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.

 

[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

I think if you want a better UWA in L-mount, you have to go for the Sigma 14-24 - but it's two to three times the price of the 14-28, twice the weight, and almost twice the length.

 

[NerdyTimelapser]

I think if you want a better UWA in L-mount, you have to go for the Sigma 14-24 - but it's two to three times the price of the 14-28, twice the weight, and almost twice the length.

I'm very happy with the samples you showed, no need for even better haha. I don't have the budget, and want small and light. If its like my 20-60 but wider, I'm a super happy person!

 

[pdk42]

I'm very happy with the samples you showed, no need for even better haha. I don't have the budget, and want small and light. If its like my 20-60 but wider, I'm a super happy person!

I love the 20-60 too. It performs extremely well in my view. The 14-28 is just as good.

 

[NerdyTimelapser]

I love the 20-60 too. It performs extremely well in my view. The 14-28 is just as good.

Yeah Panasonic has such nice kit lenses, also for m43. 12-32 with gm1 is a fun combo too

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

I think if you want a better UWA in L-mount, you have to go for the Sigma 14-24 - but it's two to three times the price of the 14-28, twice the weight, and almost twice the length.

Since you brought it up, I thought I’d put two quick comparison shots between the 16-35 & 14-24, both at F8 & 24mm. Screen grabs from my MBP at 200% from within CaptureOne. All settings to default, distortion correction enabled. 16-35 is on the right. Identical white balance (cloudy).

Center:


Edge (at focal plane)


As you can see, there is very little difference between them at F8.

One of the things I’ve noticed after spending too much time looking at lens resolution charts on Lenstip, is that at F8, most lenses report very similar resolution numbers. I call it the 60/50 rule - you can expect, on average, that most lenses @F8 will deliver about 60 lp/mm in the center, and about 50 lp/mm on the edges. At least, when using Lenstip’s testing methodology and on a Sony a7RIII - which is the body they use to test Sigma lenses, and has 43 MP. And, when stopped down to F11, you get the 50/40 rule.

Note that this is regardless of how sharp the lens is at more optimum apertures for sharpness (which is usually around F4 but not always). Zoom, prime, doesn’t matter. Even “record setting” lenses, like the Sigma 65/2 (83 lp/mm at F4 in the center), end up succumbing to the 60/50 rule at F8. Of course there is some variation - many are in the low-to-mid 60s in the center, and the S-Pro 50mm f.1.4 actually delivers 70 lp/mm (on the S1R) in the center at F8, but variations, are, for the most part, smallish.

So I think your test results are a validation of this. I genuinely believe that for shooting at F8, other parameters become more important, like distortion, focus breathing (if you ever intend to focus stack), color fringing, etc.

BTW, the 24-70 DG DN Art delivers over 70 lp/mm at F4 & 24 mm, and you can see a difference when pixel peeping. Of course, to use that in landscape, you need to focus stack, which I have a low tolerance for. I’d rather use HR mode and shoot at F8 or F11, but that’s another thread.

Cheers, and happy new year.

 

[pdk42]

Since you brought it up, I thought I’d put two quick comparison shots between the 16-35 & 14-24, both at F8 & 24mm. Screen grabs from my MBP at 200% from within CaptureOne. All settings to default, distortion correction enabled. 16-35 is on the right. Identical white balance (cloudy).

Center:


Edge (at focal plane)


As you can see, there is very little difference between them at F8.

One of the things I’ve noticed after spending too much time looking at lens resolution charts on Lenstip, is that at F8, most lenses report very similar resolution numbers. I call it the 60/50 rule - you can expect, on average, that most lenses @F8 will deliver about 60 lp/mm in the center, and about 50 lp/mm on the edges. At least, when using Lenstip’s testing methodology and on a Sony a7RIII - which is the body they use to test Sigma lenses, and has 43 MP. And, when stopped down to F11, you get the 50/40 rule.

Note that this is regardless of how sharp the lens is at more optimum apertures for sharpness (which is usually around F4 but not always). Zoom, prime, doesn’t matter. Even “record setting” lenses, like the Sigma 65/2 (83 lp/mm at F4 in the center), end up succumbing to the 60/50 rule at F8. Of course there is some variation - many are in the low-to-mid 60s in the center, and the S-Pro 50mm f.1.4 actually delivers 70 lp/mm (on the S1R) in the center at F8, but variations, are, for the most part, smallish.

So I think your test results are a validation of this. I genuinely believe that for shooting at F8, other parameters become more important, like distortion, focus breathing (if you ever intend to focus stack), color fringing, etc.

BTW, the 24-70 DG DN Art delivers over 70 lp/mm at F4 & 24 mm, and you can see a difference when pixel peeping. Of course, to use that in landscape, you need to focus stack, which I have a low tolerance for. I’d rather use HR mode and shoot at F8 or F11, but that’s another thread.

Cheers, and happy new year.

Thanks for posting that George.

