Lumix 28-200

[Richard Wong]

@Richard Wong - what's your take on that Jordan/Chris video? Your analysis was notably more positive.

I've just watched Chris and Jordan's review, I feel they are quite positive about the lens and we have pointed out different things we like and don't like.
But every reviewer has their own way of reviewing camera gears. For example, unlike a lot of reviewers, I don't test sharpness, or distortion by shooting a test chart at a close distance. My reasons:
1. Non-macro lenses are usually not optimised for close-distance shooting (Example for distortion: )
2. Most of the real-world photos are not shot at test chart distance
Instead, I do my sharpness/distortion/vignetting test at a "normal" distance i.e. focus distance is more than a few meters. I also do a separate closeup sharpness test in the "closeup" section of my review.
Don't get me wrong, I don't mean I have the best way to review camera lenses, far from it, I also keep evolving how I do my tests as I found issues with my own test methodology. What i want to say is, every reviewer tests things very differently, so it's completely normal to come up with different conclusions even if we share the exact same lens sample.
I always suggest people to watch/read as many reviews from reputable reviewers as you can before you spend your hard earned money.

Re full-res samples, I want to make it very clear that Panasonic has NEVER requested me not to post any RAW / full res photos. It's just my personal choice not to do it after some previous bad experience. I no longer post any RAW/full res photos for any of my reviews when shot with pre-production/pre-release samples these days. For example, I've just published a review of the new Sony FE 24-50 f/2.8G lens yesterday, it's also a pre-release product and I have also not shared any full size sample. Again, Sony has not requested me not to do that.

With the Lumix 14-28, that lens was available for us to try out during the Lumix Tokyo Summit event when there were (i think) 80 or so reviewers/content creators there so that may explain why you were able to find more samples easier.

 

[Quentinquirelino]

If I remember right, it was also similar with the 20-60 and even with the 50/1.8. Most reviewers where very positive, but some not so much. With personal experience with both lenses and also the 70-300, we know how good there are, if you have a good copy.

This in mind, I think Panasonic should work on there quality control to reduce copy to copy variation. Especially when for the lenses for the reviewers. We had a similar thing with the 100mm macro.

 

[pdk42]

I've just watched Chris and Jordan's review, I feel they are quite positive about the lens and we have pointed out different things we like and don't like.
But every reviewer has their own way of reviewing camera gears. For example, unlike a lot of reviewers, I don't test sharpness, or distortion by shooting a test chart at a close distance. My reasons:
1. Non-macro lenses are usually not optimised for close-distance shooting (Example for distortion: )
2. Most of the real-world photos are not shot at test chart distance
Instead, I do my sharpness/distortion/vignetting test at a "normal" distance i.e. focus distance is more than a few meters. I also do a separate closeup sharpness test in the "closeup" section of my review.
Don't get me wrong, I don't mean I have the best way to review camera lenses, far from it, I also keep evolving how I do my tests as I found issues with my own test methodology. What i want to say is, every reviewer tests things very differently, so it's completely normal to come up with different conclusions even if we share the exact same lens sample.
I always suggest people to watch/read as many reviews from reputable reviewers as you can before you spend your hard earned money.

Re full-res samples, I want to make it very clear that Panasonic has NEVER requested me not to post any RAW / full res photos. It's just my personal choice not to do it after some previous bad experience. I no longer post any RAW/full res photos for any of my reviews when shot with pre-production/pre-release samples these days. For example, I've just published a review of the new Sony FE 24-50 f/2.8G lens yesterday, it's also a pre-release product and I have also not shared any full size sample. Again, Sony has not requested me not to do that.

With the Lumix 14-28, that lens was available for us to try out during the Lumix Tokyo Summit event when there were (i think) 80 or so reviewers/content creators there so that may explain why you were able to find more samples easier.

Thanks for that Richard. I agree that sharpness testing at close focus distances isn’t really that helpful for most normal photography so your policy on test chart distance is the right thing in my view. In fact, what really matters for me is sharpness at infinity, or very close to it. I find distant winter trees on the horizon, ideally against a grey sky, provide a real torture test for most lenses. Long lenses are often very sensitive to tiny focus changes at infinity and I find this can lead to slight sharpness variation. I find that the 70-300 at its long end suffers from this so I usually take a few shots with AF re-acquisition between them to guard against it.

