Panasonic S lenses take the two top spots in Petapixel's worst lens of the year

[Jonathan-Mac]

I just watched Petapixel's best & worst products of the year video, which I like to do because the negative stuff tends to be very held back in the reviews and only comes out here, and saw that the Lumix 28-200mm takes #2 in the worst lens category. Basically because it's not optically very good and Tamron and Nikon make similar but better super-zooms for similar prices. Couple that with the bad copies reported and it's a dud.

And the well-deserved top spot for worst lens of 2024 was the Panasonic 26mm f/8 - manual focus, fixed slow aperture, no filter ring.

So in the interest of using feedback for improvements, let's hope that Panasonic take the opportunity to learn from their mistakes and make more of an effort in 2025.

 

[Pete_W]

I have reached the conclusion that "reviews" from Chris and Jordan are nothing more than biased opinion pieces. Even when they were at DPReview, they failed to grasp the context of the cameras and lenses they were meant to be reviewing and instead product opinion pieces loaded with complaints if the product didn't meet their own specific needs. The criticism from both Chris and Jordan of the S9 is an example of missing a product's context. I've found it to be a brilliant little camera for my purposes as have many others.

Chris panned the Lumix 70-300mm lens and I nearly didn't buy it based on his "review". I am thankful that I found a number of other reviews that weren't as negative so I went ahead and bought it, and it's turned out to be one the best lenses I own. His review was really off beam. The same seems to apply to the Lumix 28-200mm lens - I have seen examples of great photos and videos which contradict his review. Like this one.

I do think Panasonic should have waited and released the S9 with the 18-40mm lens, and think the little 26mm f/8 pancake was probably a stop-gap measure due to timing and so it copped a barrage of complaints. It's actually a good little lens in its own right.

While Chris and Jordan produce very polished YouTube content, I feel that the actual content itself is deeply flawed, being based on personal opinions. For unbiased and fair reviews, Richard Wong is the gold standard in my view.

 

[xaviergut]

I feel that the actual content itself is deeply flawed, being based on personal opinions.

I think that considering Lumix's minuscule market share compared to Canon, Sony and even Nikon, it is much easier for Chris and Jordan to criticize Lumix's products, because they are going to upset a lot fewer people and they don't want to lose customers or have fewer visits to the Petapixel websie, because they would lose advertising contracts, etc.

saw that the Lumix 28-200mm takes #2 in the worst lens category.

I don't think they are judging the Lumix lenses for video, which are excellent, by the way (parfocal, no focus breathing, instant focus, silent, etc.), they do consider only the photography performance.

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

I find it strange that producing critical reviews of products is considered being biased and opinionated. I for one would feel a lot worse buying a product because it had received glowing reviews only to find it sub-par.

I come from Pentax, which receives a negative bias across almost all review platforms, so it's something I'm used to seeing and discerning and I can't say it's something I've picked up anywhere against Lumix products, which are generally very well thought-of, or had been until this past year.

 

[pdk42]

I agree about the opinions of these two lenses actually. The 28-200 is really weak - this was a lens I was desperate for, but despite trying three copies, I couldn’t reconcile its utility (size, weight, range) with its performance. The system is capable of way better than this.

And the 26 f8? I mean, there are proper pancakes with AF, filter rings, an iris, and a much faster max aperture in many other systems. And yet Panasonic are trying to offload this meagre effort at $250 or so. If it were $50, they could be forgiven.

Panasonic are capable of much better lenses than these - and I don’t just mean the Pro range - look at the 20-60, 14-28, and 70-300 to see what can be done without charging $2k+ for a lens.

 

[cascadian]

I also have seen fine output from the 28-200 and know of its many fans. It's not for me - but nobody's xx-200 has been made for me. Not yet!

An old metaljacket Minolta 100-200/4.5 is my decent, low-bulk midtele option for now.

 

[Babylonia]

Lumix 28-200mm takes #2 in the worst lens category.
And the well-deserved top spot for worst lens of 2024 was the Panasonic 26mm f/8 - manual focus,

I am not surprised at all, as these zoom ranges, and silly slow aperture value of that manual lens, can not be taken seriously at all IMO.
Never understand why people want such lenses?

