Lumix “wide to tele zoom” on roadmap

[pdk42]

The latest Panasonic lens roadmap shows a planned new zoom in the 24-200 range.



I’m really hoping this is a high quality optic that performs well, rather than a cheapo ”consumer superzoom“ with iffy IQ. I guess only time will tell, but for me, I’d be happy with something like this:

- 24-200 range. I could live with 28-200, or even 24-175.
- Reasonably compact - say like the Nikon 24-200.
- Variable aperture f4-f6.3. I’d prefer a smaller max aperture to a larger & heavier lens.
- OIS (synced with the IBIS of course).
- Really excellent IQ.
- Price under £/$/€ 1200 - but if it performs I’d be happy with a little more - say up to 1500.

What are other people’s thoughts?

 

[Richard Wong]

This is the roadmap that was updated when the S5II was announced.
My understanding is that the 28-200 range (and anything you see on the roadmap in general) is just tentative so it could be anything around that range.
I also want a wider wide end. 24mm would be great. 20mm would be amazing (but probably just a dream)
I also don't mind it's smaller aperture if it means a smaller size as the full frame sensor's high ISO is so high and good IBIS so can get away with a slightly slower aperture.
But I don't need super high quality optics. I mean of course i want high quality optics, but realistically there is a price we have to pay for.. apart from the actual price, the size/weight would also increase. So personally I'm ok if it's image quality is similar to 20-60/70-300.

 

[pdk42]

This is the roadmap that was updated when the S5II was announced.
My understanding is that the 28-200 range (and anything you see on the roadmap in general) is just tentative so it could be anything around that range.
I also want a wider wide end. 24mm would be great. 20mm would be amazing (but probably just a dream)
I also don't mind it's smaller aperture if it means a smaller size as the full frame sensor's high ISO is so high and good IBIS so can get away with a slightly slower aperture.
But I don't need super high quality optics. I mean of course i want high quality optics, but realistically there is a price we have to pay for.. apart from the actual price, the size/weight would also increase. So personally I'm ok if it's image quality is similar to 20-60/70-300.

If it’s as good as the 20-60 then I’ll be happy!

 

[Pete_W]

I've never owned a superzoom, so I am uncertain as to whether I would want it or not. I guess I have all the focal range I need now and probably wouldn't be keen to dispose of other lenses in favour of this one.

 

[pdk42]

I've never owned a superzoom, so I am uncertain as to whether I would want it or not. I guess I have all the focal range I need now and probably wouldn't be keen to dispose of other lenses in favour of this one.

They don’t in general have a good reputation. They have traditionally been targeted as cheap one-lens solutions for people who don’t really care too much about IQ. So, they generally favour range and size over optical performance. For that reason I shied away from them for a long time. It was only the Olympus 12-100 that changed my mind. It really has no compromises to image quality yet it delivers on range. Other m43 superzooms (14-140 variants, 12-200 etc) don’t deliver. In FF land, the Nikon 24-200 is a disappointment, as is the Sony 24-240. But the Tamron 28-200 looks pretty good (but no OIS) so I’m not giving up on a FF super zoom that delivers.

 

[Lsake]

Was a big fan of the 14-140mm Lumix G lens. But it was eq to 28-280mm and probably smaller and lighter than the S 20-60mm. It’s not going to be physically possible to build that for FF and have it weighing less than 300g. Still I am interested to see what they come up with.

 

[Jan.Wedekind]

Was a big fan of the 14-140mm Lumix G lens. But it was eq to 28-280mm and probably smaller and lighter than the S 20-60mm. It’s not going to be physically possible to build that for FF and have it weighing less than 300g. Still I am interested to see what they come up with.

Same

 

[pdk42]

I’ll be ok with a lens up to about 180mm long (when collapsed) and up to about 800g. Maybe even a tad more if the range and IQ warranted it.

 

[CharlesH]

My approach is different. If I want range I shoot M43 where the telephoto lenses are not so large. With L mount I like the 24-105 as a maximum. I have the 70-200 with a 1.4x extender but rarely use it anymore.

 

[pdk42]

My approach is different. If I want range I shoot M43 where the telephoto lenses are not so large. With L mount I like the 24-105 as a maximum. I have the 70-200 with a 1.4x extender but rarely use it anymore.

I din’t really want anything very long. 200mm is all I ask for (as the actress said to the bishop!).

 

[Pete_W]

They don’t in general have a good reputation. They have traditionally been targeted as cheap one-lens solutions for people who don’t really care too much about IQ. So, they generally favour range and size over optical performance. For that reason I shied away from them for a long time. It was only the Olympus 12-100 that changed my mind. It really has no compromises to image quality yet it delivers on range. Other m43 superzooms (14-140 variants, 12-200 etc) don’t deliver. In FF land, the Nikon 24-200 is a disappointment, as is the Sony 24-240. But the Tamron 28-200 looks pretty good (but no OIS) so I’m not giving up on a FF super zoom that delivers.

