Lumix 28–200mm f/4–7.1 Sample Images

[Hythloday]

I don’t think the dynamic range of the scene has any effect on image quality with the 28-200. I’ve never seen any sort of softness that seemed associated with scenes that have high dynamic range, nor with dark vs. bright comps.
[...] But in general I’ve found mine to be reliable, if soft wide-open.

When RuleofThirds mentioned this problem for the first time, I thought of misfocussing. Some weeks ago I took a picture that was unsharp at 1/100 sec. It was clearly my fault. But I went through my pictures and saw a few that were partly not razor sharp. It was also in the centre of a picture. All the pictures had in common that the difference in light is great with a sharp line between darker and lighter parts.

Last Friday I took some pictures again with my new lens. When I had processed them I was happy because they were razor sharp. But when I looked again I saw a colour shift in the picture. My rawconverter (ART) had problems processing this picture. I could solve it quite easily by using a different setting in reducing highlights. Some weeks ago I had trouble processing a picture taken with my Lumix 14-28mm. In the picture were deep black solar panels on a red tiled roof. The sun was really out. After I had processed my pictures the solar panels had a wide red fringe around them. The solution was a bit difficult to find. The rawconverter automatically removes purple fringing. When I changed the setting to off, the solar panels were black again.

Today's lenses are software controlled. Distortion, vignetting and CA will be corrected automatically and store it in the metadata of the RAW file. The rawconverter I use, can read this information in Leica DNG files, but not in Panasonic RW2 files. Therefore I still believe that the Lumix 28-200mm can go wrong. I have an excellent copy of this lens but it happens very very occasionally. When I look at these pictures in a normal way I won't notice this unsharpness. I can only see it when pixelpeeping at 100%.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

I won't notice this unsharpness. I can only see it when pixelpeeping at 100%

And that’s the problem. You have to pixelpeep every shot while being there and at the same time 80% of the picture is ok, until you get home. A quick glance on the small back screen is not enough.

And that picture in Amsterdam was taken in June or so, and took it on vacation anyway and again 90%+ still came out very nice. So it is a stupid love-hate with this lens. And thinking about giving up on it.

I don’t need mega ultra sharp pictures, but I’m loosing my faith in this one. And it is hard cause I like it, and love a lot of picture taken with it. But: Trust arrives on foot and leaves on horseback.

 

[CharlesH]

Trust arrives on foot and leaves on horseback.

Love it, is that an old Dutch homily or something?

Anyway that's about where I am with the 28 to 200. I have lots of nice pictures with it, but enough poor ones that I hardly ever use it anymore.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

Love it, is that an old Dutch homily or something?

Anyway that's about where I am with the 28 to 200. I have lots of nice pictures with it, but enough poor ones that I hardly ever use it anymore.

I think it has Dutch origin, but I wasn't sure and looked up the English version...

 

[Pete_W]

Trust arrives on foot and leaves on horseback.

I've not heard that saying before but it's excellent. So true!

 

[Hythloday]

And thinking about giving up on it.

I have given up on it and sold it. Tele photography is not exactly my style. I had bought the Lumix 28-200mm to use the tele end of the zoom. I had bought a Schneider Kreuznach Samyang 60-180mm. I have used it on some occasions and its IQ made me so happy that I also bought a Schneider Kreuznach Samyang 14-24mm. The first copy was decentered but the second one is OK.

This afternoon I took some test shots at 60mm at aperture 8. The Samyang 60-180mm is slightly sharper than the Lumix 24-60mm at 60mm. At 24mm I compared the Samyang 14-24mm to the Lumix 24-60mm at aperture 8. In the centre the two pictures are equally sharp, but at the edges the Samyang is slightly sharper. I just compared two pictures at 24mm and at 60mm so it does not say much about the quality of the whole range of the two Samyang lenses. When I look at the pictures of these two Samyang lenses, it strikes me that sharpness is very even from edge to edge. As soon as the Schneider Kreuznach Samyang 24-60mm is released, I will immediately buy it.

Samyang's service is excellent. At their site LCP files can be downloaded so distortion, vignetting and CA can be corrected in Adobe, but also in my rawconverter (ART). I can also use the embedded metadata for distortion, vignetting and CA in the Leica DNG files which are the same as in the LCP files. But from experience I know that the distortion correction at the WA end is not perfect, so I made my own distortion profile with the help of Hugin.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

My 24-60 is very very sharp, and a bit to "digital" don't know, but although a tiny bit less sharp I like the 24-105 images more. There is so much more to an image then sharpness, but complete softness can kill it... (or unpredictable). Probably keep my 24-60 around, but the 28-200 will go. I was thinking about selling the 24-60 as well and get the original 20-60 again. Nice lightweight and wide option next to 24-105.

 

[Hythloday]

My 24-60 is very very sharp, and a bit to "digital" don't know, but although a tiny bit less sharp I like the 24-105 images more.

My 24-60mm is also very very sharp. Before I bought the Samyang 60-180mm I had read a lot about Samyang. There are many negative things you can find about this lens, e.g. 1. Soft corners 2. Sticky and stiff zoom ring 3. Significant distortion 4. Autofocus lacks speed and reliability. So I was in heavy doubt before buying this lens. When I saw a review done by Digital Camera World, which is a bit more positive, I ordered this lens.

I have learnt a lot about reviews. Samyang lenses are mostly tested on 61MP Sony cameras. Probably, Samyang has no Sony licence, so many things have to be found out by back engineering. The Sony versions of the 14-24mm and the 24-60mm have had firmware updates, such as "Improved Operational Stability with the Sony α7 V(a7M5)". Samyang is a member of the L Alliance, so there will be fewer problems with autofocus. Panasonic, however, has added functions to the L mount, such as the hybrid function, as I read in a firmware update for the Samynag 35-150mm: Fixed an operational issue with the 'Hybrid Zoom' function.

In many reviews, the comments say more about the reviewer than about the lens. When I mounted the Samyang 60-180mm on my camera and took some pictures I was pleasantly surprised: no soft corners, no sticky and stiff zoom ring, AF which is just as good as the AF of my Lumix 24-105mm. When I compare reviews done by Digital Camera World for Lumix and Samyang lenses, there is a difference. The centre sharpness of Lumix lenses is higher than the centre sharpness of Schneider Kreuznach Samyang lenses, whereas the corner sharpness of Schneider Kreuznach Samyang lenses is higher and more regular than that of Lumix lenses. On a 24MP sensor you will hardly notice the difference, but on a 60MP sensor you will. Panasonic is one of the few (or the only?) camera brand that does not have a 60MP camera.

I made some comparison test shots to see for myself whether there is a big difference in IQ. If there are any differences, they are very very small. When pixelpeeping I can find some, which I mentioned in my previous post, but they are very small. I now use two sets of lenses. Set one: Samyang 14-24mm/f2.8, Lumix 24-60mm/f2.8, and Samyang 60-180mm/f2.8. Set two: Lumix 16-35mm/f4.0 and Lumix 24-105mm/f4.0. (I still have the Lumix 20-60mm and the Lumix 14-28mm).