What's new
L-MOUNT Forum

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

Lumix 28–200mm f/4–7.1 Sample Images

Pete_W said:
It's not a lens that I need (I love my 24-105 and 70-300 lenses) but I have seen some really good photos taken with the 28-200mm lens. I guess if you do a little cropping you can remove some of those soft edges at the long end.
Click to expand...
I spent a little time the other day, asking myself if I thought a cropped image the S1R + 28-200 @ 200mm (F8) could match an uncropped image from a 24 MP sensor with the 70-300 @ 300mm. In other words, could I argue that carrying an S1R with the 28-200 gave the same IQ & reach (which is where the cropping comes in) as carrying an S5 with the 70-300? The answer, unfortunately, was "No." At a pixel level on the S1R, the center of the 28-200 is just too soft & low-contrast as compared to the center of the 70-300 @ 300mm on a 24 MP sensor. The travel zoom just can't keep up with the demands of that 47 MP sensor. At least, on my copy. It's not terrible, but you can see it.

It's PLENTY good for social media, however, where everything is down-sampled anyway. I really like mine. It's replacing the 24-105, but only because I also have the Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art (first-gen) for when I truly care about pixel-level IQ.
 
GeorgeHudetz said:
I spent a little time the other day, asking myself if I thought a cropped image the S1R + 28-200 @ 200mm (F8) could match an uncropped image from a 24 MP sensor with the 70-300 @ 300mm. In other words, could I argue that carrying an S1R with the 28-200 gave the same IQ & reach (which is where the cropping comes in) as carrying an S5 with the 70-300? The answer, unfortunately, was "No." At a pixel level on the S1R, the center of the 28-200 is just too soft & low-contrast as compared to the center of the 70-300 @ 300mm on a 24 MP sensor. The travel zoom just can't keep up with the demands of that 47 MP sensor. At least, on my copy. It's not terrible, but you can see it.

It's PLENTY good for social media, however, where everything is down-sampled anyway. I really like mine. It's replacing the 24-105, but only because I also have the Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art (first-gen) for when I truly care about pixel-level IQ.
Click to expand...
That's a good point George. I guess it's another handy tool in the kit for a specific purpose and use case. The size and weight advantage would be nice to have!
 
Pete_W said:
That's a good point George. I guess it's another handy tool in the kit for a specific purpose and use case. The size and weight advantage would be nice to have!
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly. And yes, the size & weight are wonderful. However, it's the FL range that is truly empowering, freeing you from the tyranny of the lens swap. Just shoot & go.
 
GeorgeHudetz said:
At a pixel level on the S1R, the center of the 28-200 is just too soft & low-contrast as compared to the center of the 70-300 @ 300mm on a 24 MP sensor.
Click to expand...
You make an interesting point here George. Looking at the shots I took today, and previous shots I've taken, the limitations of the 28-200 are not just a lack of sharpness - there's also loss of contrast and a certain degree of what I might call blooming or diffusion. It's much more obvious at the long end. I'm over-stating the extent of course, but that's what I'm seeing. Looking again at the 200mm shots from today and comparing them to shots with the 70-200 f4, the difference is really quite plain. There's a transparency about the images from the 70-200 that's missing from the 28-200. This sort of feeling that "a veil has been lifted" is the mark of the best lenses. Some call it "micro-contrast". Whatever it is, it's not just a question of resolution.
 
pdk42 said:
You make an interesting point here George. Looking at the shots I took today, and previous shots I've taken, the limitations of the 28-200 are not just a lack of sharpness - there's also loss of contrast and a certain degree of what I might call blooming or diffusion. It's much more obvious at the long end. I'm over-stating the extent of course, but that's what I'm seeing. Looking again at the 200mm shots from today and comparing them to shots with the 70-200 f4, the difference is really quite plain. There's a transparency about the images from the 70-200 that's missing from the 28-200. This sort of feeling that "a veil has been lifted" is the mark of the best lenses. Some call it "micro-contrast". Whatever it is, it's not just a question of resolution.
Click to expand...
Yes, spot on. To me, it's simply a matter of convenience vs. IQ. Now, again, if you are in the habit of downsizing images for social media to, say, 4,000 pixels on the long-end, then the differences are minimized - especially if you do output sharpening. At least when compared to the 70-300. I'm sure the 70-200 increases that gulf, however.

But if you want to print large-ish or crop heavy, there are better lenses out there.
 
Nevyn72 said:
It is a great lens. Outside I only have this lens and the 16-28mm now always with me.... I love this lens
Click to expand...
It is a "loveable" lens, to be sure. I've taken thousands of images with mine already, and I have no regrets. But there are better lenses out there for fine landscape work (for example). It's just a question of $$$ & weight.
 
Those are some nice images. It's unclear if those are 100% crops or reduced.

Regardless, sometimes you don't know what's missing until somebody (or some lens) shows you. When evaluating new lenses, I have sometimes fallen into the trap of looking at a stand-alone image and thinking "That looks great! What a fantastic lens! Better than I expected!" But then if I take the time to create comparable shots between that lens and some other, standard-bearer lens, it's only then that I see what's missing in the lesser lens.