 

[Nevyn72]

I am not surprised at all, as these zoom ranges, and silly slow aperture value of that manual lens, can not be taken seriously at all IMO.
Never understand why people want such lenses?

Because it's a great lens for video. Together with my 16-28mm from Sigma its my travel kit, and it's a great kit. Together its a light kit and very versatile. Lowlight or wide: the 16-28mm, for the rest the 28-200. And almost always still with an ND-filter on it, so I'm not bothered with the slow aperture.

This is a great lens for video

 

[pdk42]

I also have seen fine output from the 28-200 and know of its many fans.

Great images can be made with any lens because it’s the composition etc that is the most important. But in the right hands, in the right place, at the right time, then a better lens will always deliver better results than a poor one. And a great lens can drag something out of the mundane. So, it’s always worth investing in good glass.

It's not for me - but nobody's xx-200 has been made for me. Not yet!

The Tamron 28-200 is decent and the Nikon 24-200 isn’t too bad either. Measured against either of these the LUMIX 28-200 is weak in terms of optical performance, especially at the longer end. It may be small and light, but in my view the compromise has gone too far in that direction to the detriment of performance.

And in M43, the Olympus 12-100 f4 is just superb. It’s for a sensor half the linear dimensions of FF, but it’s bigger and heavier than the 28-200 - that shows that its design goals were for optical performance first. Personally, I’d be happy with an L mount 24-200 f4-f5.6 that was as good as the Oly 12-200, even it was the size and weight of, say, the Panasonic 70-200 f4. That would be a lens that I’d pay good money for.

It seems that Panasonic, perhaps in response to criticisms of the size of early Pro glass (50 f1.4, 24-70 f2.8 etc), have totally flipped and gone for the smallest possible size and weight, even if optical performance is a bit “meh” (or worse in the case of the 28-200). Maybe that’s fine for video, but it won’t help them to build a good reputation for pure photography.

 

[Pete_W]

I find it strange that producing critical reviews of products is considered being biased and opinionated. I for one would feel a lot worse buying a product because it had received glowing reviews only to find it sub-par.

I want truthful reviews, not sugar-coated promos. The Chris/Jordan review of the 70-300mm review painted the lens in a similar light to the 28-200mm, i.e. underwhelming, soft, lacking contrast. I found that to be plain wrong (as have others) and can't explain why, so I don't trust their reviews any more. The OM sponsorship of their podcast undermines any claim to being impartial.

 

[xaviergut]

I am not surprised at all, as these zoom ranges, and silly slow aperture value of that manual lens, can not be taken seriously at all IMO.
Never understand why people want such lenses?

Well, it's not that difficult to understand, it's all about SIZE and WEIGHT. It's a matter of commitment: you lose between 5 and 10% of image quality and forget about hughe photo bags, back, arm and wrist pain, you save money on physiotherapy...

For many people it is much more important to enjoy the creation of photo and video content without major physical restrictions, than strictly 5% or 10% more sharpness in the corners after pixel peeping at 100%

 

[CH_CH]

First is, I think they are free to have an opinion, and they tested the lens, so if that is their opinion, it is fine.
Second, my copy seems to be OK because I have no problem with sharpness or otherwise.
I like the semi macro feature, it adds versatility to a lens that is all about convenience.
To me is is a good pair for walkaround with the S9 to be super stealth with great IQ.
All the other competitor options with theoretical better IQ are just much bigger.

 

[CH_CH]

I want truthful reviews, not sugar-coated promos. The Chris/Jordan review of the 70-300mm review painted the lens in a similar light to the 28-200mm, i.e. underwhelming, soft, lacking contrast. I found that to be plain wrong (as have others) and can't explain why, so I don't trust their reviews any more. The OM sponsorship of their podcast undermines any claim to being impartial.

Yeah, this is another matter.
Not sure why this happened? I guess most 70-300 are just bland cheaper versions of the 70-200, but the Lumix lens is one of my favourites, really great lens. A bit big though, but it is expected with the aperture and 300mm on FF...

