Lumix 28-200

[xaviergut]

I'm also very happy with this lens as a video travel lens (where I bought it for).

This week I tested it out and I'm quite happy with the results. I do realize I have to improve, some of the shots are not as good as I liked, but I have myself to blame for that.

Here the short video I made with it:

Very nice video, Nevyn72, specially the shots of animals and the forest. I am (always) curious about the audio. Where did you get the music from?

 

[Nevyn72]

Very nice video, Nevyn72, specially the shots of animals and the forest. I am (always) curious about the audio. Where did you get the music from?

Thank you .. i got my music from Artlist.io

 

[RuleOfThirds]

I liked THIS review from Andy Westlake of the 28-200

 

[Nevyn72]

I liked THIS review from Andy Westlake of the 28-200

Me too, this was one of the reasons I dared to buy the lens online.

Now having used the lens for 1,5 week, I do better see what I like about the lens, and what not:

+ Very light and small, it's a lot easer to use than the heavier 24-105 F4 (and more fun)
+ Very versatile
+ 4K 28mm - 300mm (with APS-c crop) video
+ Good contrast
+ Good stabilization, with E stabilization and IBIS combined very good handheld footage posible, even at the long end.
+ Great for video
+ Good for photo
+ The f4 - f7.1 doesn't bother me, still need a ND-filter when filming outside
+ Sometimes very creamy bokeh
- And sometimes a busy bokeh...
- shooting handheld macro at the wide end is not that easy. Very small DOF and small movements of the camera have quite an impact.
- Also the lens is very close to the subject in Macro.

But all in all this is the lens I was hoping for, I think its going to be my most used lens (together with the 85mm and future 16-28mm).

 

[pdk42]

@Nevyn72 - thanks for the samples. I think they look pretty good and certainly good enough for my telephoto landscape needs.

As to supply - they do seem still hard to get ... BUT ... I just found a used one at MPB in the UK and have ordered it! Like new and £100 off the regular price. If I don't like it, the MPB return policy is very good and since it's already used, I won't feel bad returning it if it comes to that.

 

[Greytop]

Interesting that one has found it's way onto MPB this quickly.
Looking forward to your impressions Paul.

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

For just 100 GBP less I'd prefer to buy a new one and have the guarantee.

 

[pdk42]

For just 100 GBP less I'd prefer to buy a new one and have the guarantee.

Well, that's a fair point. But OTOH, there's not a lot to go wrong in a lens and in fact MPB do provide a warranty. I like to test my lenses carefully and I'm somewhat happier returning a used lens if I'm not 100% happy than a new one. I see too many people ordering new stuff, playing with it for a week or two and then returning it.

 

[pdk42]

Interesting that one has found it's way onto MPB this quickly.
Looking forward to your impressions Paul.

Maybe it's a duffer - time will tell.

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

Well, dust, moisture, de-centring, simply a poor copy - there's plenty to go wrong in manufacturing a lens.

 

[pdk42]

Well, the 28-200 arrived. It does indeed look "like new". It performs very well at the wide end, but anything beyond about 135mm is a disaster unless you stop down to f11. Here's an example at 200mm at f7.1 (wide open), f8, and f11. I didn't change the focus between shots. Camera was on a tripod with a 2s self-timer delay. All approx 100% crops.

f7.1

• Panasonic DC-S1R
• LUMIX S 28-200/F4-7.1
• ƒ/7.1
• 200mm
• 1/160s
• ISO 100

f8

• Panasonic DC-S1R
• LUMIX S 28-200/F4-7.1
• ƒ/8
• 200mm
• 1/125s
• ISO 100

f11

• Panasonic DC-S1R
• LUMIX S 28-200/F4-7.1
• ƒ/11
• 200mm
• 1/50s
• ISO 100

 

[pdk42]

I'm going to try the Tamron 28-200 on a Sony and see how that performs. As things stand, I'm yet to find a 200mm lens that works for me on L-mount.

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

Wow, that wide-open shot looks horrible.

 

[Greytop]

Well, the 28-200 arrived. It does indeed look "like new". It performs very well at the wide end, but anything beyond about 135mm is a disaster unless you stop down to f11. Here's an example at 200mm at f7.1 (wide open), f8, and f11. I didn't change the focus between shots. Camera was on a tripod with a 2s self-timer delay. All approx 100% crops.

f7.1
View attachment 4333


f8
View attachment 4334

f11
View attachment 4335

Oh dear, what a shame. I guess now we know why it arrived on MPB so quickly.
So it looks like sample variation is a factor to consider when deciding where to buy, I just hope this isn't representative of the lens in general because at some point I would consider getting one as a travel companion.

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

I think they've tried too hard to get the range into a small size and the compromises they've had to make to do that are really showing.

 

[Nevyn72]

I think I actually have a really good sample, but will try to make somewhere this week some more photos in a more controlled setting. So pictures at 135mm, 150mm, 180mm and 200mm all at F8

 

[pdk42]

Wow, that wide-open shot looks horrible.

Yeah, it's really bad. And it's sort of a fuzzy "blooming" rather than just unsharp. You can even see it in the viewfinder. A legacy Tokina 70-210 for OM that cost me £25 performs better!

Tokina 70-210 at 210mm, f8

• Panasonic DC-S1R
• Tokina SD 70-210 f4-5.6
• ƒ/8
• 210mm
• 1/200s
• ISO 100

 

[pdk42]

Yeah, it's really bad. And it's sort of a fuzzy "blooming" rather than just unsharp. You can even see it in the viewfinder. The £25 Tokina 70-210 for OM that I have performs better!

Tokina 70-210 at 210mm, f8
View attachment 4345

And that too is tiny:

• Panasonic DC-S5M2
• LUMIX S 20-60/F3.5-5.6
• ƒ/5.3
• 51mm
• 1/60s
• ISO 400

 

[pdk42]

I think they've tried too hard to get the range into a small size and the compromises they've had to make to do that are really showing.

Everyone raves about its size, but there are plenty of legacy 28-200 lenses that all just as small, or smaller:

Sigma 28-200 f3.5-f5.6 - 400g, 77mm long

Tamron 28-200 f3.5-f5.6 - 430g, 81mm long

Tamron 28-200 f3.8-f5.6 macro - 354g, 75mm long

I could go on. All the above are AF lenses, albeit without IS.

To be honest, the modern Tamron 28-200 f2.8-f5.6 Di III RXD looks to be significantly better optically than this Lumix lens. It's a little bigger and it lacks IS, but TBH, I much much much prefer the Tamron.

Tamron 28-200 - 575g, 117mm long
Lumix 28-200 - 413g, 77mm long

 

[CH_CH]

You scared me so I took a couple of 200mm shots- phew, mine is sharp.
Did you use an ND filter? 50th of a second is quite slow for outdoors- I am at 1/250 even in deep shade.