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 S Pro 16-35mm f/4

Jonathan-Mac

Jonathan-Mac

Well-Known Member
Some early samples from Panasonic's "Pro" level ultra-wide zoom, I'm sure I'll add some colour stuff once I get it - these were all taken on a dull, rainy day in Madrid (that doesn't happen very often...).

53163392711_289ba15fd4_b.jpg
Metro by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

53162799932_74663b6998_b.jpg
El Corte Inglés by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

53163398421_f1ce3bd069_b.jpg
Arrowflash! by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

53162810657_0b65179f2a_b.jpg
Metro II by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

53166283764_481e1f5318_b.jpg
Fan out by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

53165488772_2b590303d5_b.jpg
Puddle reflections by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

53166286304_23c356cf45_b.jpg
Line 10 by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr
 
I'll add a few more images, mostly from a recent trip to Porto in Portugal. This was the only zoom I took for the trip and I found the range very useful - 16mm ultra wide up to 35mm which is not too far off a normal. I took most shots one or other extreme of the range with very little in between, but I found the image quality to be excellent regardless of the settings.

I will add however, that I have experienced some occasional AF problems with the lens. Sometimes it misses focus by a small amount despite my S5's focus confirmation. It's sometimes enough to be visible in the viewfinder without magnification, sometimes not and I don't see it until reviewing afterwards. It may be related to the known Lumix "outgassing" problem from which my copy suffers, but I haven't noticed any other performance issues.

53258030023_39cf31711f_b.jpg
Porto by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

53312035396_2f926a3ab4_b.jpg
Porto colours by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

53312293198_a6866b52d9_b.jpg
Porto bird lady by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

53312044791_6b4653493b_b.jpg
Porto by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

53198128607_bf10866425_b.jpg
Sunrise by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

53267076283_3509fa2e14_b.jpg

53312060171_d19acf526f_b.jpg
Samosa by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

Porto tram by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

53259445554_cecf6da2f8_b.jpg
Porto by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

53254358835_0fe6a4ac95_b.jpg
Porto 65:24 #2 by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

I like this last image but it demonstrates the misfocusing I mentioned - if you zoom in it's quite soft.

53253863756_10a09a3ccf_b.jpg
Porto 65:24 by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr
 
This shot is the first here taken on the second copy of this lens after Panasonic replaced it (which I'm very happy with since I didn't even buy it new - it was already used). So far the lens seems to be every bit as good as my first copy but I haven't used it enough to say if it also suffers from the occasional mis-focusing problems.

53439983766_97fd75f0e8_b.jpg
Segovia christmas night by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr
 
Jonathan-Mac said:
I'll add a few more images, mostly from a recent trip to Porto in Portugal. This was the only zoom I took for the trip and I found the range very useful - 16mm ultra wide up to 35mm which is not too far off a normal. I took most shots one or other extreme of the range with very little in between, but I found the image quality to be excellent regardless of the settings.

I will add however, that I have experienced some occasional AF problems with the lens. Sometimes it misses focus by a small amount despite my S5's focus confirmation. It's sometimes enough to be visible in the viewfinder without magnification, sometimes not and I don't see it until reviewing afterwards. It may be related to the known Lumix "outgassing" problem from which my copy suffers, but I haven't noticed any other performance issues.

View attachment 1482
Porto by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

View attachment 1483
Porto colours by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

View attachment 1484
Porto bird lady by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

View attachment 1485
Porto by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

View attachment 1486
Sunrise by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

View attachment 1487

View attachment 1491
Samosa by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

Porto tram by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

View attachment 1488
Porto by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

View attachment 1489
Porto 65:24 #2 by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

I like this last image but it demonstrates the misfocusing I mentioned - if you zoom in it's quite soft.

View attachment 1490
Porto 65:24 by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Very nice photos!
 
I'm glad people liked it but I've just removed it - it was hopelessly out of focus and I hadn't even noticed until now. So it seems that this second copy of the 16-35mm has the same focusing problems as my original copy (which was replaced due to blue fogging). That's a shame and suggests it's a problem with this particular lens design.
 
Jonathan-Mac said:
I'm glad people liked it but I've just removed it - it was hopelessly out of focus and I hadn't even noticed until now. So it seems that this second copy of the 16-35mm has the same focusing problems as my original copy (which was replaced due to blue fogging). That's a shame and suggests it's a problem with this particular lens design.
Click to expand...
Oh no. If you're struggling with the 16-35, take a look at the 14-28. I'm quite pleased with mine. There is some sharpness fall off towards the edges, but it's not too bad and more than acceptable unless you're being very nit-picking.
 
