a G9 or GH5 though possibly on a GM1. I'd certainly prefer no tromboning but as far as I know there is no standard zoom that has fully internal zooming.
Thank you for another excellent video!
Thank you!
I have a question about the MF ring. When you pull it down, do the electronics stop working? Does it become a true manual focus ring?
Yes, it does.
I had to watch this video again... Not only am I looking forward to your next video, but this lens is m.u.c.h. w.a.n.t.e.d!!!
Thanks, Ricardo. The video, I'm working on a round up of last year's stuff. The lens, afraid I can't help Ricardo 🙁
David Thorpe Actually, you help by inspiring me to work harder to get the lens! 😉
I look forward to the video! Last year was a great one 👍
I don’t suppose I’ll find one of these under my Christmas tree. A lump of coal more likely.
Dear Santa, I’ll be better next year! I promise.
All the best to you on this holiday, David. Thank you for a great year!
Happy New Year!
All the best to you for Christmas and the New Year too - and to all the lovely people who keep my videos going.
You nailed it.
As usual.
Thanks, Harald!
Love the idea, but get an S5 and the kit lens, bump the ISO up and even at f5.6 it's comparable.
Yes, more than one way to skin a cat. But, more choices is better than fewer. In theory at least :-)
David, I have been gifted a G80 for Xmas, a request based mainly on watching your hypnotic reviews. As a novice with exchangeable lenses I am hoping for a little advice. I have the perfectly fine 12-60 kit lens. It is ok, but lacks the low light capability for general family photography, at least in the current winter month. I picked up a cheap 25mm f/1.7 that was great for indoor snaps over the Holidays but now I want to plan longer term Lenses. I am planning on picking up, one at a time in order the 12-35mm f/2.8, 35-100mm f/2.8, adding the 42.5mm F/1.2 and possibly the 100-300mm. For general mixed hobbyist use, both still and moving does this seem like a reasonable approach? I would look to stick with the M4/3 beyond the G80 life so looking to acquire a small lens set that will cover me for the foreseeable future. Many thanks for the great content.
Thanks for the kind comments. I'd say your plan for lenses is ideal. They are all compact and excellent performers and won't date. You might want to add a 15 or 17mm prime f/1.7 for 1.8 at some point for a speedy wide-angle but it'd be a nicety, not a necessity.
@@DavidThorpeMFT Thank you for taking the time to respond, Its a fair investment and feels better getting a sanity check.
Very nice lence indeed, I just dont see how an f1.7 zoom can really replace f1.2 or even f1.4 primes on mft cameras where shallow dof is so hard to achieve.
If shallow depth of field is your main criterion, then no, it won't replace them though the difference is quite small. On the speed, it is a moot point. If I take an Olympus 12-40 and this lens, both on 25mm with the same subject, ISO and camera, the Olympus requires a 20% slower shutter speed for what it deems correct exposure. There's a case for T stops for still lenses, I think.
Great video and commentary
Thanks, Elio.
I would love this lens..
Christmas is coming, Anthony. If you are a good photographer...well you never know 😉
hi, I saw your 80-150 and 10-25..is this set uo good for wedding? only 2 lenses?
The 10-26 would be great for the interiors and the 40-150 for the off the cuff stuff. I don't think you'd need more, though I'm not an expert in that field.
Nicely done ! Thx.
Thank you, ter.
Great review David, thanks; the lens, not so much.
Glad you liked the review. What I really want is this lens exactly as is except the size of the 12-35 /2.8 Panasonic!
Excellent review! As mentioned here already, we especially loved the "If it's too anything for you, you don't have to buy it." Perfect!
I rented this lens a month ago and thought it was absolutely fantastic. My briefest summary for this is: If you need a top lens for use in that range, this is it. I also desperately want it as I shoot in churches much of the time and flash photography is usually not allowed. I can make f/2.8 work but f/1.7 is a godsend.
But it's not meant for everything. I think it's a bit over-kill for things like street photography. My Nocticron got a lot of slack for being a big lens. This 10-25mm make it look tiny in comparison. So it's not discreet. But it's surprisingly light so you won't get tired too quickly carrying it. The image rendering isn't quite as nice as my Nocticron. But it's extremely close to it.
Paired with the 50-200mm f/2.8-4, the two-lens combo can pretty much do anything you'd want a camera to do. Add a Nocticron, which I consider one of the ultimate portrait lenses, and you might be set for the next 5 - 10 years for any kind of photography.... And be able to fit it all in a medium-sized camera bag....
Fantastic work Panasonic!
Yes, it's quite a lens. It's great that with what is now a mature system, Panasonic continue to fill in the niches. For the photography in church that you mention, this lens and the electronic silent shutter are answers to a prayer. Not for everything and not for everyone, as you say but combined with the 50-200, amazing!
This lens or Zuiko Pro 7-14mm F/2.8, or Leica 12mm F/1.4 ?
