Lumix 14-28 vs 16-35

[pdk42]

I bagged a 16-35 on the Lumix Loan programme over the Christmas break (16 days FOC!). It's a lens I pondered when I got into L-mount but in the end I decided (based on reviews) that it didn't offer much over the significantly cheaper Sigma 16-28. Then Panasonic launched the 14-28 so I bought one and did a head-to-head of it against the Sigma 14-28, the result of which you can find here. On the basis of that test, I kept the Panasonic lens, chiefly for its better range (14mm at the wide end vs 16mm).

So, I thought I'd do the same test again. I'll post up some examples later, but for the moment, here is a quick summary:

	14-28	16-35
Sharpness at 16mm, f8	Excellent in centre and edges	Excellent in centre, but edges slightly softer than 14-28
Sharpness at 24mm, f8	Excellent in centre and edges	Excellent in centre and edges
Sharpness at 28mm, f8	Excellent in centre, but edges slightly softer than 16-35	Excellent in centre and edges
Chromatic abberation and fringing	Excellent	Some slight CA, but can be cleaned up in PP quite easily
Flare handling	Excellent	Excellent
Vignetting	Noticeable wide open, esp at 14mm. Acceptable at f8	Noticeable wide open, esp at 28mm. Acceptable at f8
Range	14mm noticeably wider than 16mm	35mm noticeably tighter than 28mm
Build and handling	Metal mount, plastic barrel, usual Panasonic rubber rings. Quite light, compact, non-extending on zooming.	Metal mount, plastic barrel, usual Panasonic rubber rings. Manual focus clutch. Slightly bigger and heavier than the 14-28 and the lens extends a little over the zoom range.
Other points	Offers very short min focus distance (in fact, Panasonic label it as "macro"). Dust & weather sealed. Variable max aperture f4-f5.6	It has "Certified by Leica" on the bottom and a red "S" logo indicating it's an S-Pro lens. Dust & weather sealed. Fixed max aperture f4.

So, in a nutshell - both are excellent lenses, but the 14-28 performs slightly better at the wider end than the 16-35 whilst the 16-35 performs slightly better at the long end; however the differences are not large. Build wise the 16-35 is slightly better, but nothing really to justify a price tag of 2x the 14-28. Overall, I don't see much to justify the "S-Pro" tag.

For me the 14-28 is definitely the better choice since I definitely appreciate the wider FOV.

 

[dirk]

Thank you very much for this comparison!

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

Thanks for posting. I’m quite curious as to how they compare at F5.6, which is often where peak sharpness occurs, and that aperture still offers quite a bit of DOF on an UW lens.

 

[pdk42]

Thanks for posting. I’m quite curious as to how they compare at F5.6, which is often where peak sharpness occurs, and that aperture still offers quite a bit of DOF on an UW lens.

I didn't really spot any significant difference at f5.6 compared to f8. However, I think the 14-28 corners sharpen up a little at 28mm when you go as far as f11.

 

[pdk42]

Some samples of sharpness at f8. All shots are raw and processed in LR with only WB changes from defaults. Viewed at 200% on a MacBook Retina display.

	14-28 on left, 16-35 on right
16mm centre
16mm edge
24mm centre
24mm edge
28mm centre
28mm edge

 

[pdk42]

There is also a small difference in colour rendition - the 14-28 is a little more warm/yellow compared the 16-35. Easily tweaked in PP of course to your taste!

 

[NerdyTimelapser]

that 14-28 is such an amazing little lens, and its getting even more affordable now, €569 euro in the Netherlands. Thinking of selling my Nikon 14-24 f2.8, its so big, heavy, no easy nd filter option.
thanks for your comparison!

 

[pdk42]

that 14-28 is such an amazing little lens, and its getting even more affordable now, €569 euro in the Netherlands. Thinking of selling my Nikon 14-24 f2.8, its so big, heavy, no easy nd filter option.
thanks for your comparison!View attachment 16193

Yes, it's really an excellent lens, at any price. I've had a lot of UWA zooms over the years, and this stands up to any of them.