So, yes, you can create great images with the 28-200. But if you care about pixel-level clarity, then, well, you will see differences all up and down the "food chain" of lenses. You just need to decide how much you care. The 28-200 has made me care less, at least for 70% (or more) of what I shoot, but I know other lenses can do better, and I will choose those lenses when I want to create the very best images.

The differences certainly shouldn't get in the way of somebody newly learning the craft, or even an experienced shooter who happens to only have the lesser lens that day. Arguably we over-analyze these things for most of the images we create. But hey, it's fun to debate and there is a certain satisfaction in creating an image that is both an excellent composition as well as having top-notch technical attributes. That's what is so appealing about photography (at lest to me) - the blending of the creative and the technical.
 
Last edited:
pdk42 said:
Might need to reconsider my views on this lens !!
Click to expand...
I might have been one of the last holdouts on this forum for the 20-200mm, but I finally did get it, knowing it might be a little soft on the edges at 200mm. My idea was I'd clean this up with DxO PureRAW 4 if needed. It has turned out to be a very useful walk around lens, probably better than I was expecting. I've used DxO just a couple of times.
 
GeorgeHudetz said:
Arguably we over-analyze these things for most of the images we create.
Click to expand...
So true. If you talk to non-photographers ("real people"), they just don't see the defects that we do. For them a good photograph is all about its visual impact, and technical perfection is rarely a part of that.

GeorgeHudetz said:
But hey, it's fun to debate and there is a certain satisfaction in creating an image that is both an excellent composition as well as having top-notch technical attributes. That's what is so appealing about photography (at lest to me) - the blending of the creative and the technical.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree on that too. The gear aspect shouldn't be totally dismissed either. There's a certain satisfaction in the engineering and the technical performance.
 
BTW, one point I forgot to make in all of this is that if you can get away with it, at least some of the 28-200's IQ limitations at 200mm can be eliminated if you stop down to F11. Even on an S1R, although at that point it helps to have diffraction correction in you PP app.
 
GeorgeHudetz said:
BTW, one point I forgot to make in all of this is that if you can get away with it, at least some of the 28-200's IQ limitations at 200mm can be eliminated if you stop down to F11. Even on an S1R, although at that point it helps to have diffraction correction in you PP app.
Click to expand...
I only ever shoot at f10-f11 at 200mm if I can help it with this lens
 
Prosecutor said:
In full resolution it´s tack-sharp.
View attachment 6727
Click to expand...
You must have a great copy. I've tried 2 different copies of the lens and both have been noticeably soft at 200mm. Not unusable, and it won't stop a good image from being a good image, but it's noticeable. Stopping down to f10 or f11 helps a lot.

I will say I shot some 96mp high res shots on a tripod with this lens at the long end and they were appreciably sharper than the standard 24mp shots. When I shot a luxury car out when doing street photography I tried HHHR and the results were much worse. So it is possible to get nice sharp results but you have to be intentional about it and it's not always an option if the light isn't there.
 
Prosecutor said:
In full resolution it´s tack-sharp.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, that is not what I would consider "tack sharp." The feather detail, while OK, is not great. I have seen more detail (at 200mm) from the 70-300, 100-400, and 150-600, and I'm sure any of the 70-200s that are available on L-mount would as well. Now, to be fair, ISO 8000 will never allow you to see the full potential of the lens, even when using DxO. The noise level is remarkably low, however.

I'd love to learn that some copies of the 28-200 are sharp & contrasty at 200mm, but IMO this image doesn't show that.

But it is a nice shot of a beautiful bird.
 
inspiredtimothy said:
You must have a great copy. I've tried 2 different copies of the lens and both have been noticeably soft at 200mm. Not unusable, and it won't stop a good image from being a good image, but it's noticeable. Stopping down to f10 or f11 helps a lot.

I will say I shot some 96mp high res shots on a tripod with this lens at the long end and they were appreciably sharper than the standard 24mp shots. When I shot a luxury car out when doing street photography I tried HHHR and the results were much worse. So it is possible to get nice sharp results but you have to be intentional about it and it's not always an option if the light isn't there.
Click to expand...
As Roger Cicala (Lensrentals.com) pointed out, the final resolution of a shot is a result of both the lens's resolving power and that of the sensor. He says a way to think about it in simple terms is to imagine a "resolution factor" for both lens and sensor. A perfect example of either would have a factor of 1. Real lenses and sensors would have values less than 1. He then says that to get a feeling for the combination, you should multiply the factors together.

So:

- A 0.7 lens on a 0.7 sensor would give you a final score of 0.49.
- A 0.9 lens on a 0.5 sensor would give you a final score of 0.45.
- A 0.5 lens on a 0.9 sensor would give you a final score of 0.45.

The message therefore is that a weak lens on a higher res sensor will deliver a better overall image resolution than the same lens on a lower res sensor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top