They are all so different, Romain. You'd really need to decide what you wanted to do with the lens and then choose. Especially at the prices that lineup is :-)
I would consider it for handheld video shooting but wo stabilization I keep my 12-35 f/2.8 even has horrible barrel distortion
I'd prefer it had stabilisation, especially at the price. It's not crucial in that the wider aperture means you can use higher shutter speeds but even so, stabilization extends that use.
Any plans for reviewing the Olympus 12-100mm f/4 pro?
I hadn't but I'd like to.
@@DavidThorpeMFT please do. It's my all-time favorite lens that almost lives on my GH5S.
I have many of the popular glass but truly find myself with the Oly 12-100 Pro f4 mounted to my GH5S almost always. The range, sharpnes, ois, clutch focus, parfocal like, AF and smoothest zoom ring make it a killer lens for video.
Many have the panny 12-35 and 35-100, I have (but since sold the 35-100). They are f2.8 I understand but with enough light and or taking advantage of the dual iso of the GH5S, make it a mute point. I also own the PL 12-60 2.8-4 but zoom is not as smooth and you can get more compression bokeh with longer throw of the 12-100.
I think (as many others) that you David are the premiere lens reviewer so I would love to see a review from you on the Oly 12-100 Pro f4
Thank you for your time and take care ❤
Has anyone compared quality of photographs made with this lens versus a full frame camera? There's an opinion that it's not that easy to tell, what sensor format (m4/3 or full frame) was used to take a picture, when latest m4/3 cameras (say, G9, GX9) and top optics have been combined.
It's going to be nigh impossible tell until you get to ISOs over 3200/6400 on normal viewing media. For prints it can matter buyt you'd see the difference only printing very large. Take a look here for a good rundown on printing with Micro Four Thirds - ruclips.net/video/qQ1rzSReQ1A/видео.html
@@DavidThorpeMFT David, thank you very much for the reply and the useful video link!
Someday MFT system will have TS- lens . TS-MACRO lens will be ideal for MFT SYSTEM. Close focus, less shallow depth.
MFT has always suffered from the too big, too expensive brigade. Some of us do not use MFT because of size and the system has always needed these lens choices as proved by the popularity of the Sigma alternative. I prefer this to the Sigma because it is wider and lighter.
As you rightly imply, the availability of a lens like this is important to some photographers. There's no argument against it, really because no-one forces anyone to buy it and there are plenty of cheaper, smaller alternatives.
Some lenses, focal ranges, have appeal for some users. This one strikes me that way; ouch! It would be a workflow log on my Pen-f! Lol!
That's nothing - try it on a GM1 :-)
Α "body building course for taking it out shooting"? It's a mere 1.5 pounds for 20-50 mm equiv at f/1.7... Ever used other zoom lenses?
I have used many Nikon long zooms, their 2000mm prime mirror (that _is_ big), a few Canon ones and have worked with 5x4 camera lenses. You don't need to tell me what big is! I try to inject a bit of humour in my reviews and most people get it - for those who don't, there are probably better reviewers than me.
@@DavidThorpeMFT I get the humour in the "body building" line. If you were complaining about an actually heavy lens it would be a funny way to say it's heavy. For a relatively lightweight lens, though, it's just misleading - and "I was joking" is not an excuse to be misleading.
It does look a little ridiculous, but I can see how it would make sense on a GH5s for an indie film shooter.
Absolutely. As I say in the video, not for everyone. But yes, a great all in one for a video shooter.
I miss David
Great review and looks like a great lens. Not for me as I prefer small primes.
knowing what you want is the best way to make decisions in lens buying. This lens is great for some but beyond pointless for others.
I don't know how I missed this one, until today. Now if only my pension check would cover this one and I could eat and pay rent too. Alas.
Rent? Food? Who needs them? This is art! Seriously, I don't think the price will come down on this one because it is quite a specialist item. Good to have a dream, though!
It's always "dangerous" to my wallet everytime I watch David's video 😀.. I have no doubt this 10-25 Leica is a great lens.. A dream lens..
But how do you compare this lens to Oly 17/1,2 Pro?.. 17mm is exactly mid point between 10 and 25, literally half weight/size/price.. 17/1.2 has similar DoF as 25/1.7, and sharpness should be at the same level.. Which one to choose? (not both please 555)
I have a tiny 15/1.7 but it's a bit wide and flat sometimes, 20/1.7 but it's a bit slow to focus, and 25/1.4 and it's a bit narrow so sometimes.. Thank you..
I can only apologise for the assault on your wallet, Kent :-) There's so much choice now in Micro Four Thirds lenses. It would be easier to dismiss a this lens if it was in any way only half-good.
Nicely reviewed David. It's big, it's heavy and it does the job especially for video.
As the fans at Goodison Park used to sing about Peter Reid in the 1980's.
"He's fat, he's round he's worth a million pound."
The football fans really have a way with words, especially the friendly (sometimes not so friendly) insult. I always loved the Millwall line that "no one likes us, we don't care".
@@DavidThorpeMFT As a Hammers fan The Den was a place to avoid.
@@peterlemke3468 I'll say! My son in law is a big Hammers fan.