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.
Rumors Panasonic 24-60 f2.8 or f2.0
- Thread starter Quentinquirelino
- Start date
Pete_W
LMF-Patron
Ha ha! On social media, Panasonic Australia has advertised the announcement as being on the 14th. I think the local AU east-coast start time is midnight.
Anyway, I won't be staying up to watch it. I will read all about it over a bowl of porridge the next morning.
I'm currently in a time zone that's a couple of hours behind you, I'll be doing the same
Hi Paul,
I saw today this old S1RII review and the German reviewer made AF tests with his black dog, running fast towards to him.
The reviewer sais, that all shots were in focus. Also shots when the dog was jumping etc. You can see the dog scene from the spot I linked to:
He was using the Lumix 24-105/4.0 lens for the dog scenes. Not a sport lens at all and still everything in focus.
He also said that in the same test scenes 2 years ago with the S1R, he was not able to focus accurately the dog. He sais a difference like night and day and S1Rii is on par with this with Sony, Canon and Nikon tests.
Jonathan-Mac
Well-Known Member
You know how the internet and gear sites are - anything less than within about 90% of what Sony or Canon can do means that the AF system is completely unusable!!
I think you're being a little bit unrealistic there. It's more like 105%You know how the internet and gear sites are - anything less than within about 90% of what Sony or Canon can do means that the AF system is completely unusable!!
Don't think I will be ordering the new 24-60. Sample images looked somewhat mediocre and had a LOT of chromatic aberration in some sample shots I saw online, even at f/8!
Sample images here....
The shots from DPreview were also unremarkable.
Sample images here....
The shots from DPreview were also unremarkable.
That is strange, because several youtubers said it is more or less on par with the Lumix 24-70/2.8
Nevyn72
LMF-Patron Gold
DPReview is not a source to be trusted anymore... They lost the knowledge with that Amazon/selling debacle.
RuleOfThirds
Well-Known Member
Only those two very close-up white flower photos are bit iffy from photographyblog. Lots of spherical abberation. Looks like too close focused. I hardly see and chromatic abberation though, just blown highlighsts in out of focus area. But the images from photographyblog are flat and uninspiring. But I’m not sure it is the lenses fault yet.
RuleOfThirds
Well-Known Member
Sample images are sample images…
Nevyn72
LMF-Patron Gold
But samples of the equipment, or of the knowledge of the user....
I don't need this lens, but if I would, I would wait for more examples from more knowledgeable people
RuleOfThirds
Well-Known Member
I mean samples taken with the lens. They do that pretty ok. Better than the photographyblog photos
Absolutely not from what I've seen so far. Not even close. Even the Sigma 24-70 A II is close but still behind the S Pro in my experience.
Look again, especially at the trees on some of the shots in the corners of the images. All the branches are purple fringed at f/8.
RuleOfThirds
Well-Known Member
Yes, amd I still have time… If I had the 28-70 I would not sell it at a loss to buy the 24-60. But since I’m in my return window with the 28-70 it’s quite relevant to me. I’ve put that lens back in its box.
Size wise it is still a bit bigger. My 16-35 is almost the same size, just one mm bigger in diameter (85 vs 84) otherwise the same in length. The 24-60 is 10% heavier than my S Pro. So I have a good understanding about its size. The sigma feels substantially lighter and smaller. But also “cheaper” then any of my lumix zoom lenses.
Size wise it is still a bit bigger. My 16-35 is almost the same size, just one mm bigger in diameter (85 vs 84) otherwise the same in length. The 24-60 is 10% heavier than my S Pro. So I have a good understanding about its size. The sigma feels substantially lighter and smaller. But also “cheaper” then any of my lumix zoom lenses.
RuleOfThirds
Well-Known Member
I think I see what you see, but that is not CA, but overblown highlights in the bokeh. I think the results with any lens would have been like that given the way he took the shot with his settings. I’m waiting for more full size sample images and written reviews from reviewers who can take good pictures. I try to avoid photographyblog almost always.
On the other hand, if he can create stunning images with it then it must be either an ultra uber good lens or camera. Or a different person. With this they did not achieve that anyway
Maybe, but it does look purple to me. The sky was definitely blown out in his shots. I didn't think the lens was particularly sharp in any samples I've seen either.I think I see what you see, but that is not CA, but overblown highlights in the bokeh. I think the results with any lens would have been like that given the way he took the shot with his settings. I’m waiting for more full size sample images and written reviews from reviewers who can take good pictures. I try to avoid photographyblog almost always.
On the other hand, if he can create stunning images with it then it must be either an ultra uber good lens or camera. Or a different person. With this they did not achieve that anyway
I don't really need the lens, as I have both the 24-70 S Pro and the Leica 24-90 SL, which I consider to be reference lenses when it comes to mid-range zooms for L mount.
That said, a smaller, lighter f/2.8 that's sharp would have been a nice addition for more causal outings. For $900, I dont see the performance or value, thus far.
GeorgeHudetz
Well-Known Member
So, how does the S-Pro compare to the Leica?