Jonathan-Mac said:
I'm glad people liked it but I've just removed it - it was hopelessly out of focus and I hadn't even noticed until now. So it seems that this second copy of the 16-35mm has the same focusing problems as my original copy (which was replaced due to blue fogging). That's a shame and suggests it's a problem with this particular lens design.
Click to expand...
I doubt there is a problem with the Lumix S Pro 16-35mm f/4 lens design?
I never met problems by the AF of that lens.
But at least there is one difference with your situation in comparison to mine. My camera is a Lumix S1R.
(But I doubt that should be the "big difference").

When using AF, keep in mind e.g. when using the 16mm wide angle, and have much foreground / background.
And using a big AF area (AF points spread to a wide area), it can focus easily to "wrong" foreground AF points.
Do use a small AF area, and check / move the focus area within the viewfinder to a more small detailed area of the total image.
You definitely want to be sharp / in focus.

In case op landscape photography, often I do use manual focusing, to have more control, to depth of field.

In the case of photographing people and using the AF people (eye recognition). That function also do work great here.
-
 
Last edited:
Babylonia said:
I doubt there is a problem with the Lumix S Pro 16-35mm f/4 lens design?
I never met problems by the AF of that lens.
But at least there is one difference with your situation in comparison to mine. My camera is a Lumix S1R.
(But I doubt that should be the "big difference").

When using AF, keep in mind e.g. when using the 16mm wide angle, and have much foreground / background.
And using a big AF area (AF points spread to a wide area), it can focus easily to "wrong" foreground AF points.
Do use a small AF area, and check / move the focus area within the viewfinder to a more small detailed area of the total image.
You definitely want to be sharp / in focus.

In case op landscape photography, often I do use manual focusing, to have more control, to depth of field.

In the case of photographing people and using the AF people (eye recognition). That function also do work great here.
-
Click to expand...
Logic can only lead me to believe that the problem is in the 16-35mm. It has happened to me only with two different copies of that lens, manufactured years apart, and with no other on my S5. I doubt it's a general ultra-wide problem as I use my 20-60mm at 20mm frequently and it's never happened.

I'm not ready to give up on the lens as when it works it's excellent but I will take more care from now on to confirm proper focus when using it.
 
Jonathan-Mac said:
Logic can only lead me to believe that the problem is in the 16-35mm.....
Click to expand...
What is 'Logical' to one person may have a different meaning to another.

I searched on Google for autofocus problems with this lens.
Besides several messages found of your own copies having trouble.
I only found a message, that under dark conditions this lens do have more AF problems.
Well, that is nothing new. All lenses with less fast starting aperture values, shall met AF problems sooner under dark conditions.
Specially in comparison to the older S1 / S1R camera models, known for their less fast / reliable AF, than e.g. te more new S5 II model.
But that is more a camera issue than a lens issue.

But NO messages found as for problems as mentioned by yourself.
Even the opposite fast and reliable AF - (by a more old review).
www.thephoblographer.com

The Big City Lens: The Panasonic 16-35mm f4 PRO Review

The Panasonic 16-35mm f4 is a lens that is easy to love. But at the current price and with this autofocus, we're finding it a tough decision.
www.thephoblographer.com www.thephoblographer.com

As of May 2021, the Leica SL2s received a big firmware update. For stills shooters, that update brought a lot of autofocus upgrades.
The Panasonic 16-35mm f4 now autofocuses faster on the Leica camera than it can on Panasonic’s own cameras.
What’s more, the autofocus is accurate. Tracking autofocus and continuous autofocus work well for journalistic situations.

"By logic" if there is a main AF problem by this lens "by design", I should find many, many more messages of users having comparable problems..
And at least a lens firmware update for correction that should be related to those issues "if there was a general complain" of AF issues.
But there isn't either. The only firmware update (v1.1) = "Improved optical correction control" (whatever that may entail).

So "by logic" I think in one way or another it could be that you are using the wrong AF focus technique itself ?
(As I explained earlier in my previous post, how to deal with it).
-
 
Last edited:
So far in 2024, I have taken over 700 shots with my 16-35, which I purchased - I think - four years ago. I just scanned through probably 100 of those 2024 shots, and didn't see any obvious trend of out-of-focus images. I do this by zooming in to 200% on my retina display, BTW. I almost always use AF-S and generally shoot landscapes at F8, using an S1R.

So, I have seen no indication of mis-focus problems on my copy after thousands of shots over several years.

Here's a shot from Arches:

P1573711.jpg
  • Panasonic - DC-S1R
  • LUMIX S 16-35/F4
  • 17.0 mm
  • ƒ/11
  • 1/25 sec
  • Pattern
  • Auto exposure
  • ISO 100


And a 100% crop:
P1573678 1.jpg
  • Panasonic - DC-S1R
  • LUMIX S 16-35/F4
  • 35.0 mm
  • ƒ/4
  • 1/1300 sec
  • Pattern
  • Auto exposure
  • ISO 100
 
GeorgeHudetz said:
... I almost always use AF-S and generally shoot landscapes at F8, using an S1R.
Click to expand...
Mostly also that is my choice as for focusing.
Choosing a particular smaller part within the scene wanting to be "sharp", and shifting the "small" AF area within the viewfinder to that part.
(Depending on conditions from F 4.0 and up).
 