As regards the 28-200, I guess I’m asking for too much really. I want the range but I don’t want to compromise on performance. I’m happy to compromise on max aperture, and even size, but not performance. But it seems these sort of superzooms come with an expectation of compromised performance and a view that they’ll be used by beginners and those less engaged in photography as an endeavour. That’s a real pity. The Olympus 12-100 remains an exception to that philosophy and I wish we had something like it in L mount.

 

[Arkan]

If I may ask, what was the problem with some 70-300 models?

 

[Nomad Nate]

If I remember right, it was also similar with the 20-60 and even with the 50/1.8. Most reviewers where very positive, but some not so much. With personal experience with both lenses and also the 70-300, we know how good there are, if you have a good copy.

This in mind, I think Panasonic should work on there quality control to reduce copy to copy variation. Especially when for the lenses for the reviewers. We had a similar thing with the 100mm macro.

Yeah that's what put me off the 70-300 there aren't a ton of reviews and the DPR review didn't seem too confident on the sharpness, but then I'll see people's shots with them and they look fantastic.

 

[xaviergut]

This youtuber makes a field test of the 28-200mm in the midday sun and is very interesting the performance in apsc mode for video (at 300mm):

 

[Pete_W]

If I may ask, what was the problem with some 70-300 models?

There appears to be some copy variation with the lens although I am only basing this on very low numbers of reports.

The DPR review by Chris and Jordan was lukewarm, with them suggesting the lens was quite soft especially at the long end. They even suggested it may be copy variation. To be fair, they were also shooting outdoors in the Canadian winter when everything was basically white and so they spent more of the review on the studio test chart which doesn't always suit long lenses.

A few forum members here and at DPR reported soft copies and had them exchanged and got better luck with the second copy. So that's three I know of, which to be fair is not a big sample.

I Googled and found some other review that were much more positive, so I took the plunge and was happy to find that my copy was excellent.

 

[pdk42]

If I may ask, what was the problem with some 70-300 models?

I was one of the people who had to get a replacement since the first was very obviously decentered with poor performance on the left side. The second lens though works fine, although as I mentioned in the post above, I find that focus accuracy at infinity is very sensitive and I have several shots where the result has come out poorly. This is an example. At 4000px on Flickr it's not too bad, but even so you can see the problem.

• Panasonic - DC-S1R
• LUMIX S 70-300/F4.5-5.6
• 300.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/125 sec
• Pattern
• Auto exposure
• ISO 100

Swans on Loch Lomond by Paul Kaye, on Flickr

However, overall I'm very happy with it. The detail can be quite astonishing. For example, take a look at this one in "Original size". It's a stitch at 14000px wide:

 

[dirk]

 

[pdk42]

I've been scouting some sample images at full size. There are a few provided in the Digital Camera World review:

Panasonic Lumix S 28-200mm f/4-7.1 Macro O.I.S. review: the travel photographer's new best friend

Covering all bases, the Lumix S 28-200mm superzoom makes a play to be the only lens you need on the move

www.digitalcameraworld.com

This one at 28mm and f4 is pretty awful:

https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/TxHJPcMbjyWxWhcecwwKfh.jpg

Here's an edge view at 100%:



That's truly awful!

Of course, it's hard to know where the focus point is, so it could be a poor example - but OTOH, central parts of the image look OK and the subject distance looks comparable.

But even ignoring potential focus problems, the fringing is absolutely terrible.

 

[pdk42]

There are a few samples here too:

Panasonic Lumix S 28-200mm f/4-7.1 Macro O.I.S. review: the travel photographer's new best friend

Covering all bases, the Lumix S 28-200mm superzoom makes a play to be the only lens you need on the move

www.yahoo.com

The image labeled "Image 1 of 3" looks a bit more encouraging, but it's not a full size/res:

https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/hxv..bpSNCUGZUd6bX5i8A--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTI0MDA7aD0xNjAwO2NmPXdlYnA-/https://media.zenfs.com/en/digital_camera_world_590/da4f7ab8d7004221284dbba4eb88adaa

Here's a view top left:



But there's no EXIF, so hard to know focal length, f-stop etc.