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

I see two common scenarios in which a 2x-200 lens could be judged:

1. As a travel zoom
2. As a reasonable lightweight replacement for the traditional pairing of a 2x-70 zoom & a 70-200 zoom. And I'm talking F4 zooms here, or variable aperture.

The LUMIX 28-200 clearly excels in the first category. In fact, it is the lightest and most compact lens of it's type in FF. And not by small margins. And, it does it with OIS. In this regard, it is a remarkable accomplishment, IMO.

In the second category, it clearly fails. IQ does indeed trail start to off at 150mm and just gets worse as you go longer, to the point where, at 200mm, my reaction is "Bummer, man." At least when pixel peeping - again, scenario 2. In scenario 1 where you are publishing downsampled images to social media, it hardly matters.

So, if PP is calling it the second-worst lens of 2024, that clearly is in the context of pixel peeping. Fine, guilty as charged. But evaluate it for weight, compactness, and OIS, it's a different story, IMO.

Comparing my copy to my 20-60 and 70-300 at F8 for a typical landscape scene (i.e, lots of field depth), I'd say it's a toss-up on the wide end. My 28-200 is a little sharper/contrastier in the center than my 20-60, from 28mm to 60mm. Of course, due to field curvature, the 20-60 has much better foreground corners, but the 28-200 has better left & right edges, and better detail at infinity. As I've said before, you can stop the 20-60 down to F11 and focus at infinity to minimize the effect of field curvature - i.e, you loose a little in the foreground corners, but gain at the edges and at infinity. So, again, a toss-up from an IQ perspective. But I don't like shooting around field curvature, and having dual-stablization can be helpful even on the wide end, so I prefer the 28-200.

Comparing the 28-200 to the 70-300 at F8 is a little more stark. The 70-300 has better edges at all overlapping focal lengths, and the center is sharper at 150mm+. So yeah, the 28-200 isn't a good choice for critical work, especially on the long end. But that shouldn't be a surprise.

And also, yes, it would be great if we could get at 24-200 with OIS that can reasonably compete with the IQ - at F8 - of lenses like the 24-105 and 70-200 F4. Sigma, you listening?

 

[The Rigger]

I don't think they are judging the Lumix lenses for video, which are excellent, by the way (parfocal, no focus breathing, instant focus, silent, etc.), they do consider only the photography performance.

Shrug. Since I don't shoot video, that's all I consider, too.

 

[Markuswelder]

Ever since those two clowns voted the G100 the worst camera of the year, I've taken pretty much less than zero notice of their proclamations.
Which, incidentally was a pretty good omen for the purchase of my 26mm f8.
It's a brilliant little lens. Corner to corner sharp, nice contrast and colour, it does exactly what is says on the box

 

[pdk42]

Ever since those two clowns voted the G100 the worst camera of the year, I've taken pretty much less than zero notice of their proclamations.
Which, incidentally was a pretty good omen for the purchase of my 26mm f8.
It's a brilliant little lens. Corner to corner sharp, nice contrast and colour, it does exactly what is says on the box

I’m sure for what it is, it’s just fine. But Panasonic want £220 for it in the UK.

 

[Markuswelder]

I paid $320? Australian or thereabouts for mine (I was that concerned about it I forgot within a week or two) and have not regretted it one bit. Because it has a purpose and use for me. If I didn't, $20 would be too much. For me. Buy that wouldn't make it "the worst lens of the year"
Those clowns -because that's all they are, providing light entertainment, fail to comprehend this. Yeah, the other manufacturer make lenses that are more fully featured, but they don't fit my L mount camera. So I use it, and be happy. Simple.

 

[xaviergut]

Shrug. Since I don't shoot video, that's all I consider, too.

I don't. Focus breathing, for example, can ruin your video shots. And some continuous photo shots too, by the way.

In any case, I never visit Petapixel's website and they never influence my purchasing decisions.

 

[Lsake]

Chris and Jordan are right. That 26mm needs to be withdrawn from sale and stricken from the record. Although I might have picked the 18-40mm as worse than the 28-200.