@johnbrawley - yeah my comments were more directed towards the idea they're destructive in nature - Kholi referenced Peter saying this but i don't believe that's quite what he meant. I mean the second you change the image in ANY way in Resolve and render it out, it's 'destructive'. Use a LUT or a basic curve, there's still math involved to generate new pixels. :-)

Night shots from Hong Kong, shot using RAW:

Graded in Resolve Lite. Lumix 2-35mm f2.8 lens.

Moire is first two scenes.

Thanks @vicharris not the best representation of the camera's ability but we're slowly transitioning into shooting log and raw. that ad was just a load of b-roll, we've got some traditional commercial shoots coming up with the pocket alongside the 2.5k, should be fun and i look forward to posting the results!

After watching many videos of the 12-35mm on the pocket cam, I have concluded that I just don't like the look for film work. It's just too clinical, cold and videoish looking. Even on shallow dof shots with an ND filter it still doesn't cut it for me and that's a shame because the pocket cam needs a good zoom with stabilization. I actually prefer the look of my 14-140mm over it. I'm waiting for the pocket cam speed booster to team up with my AIS primes and will probably get the 18-35mm, but I sure hope someone comes out with some descent lenses with stabilization soon because I really want to use this cam hand held and right now my hand held footage is looking like it was shot by Barney Fife.

I think the 12-35 is pretty much perfect (image wise) for shooting in log or raw (if you don't need super shallow depth of field or aren't doing very low-light shooting). It's very sharp which is very important for this camera as there is no in camera sharpening. If it's too sharp you can blur a bit in post which is preferable to trying to sharpen in post. Also the I.S. is a life saver for handheld (especially without a rig), and the focal range is pretty much all you need (35-105 eq). Color and contrast are great, but in log or raw, not so important as these things aren't baked in. If a "video look" is produced it's entirely on the editor. Obviously the lack of manual aperture and electronic focus are downsides, but overall an amazing lens.

You are simply not seeing the look of the lens. You are seeing an interpretation of what the lens saw. No one is saying the lens (or the shooter) do not matter. What is being said is you have no evidence on the look of the lens, as there are too many important factors that vary. None of us care whether you get this lens; what we are responding to is your belief that the posted videos tell you much about the lens.

This is what you said: "After watching many videos of the 12-35mm on the pocket cam, I have concluded that I just don't like the look for film work." That statement is what is "ludicrous." If you had other evidence, fine, for whatever look you think you want.

What he's saying perfectly valid. It's why Panavision lenses from the '70s are better than Primos for a lot of DPs. There's nothing you can do to these modern zooms, no way you can shoot with them, that will give them the feel of something like a Helios 44. That said, there aren't any vintage zooms that are as good and fast (and good when fast). Try and find primes that wide that are as good wide open.

Another BMPCC RAW example, Lumix14-35mm lens

Sorry it's not fuzzy, and the colors are more realistic than "filmic." :)

@BurnetRhoades exactly my point, thank you. That's why I use Nikon primes on the GH and now on the pocket cam with the pc speed booster (when it's back in stock). @markr041 "good" is not what I want, I want "great" and "cinematic". No need to get sarcastic because I'm simply addressing the characteristics of a lens, but perhaps you just don't get what "cinematic" means. By the way, I don't prefer to use the 14-140mm, but sometimes for achieving a more film look (hand held), especially emulating super 16 ( of course with the right grade), I would use it over the 12-35mm. Beyond that If I were to use any of the Lumix lenses for a film project on the pocket I would use primes. What I want is something like the Sigma 18-35mm + speed booster + OIS, obviously dreaming for the moment. In the meantime I'll be content with shooting with my Nikon primes + speed booster and shoot with a shoulder rig or steady cam. If I need a great lens for shooting video projects or reality shows I wouldn't hesitate to get the 12-35mm, but for cinema it's not my choice. Also, I'm not bashing anyones work here, I simply don't care for this lens for cinema style and yes, I can see the characteristics of this lens in these videos regardless of the grades.

I've found Lumix 12-35mm 2.8 extremely useful for run n' gun stuff, when I'm not desperately looking after "the look". Its OIS is very good and it's a sharp lens.
For narrative stuff and controlled shots, I use my SLR Magic glass mostly.

PS: I think I will be sending my BMPCC for RMA since it has the infamous hot pixel. Not only the galaxy of moving spots under low light conditions (that's underexposure, I understand that), but a fixed white spot very visible on the footage even in well lit scenes / broad daylight :(

@trumpetman I've always thought this is video is a pretty great example of what this lens is capable of - and this is shot on a GH3

While it's true that every lens has certain characteristics, I really feel like their role - beyond DOF, perspective, flaring, etc - in the "look" of a project is a bit overstated. Not that the choice of lens has no impact, but that your camera settings, lighting, composition, and grading has more to do with whether an image has a "video" or "film" look than what lens it was shot with.

I am quite confident that if you shot/edited something on the BMPCC (raw or log mode) with 12-35, and then shot/edited it again the same way using cinema primes, you (and the rest of us pixel-peepers) would be the only one who noticed the difference. I am not meaning to say there IS NO difference between the quality of these lenses, but that by and large, the difference is not significant or detectable to the average person (i.e. your audience).

You are entitled to prefer one lens over another for any reason you like, and certainly many lenses have distinct characteristics that the 12-35 simply can not reproduce, but I think it's misguided to deem any lens unusable for a "cinematic" look. For a very particular look, sure. But for a cinematic look, that's the DP/operator's job, not the lens'.

@kholi +over 9000