I don't know how a photo review site doing a lens test can provide sample images not at full res and with zero shooting info. Amateurs!

 

[dirk]

We have to be patient. Sooner or later someone will provide RAW files.

If the Lumix zoom does not attract you, I am pretty confident that over the next 2-3 years, Sigma or someone else will bring out more alternatives. But do not expect them to be as small and as light weight

 

[pdk42]

We have to be patient. Sooner or later someone will provide RAW files.

If the Lumix zoom does not attract you, I am pretty confident that over the next 2-3 years, Sigma or someone else will bring out more alternatives. But do not expect them to be as small and as light weight

What I'd really like is a 70-200 variable aperture f4-f5.6. An FF version of the Panasonic 35-100 f3.5-f5.6 :

 

[dirk]

That would be also on my wish list. It could be also an F5.6-6.7, if that would make the telezoom smaller and lighter. I need the compression and reach of that telezoom, not the big aperture for my kind of shooting.

I am really curious what the future roadmap of Sigma and Panasonic will bring in 2024. But in this regard I count more on Sigma. They haver higher capacities to develop many different lenses at the same time in my opinion.

 

[xaviergut]

This youtuber makes a field test of the 28-200mm in the midday sun and is very interesting the performance in apsc mode for video (at 300mm):

I forgot to ask:

Does anyone know if it is posible to use the HHHR Mode (or just the high res mode) with the apsc crop in the S5II /S5IIx?

 

[CharlesH]

This youtuber makes a field test of the 28-200mm in the midday sun and is very interesting the performance in apsc mode for video (at 300mm):

His hands are a lot more stable than mine. Either that or stabilization on the 28-200mm is a whole lot better than it is on my 70-300mm (not likely). I can't get useable aps-c hand held video with the 70-300 set for 200mm.

But ever mind, my G9 II is very stable with hand held telephoto video. Even with my not so stable hands. So for me I'll stick with the G9 II for telephoto video, and not get the 28-200mm for this.

 

[CharlesH]

I forgot to ask:

Does anyone know if it is posible to use the HHHR Mode (or just the high res mode) with the apsc crop in the S5II /S5IIx?

It's possible, but not in RAW. There is no aps-c mode for photography, just large, medium and small images. And these work with the High Resolution mode. See page 212 of the S5II manual.

 

[Arkan]

There appears to be some copy variation with the lens although I am only basing this on very low numbers of reports.

The DPR review by Chris and Jordan was lukewarm, with them suggesting the lens was quite soft especially at the long end. They even suggested it may be copy variation. To be fair, they were also shooting outdoors in the Canadian winter when everything was basically white and so they spent more of the review on the studio test chart which doesn't always suit long lenses.

A few forum members here and at DPR reported soft copies and had them exchanged and got better luck with the second copy. So that's three I know of, which to be fair is not a big sample.

I Googled and found some other review that were much more positive, so I took the plunge and was happy to find that my copy was excellent.

I was one of the people who had to get a replacement since the first was very obviously decentered with poor performance on the left side. The second lens though works fine, although as I mentioned in the post above, I find that focus accuracy at infinity is very sensitive and I have several shots where the result has come out poorly. This is an example. At 4000px on Flickr it's not too bad, but even so you can see the problem.


Swans on Loch Lomond by Paul Kaye, on Flickr

However, overall I'm very happy with it. The detail can be quite astonishing. For example, take a look at this one in "Original size". It's a stitch at 14000px wide:

Thank you to both of you for your answers. I will check mine and might post a few sample in the next few days, in another topic so I won't parasite this one

 

[xaviergut]

It's possible, but not in RAW. There is no aps-c mode for photography, just large, medium and small images. And these work with the High Resolution mode. See page 212 of the S5II manual.

Thank you, Charles, I think I will try it.

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

I think it's clear that this lens is not a magic bullet - image quality will not be up to exacting standards for sharpness, such as often desired for landscapes, not to mention flare. We can't disregard the "rule" that super-zooms sacrifice significant image quality for their high zoom ratios and small size. This may be the newest super-zoom on the market and it may be better than many others but it's still a super-zoom with all the limitations that implies.