Panasonic has done a pretty good job with its current range of variable aperture zooms so I guess there is a good chance this superzoom will be similar. It will be interesting to see how big it is and how much it weighs.

 

[inspiredtimothy]

They don’t in general have a good reputation. They have traditionally been targeted as cheap one-lens solutions for people who don’t really care too much about IQ. So, they generally favour range and size over optical performance. For that reason I shied away from them for a long time. It was only the Olympus 12-100 that changed my mind. It really has no compromises to image quality yet it delivers on range. Other m43 superzooms (14-140 variants, 12-200 etc) don’t deliver. In FF land, the Nikon 24-200 is a disappointment, as is the Sony 24-240. But the Tamron 28-200 looks pretty good (but no OIS) so I’m not giving up on a FF super zoom that delivers.

Honestly when I saw the 28-200 range, my assumption was that it's another Tamron rebadge like they are doing with Nikon. Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

If they do go this route I hope they add OIS and good weather sealing at least to make it more worth a price hike which I'm sure will come with it.

 

[MattGeo399]

The latest Panasonic lens roadmap shows a planned new zoom in the 24-200 range.

View attachment 254

I’m really hoping this is a high quality optic that performs well, rather than a cheapo ”consumer superzoom“ with iffy IQ. I guess only time will tell, but for me, I’d be happy with something like this:

- 24-200 range. I could live with 28-200, or even 24-175.
- Reasonably compact - say like the Nikon 24-200.
- Variable aperture f4-f6.3. I’d prefer a smaller max aperture to a larger & heavier lens.
- OIS (synced with the IBIS of course).
- Really excellent IQ.
- Price under £/$/€ 1200 - but if it performs I’d be happy with a little more - say up to 1500.

What are other people’s thoughts?

I like your wish list. Only thing I would add is 0.5x macro ability like a few of the lumix zooms already. I will be very tempted if that's the case.

 

[Michael_too]

I think the main design goal of the S lenses was versatility. Excellent minimal focusing distance, suitable for both videography and photography. Very decent macro capabilities etc. They offer very good results in many different use-cases but for anyone who specializes in a particular use-case (landscape, astro etc.) there are better lenses out there. A 28-150mm lens would fit well within such a design philosophy, especially for those who find 60mm a bit too short for a "never change lenses" scenario and don't need the super wide range. Given my experience with the S lenses so far I'm inclined to think they can deliver a lens that has good optical quality across the focal/aperture range for a 24Mp sensor, and likewise on a 50Mp sensor when using the lens's sweet spot.
I won't be getting one given the overlap with what I already have and the cut at 70mm works well for me. I rarely need to cross that point unexpectedly.

 

[pdk42]

I think the main design goal of the S lenses was versatility. Excellent minimal focusing distance, suitable for both videography and photography. Very decent macro capabilities etc. They offer very good results in many different use-cases but for anyone who specializes in a particular use-case (landscape, astro etc.) there are better lenses out there. A 28-150mm lens would fit well within such a design philosophy, especially for those who find 60mm a bit too short for a "never change lenses" scenario and don't need the super wide range. Given my experience with the S lenses so far I'm inclined to think they can deliver a lens that has good optical quality across the focal/aperture range for a 24Mp sensor, and likewise on a 50Mp sensor when using the lens's sweet spot.
I won't be getting one given the overlap with what I already have and the cut at 70mm works well for me. I rarely need to cross that point unexpectedly.

Interestingly, it is often thought that a higher Mp sensor needs a better lens, but that’s not exactly the case. Sure, to get the most out of a higher Mp sensor then a high end lens is what you need. But you’ll improve the output resolution (”detail”) from an average lens by putting it onto a higher res sensor.

A simple way to think about this is to consider a simplistic MTF for both lens and sensor - let’s call them “x“, and “y“. Both will be numbers < 1 (a “perfect” lens would have an MTF of 1, and similarly for a perfect sensor). The final image resolution will be x * y. So if we have a half-decent lens with, say, an “x” of 0.7 and we put it onto a sensor with a “y“ of 0.7 we’ll get a final resolution of 0.49. Put the same lens on a sensor of 0.9 and you’ll get a final resolution of 0.63.

 

[Michael_too]

Interestingly, it is often thought that a higher Mp sensor needs a better lens, but that’s not exactly the case. Sure, to get the most out of a higher Mp sensor then a high end lens is what you need. But you’ll improve the output resolution (”detail”) from an average lens by putting it onto a higher res sensor.