In general, I'm normally happy with "good enough" sharpness rather than seeking stratospheric resolution. For 99% of what I ever produce, all my current lenses are more than good enough, including the 20-60 and 14-28, both of which are very much in the "budget lens" bracket. My 24-105 is maybe slightly better than these two, but that could be confirmation bias on my part. But I can definitely see that my 70-200 f4 is better than any of these three - which it should be given its price!

However, my Sigma 105mm f2.8 Macro takes the prize for the most stellar optical performance - it's just mind-bogglingly exceptional in sharpness, contrast, and resolution. It hits over 80lpm in the centre at f4 in Lenstip's testing and 60lpm at f5.6 at the edge. But I don't think shots from it at f8 are realistically offering anything more in real-world shooting compared to what the 24-105 delivers.

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

Thanks for posting that George.

In general, I'm normally happy with "good enough" sharpness rather than seeking stratospheric resolution. For 99% of what I ever produce, all my current lenses are more than good enough, including the 20-60 and 14-28, both of which are very much in the "budget lens" bracket. My 24-105 is maybe slightly better than these two, but that could be confirmation bias on my part. But I can definitely see that my 70-200 f4 is better than any of these three - which it should be given its price!

However, my Sigma 105mm f2.8 Macro takes the prize for the most stellar optical performance - it's just mind-bogglingly exceptional in sharpness, contrast, and resolution. It hits over 80lpm in the centre at f4 in Lenstip's testing and 60lpm at f5.6 at the edge. But I don't think shots from it at f8 are realistically offering anything more in real-world shooting compared to what the 24-105 delivers.

Yes, I *completely* understand the philosophy of “good enough” on lenses - particularly for the F8 landscape scenario. I think that is indeed where Panasonic shines. They make some lenses that offer very well-judged IQ vs. cost/weight ratios. At least, those that have been delivered after the first round of S-Pro lenses.

And yes, I have the 105 as well. It’s insane, which it should be, for a macro. And while I don’t have the 70-200 F4, I do have the F2.8, and at F5.6, it also delivers an amazing amount of details.

It just boils down to how you want to use the lens.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

I always can recognize the 16-35 pictures from the others because it renders very different to my eye with more “pop” or microcontrast. Probably something subjective I like a lot. It’s not sharpness.

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

This is a very useful comparison for anyone looking at ultra-wide options. I have the 16-35mm but only because I got it for a bargain price (€600) used and this is in fact my second copy as Panasonic replaced it when I discovered that it had blue fogging. Image quality is excellent but both copies suffer from occasional mis-focusing, unlike any other L-mount lenses I have, indicating a likely design flaw somewhere. I find that going to 35mm rather than 28mm is the difference between an ultra-wide zoom and a zoom that can serve as a walk-around lens in the city and I actually use the 35mm length quite a lot. I would rate build quality as barely above that of the 20-60mm kit lens, not that the 20-60mm is poorly built, just that I expected more solidity for a lens marketed as "pro".

I do like it but if anything happened to it, save another used bargain, I would replace it with a Sigma or the Lumix 14-28mm as it's not worth double the price and I don't have much confidence in the "pro" designation from Panasonic.

 

[pdk42]

This is a very useful comparison for anyone looking at ultra-wide options. I have the 16-35mm but only because I got it for a bargain price (€600) used and this is in fact my second copy as Panasonic replaced it when I discovered that it had blue fogging. Image quality is excellent but both copies suffer from occasional mis-focusing, unlike any other L-mount lenses I have, indicating a likely design flaw somewhere. I find that going to 35mm rather than 28mm is the difference between an ultra-wide zoom and a zoom that can serve as a walk-around lens in the city and I actually use the 35mm length quite a lot. I would rate build quality as barely above that of the 20-60mm kit lens, not that the 20-60mm is poorly built, just that I expected more solidity for a lens marketed as "pro".

I do like it but if anything happened to it, save another used bargain, I would replace it with a Sigma or the Lumix 14-28mm as it's not worth double the price and I don't have much confidence in the "pro" designation from Panasonic.

I felt much the same about its build quality. It's obviously absolutely fine, but it's not not much better than the 14-28 which is half its price.

I totally agree about the "Pro" designation too. I really don't think it's worth the paper it's written on (speaking from my experience with the 70-200 f4). I think it's mostly marketing spin.

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

. I would rate build quality as barely above that of the 20-60mm kit lens,

I have to disagree there. I find both the zoom and focus action on the 16-35 to be much nicer than the 20-60, and then there is the focus clutch. The 16-35 also extends less at full zoom.

But yes, the surface finish of pretty much all LUMIX lenses is the same, and they both get the same “splash and dust resistance” verbiage on Panasonic’s website.

 

[Vale46]

I have to disagree there. I find both the zoom and focus action on the 16-35 to be much nicer than the 20-60, and then there is the focus clutch. The 16-35 also extends less at full zoom.

But yes, the surface finish of pretty much all LUMIX lenses is the same, and they both get the same “splash and dust resistance” verbiage on Panasonic’s website.

Confirm - the 16-35 is very nice to zoom and focus