I also tend to focus at hyperfocal-ish distances. Possibly, if xaviergut tends to focus more often at infinity, that could be indicative of a problem with the 16-35 that I don't commonly experience; not sure.
 
Jonathan-Mac said:
I like this last image but it demonstrates the misfocusing I mentioned - if you zoom in it's quite soft.

View attachment 1490
Porto 65:24 by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Going to be deeper investigating to some of your pictures.
Looking to that image < represented on Flickr >, and zoomed in as far as possible. The picture is not sharp over the entire image area.

But there seems also a de-centring problem of this lens?

Looking from left to the right, there is a difference by sharpness.
Specially at the right sight, from top to bottom, (areas more in the background, to closer distance).
The image is not sharp anywhere ---> blurry all over. But particular the "double vertical" image interference of the masts in the middle right area,
almost on the outer edge. Gives me the impression that something is wrong with this lens. Do you perhaps also use a filter in front of the lens?

And what is the exposure time / aperture used for that picture?
-
 
Babylonia said:
Going to be deeper investigating to some of your pictures.
Looking to that image < represented on Flickr >, and zoomed in as far as possible. The picture is not sharp over the entire image area.

But there seems also a de-centring problem of this lens?

Looking from left to the right, there is a difference by sharpness.
Specially at the right sight, from top to bottom, (areas more in the background, to closer distance).
The image is not sharp anywhere ---> blurry all over. But particular the "double vertical" image interference of the masts in the middle right area,
almost on the outer edge. Gives me the impression that something is wrong with this lens. Do you perhaps also use a filter in front of the lens?

And what is the exposure time / aperture used for that picture?
-
Click to expand...
Yes, that image I saw was OOF shortly after taking it. f/8, 1/250s, there's no chance of camera shake. This was taken with my first copy of the lens, which was exchanged by Panasonic due to the blue fogging problem (which i thought might be causing the focus problems but it's not the case as my current copy has no blue fogging but apparently still has the occasional focus problem). That copy was also slightly de-centred as can be seen in some other (in focus) shots even around f/8, but not enough to really bother me. My second copy does not seem to be de-centred at all.

Still, the same focus problem on two copies of the same lens strongly suggests a problem in that model since we can rule out the camera as the cause (other lenses don't do it) and the conditions (good light with a high contrast subject) and technique (again, other lenses don't do it).

As a Pentax user I got into the habit of always checking focus immediately after shooting but it's something I've gotten a little lax in now that I mainly use the S5. Even though AF is far better on the S5 I will need to go back to that. On this particular day I was in a rush as my family and friends were waiting for me to finish so I did most of the checking later.
 
Jonathan-Mac said:
Yes, that image I saw was OOF shortly after taking it. f/8, 1/250s, there's no chance of camera shake. This was taken with my first copy of the lens, which was exchanged by Panasonic due to the blue fogging problem (which i thought might be causing the focus problems but it's not the case as my current copy has no blue fogging but apparently still has the occasional focus problem). That copy was also slightly de-centred as can be seen in some other (in focus) shots even around f/8, but not enough to really bother me. My second copy does not seem to be de-centred at all.
Click to expand...
I'm curious - do you acquire that copy new or used?

Jonathan-Mac said:
Still, the same focus problem on two copies of the same lens strongly suggests a problem in that model since we can rule out the camera as the cause (other lenses don't do it) and the conditions (good light with a high contrast subject) and technique (again, other lenses don't do it).
Click to expand...
True, but on the other hand, the 16-35 has been on the market for 5 years now, and as far as I can tell, you are the only one to have publicly talked about having focus issues with the lens. So I'm more inclined to believe that you have had particularly bad luck. However, all I did was a basic google search - did not search FB, for example.

Jonathan-Mac said:
As a Pentax user I got into the habit of always checking focus immediately after shooting but it's something I've gotten a little lax in now that I mainly use the S5. Even though AF is far better on the S5 I will need to go back to that. On this particular day I was in a rush as my family and friends were waiting for me to finish so I did most of the checking later.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I rarely check for focus accuracy anymore either, although I am a habitual pixel-peeper after the fact.

BTW, I did have a few OOF shots recently from my 28-200, which surprised me because I so rarely see that for AF-S, small-aperture images. At the time, I was focusing at infinity, which is not my normal approach. Do you commonly focus at infinity?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top