A simple way to think about this is to consider a simplistic MTF for both lens and sensor - let’s call them “x“, and “y“. Both will be numbers < 1 (a “perfect” lens would have an MTF of 1, and similarly for a perfect sensor). The final image resolution will be x * y. So if we have a half-decent lens with, say, an “x” of 0.7 and we put it onto a sensor with a “y“ of 0.7 we’ll get a final resolution of 0.49. Put the same lens on a sensor of 0.9 and you’ll get a final resolution of 0.63.

True. Putting a higher res sensor behind a good lens will give better results overall than when using a lower res sensor, it is just that the variation in sharpness as you vary the aperture of a lens becomes much more pronounced on a high res sensor then on a lower res sensor. Or at least that is what I noticed when testing some of my lenses and did so in both the normal mode and the high-res mode. Assuming you got the high-res sensor because you actually want to see all that resolution due to cropping or printing for close-up viewing, you might be a bit disappointed when you notice that a lens will only give you it's best well beyond its widest aperture.
One other thing I learned, and which is actually a not often heard argument in favor of high-res sensors is that with the S5 when using a lens in it's sweet spot, there is a good chance of ending up with false-color or moiré as the lens out-resolves the sensor and the camera has no AA filter. As much as I love the camera, that is one thing I do not like about it. It usually goes unnoticed when taking the picture and is hard to fix afterwards. Shooting wide open or into diffraction territory "fixes" it but that's not how I want to use my aperture. Besides I usually only notice when I come home anyway .

 

[pdk42]

True. Putting a higher res sensor behind a good lens will give better results overall than when using a lower res sensor, it is just that the variation in sharpness as you vary the aperture of a lens becomes much more pronounced on a high res sensor then on a lower res sensor. Or at least that is what I noticed when testing some of my lenses and did so in both the normal mode and the high-res mode. Assuming you got the high-res sensor because you actually want to see all that resolution due to cropping or printing for close-up viewing, you might be a bit disappointed when you notice that a lens will only give you it's best well beyond its widest aperture.
One other thing I learned, and which is actually a not often heard argument in favor of high-res sensors is that with the S5 when using a lens in it's sweet spot, there is a good chance of ending up with false-color or moiré as the lens out-resolves the sensor and the camera has no AA filter. As much as I love the camera, that is one thing I do not like about it. It usually goes unnoticed when taking the picture and is hard to fix afterwards. Shooting wide open or into diffraction territory "fixes" it but that's not how I want to use my aperture. Besides I usually only notice when I come home anyway .

Yes, I’ve noticed moiré a lot since I got the S5. LR does a decent job of removing it though so I’m not losing a lot of sleep over it. I’ve just sold it now, but the S1R I had also produced moiré, just not quite as badly.

 

[R-J Sunday]

Was a big fan of the 14-140mm Lumix G lens. But it was eq to 28-280mm and probably smaller and lighter than the S 20-60mm. It’s not going to be physically possible to build that for FF and have it weighing less than 300g. Still I am interested to see what they come up with.

14-140 was 90% of the time on my Lumix g80. It was sharp and did render the colors really good.

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

I have to say the roadmap makes it look like 28mm is more likely than 24mm and that wouldn't surprise me as they probably want to protect the sales of the 24-105mm and other wider lenses. Currently my longest native lens is the Sigma 90mm so anything longer than that could potentially interest me though I prefer primes so I'd go for an I-series 135/2.8 before a super-zoom.

 

[Snowcat]

I'll add my 2 cents... I am really missing an Utrazoom lens in the system, becfuse I love Ultrazoom lenses and used them MUCH before shifting to L mount.

My preferences:
- NOT 28 at shot end FEDINITELY! 28 is just not too wide at too many situations
- I'd say 24-200 is absolute MINIMUM. Less then this is too little for an ultrazoom. Range of 24-150 is anyway covered by 24-105 lens if you use a high MP camera, you can crop, so having less then 200 at the long end is early useless...
- Yet, if the short end will be wider, like 20mm, then I'll be OK with 20-180mm lens... This is VERY unlikely though, I understand,
- The best would be 24-300 (I've used a 16-300 alot so I am sure it is possible)

I am OK if good quality can be achieved only with computer correction. Tamron 16-300 was good only when paired with DXO And it was OK.

I am not worried about size and weight, it is a full frame lens after all. All who cares about size and weight too much, should switch to M43, it is the only REAL compact and light system.

And even said all that, I understand that graphically this looks like 28-200. If it will happen, then I'll not buy it, it is not wide enough to be useful...