Replacing my dead Panasonic 70-200 f4

[pdk42]

I've been mulling over what I should replace my dead 70-200 f4 with. Looking at my stats for 2025, I can see that the 70-200 was my second most-used lens, after the 24-105. This surprised me since I thought the 14-28 would in second spot. And of the 70-200 images, 41% were at 200mm and 23% were shot wide open. This tells me that actually a long and fastish lens is probably useful to me.

So, the options seem to be:

Do nothing	I do have the 20-200 now and it performs pretty well in the 70-200 range. But it's slow, f5.8 at 70mm and it only gets worse as you zoom in.
Another Panasonic 70-200 f4	I think even with a warranty I'm not tempted to go down this route, for obvious reaaons.
Panasonic 700-200 f2.8	Ditto
Sigma 70-200 f2.8	I was sorely tempted by this lens when I got the 70-200 f4 so it's an obvious way to go. What's more, I could get a TC for it to extend the range. I'm quite tempted.
Panasonic 70-300	I've had one of these before and some focusing quirks aside, it did deliver the IQ. But, you know, Panasonic...
Sigma 100-400	Another lens I've had before. I found its IQ to be "OK", but nothing more.
Panasonic 100-500	This would be the obvious lens to complement my other lenses in terms of focal length (esp given the fact that when I was using the 70-200 I was frequently at the 200mm limit). But you know, Panasonic.... Fool me once and all that. At f7.1 it's also a bit slow.
Sigma 150-600	This is also a possibility and like the Panasonic 100-500 would give me a better fit with focal lengths with my other lenses. But it's almost 2kg.
Sigma 60-600	This is obviously a huge step up in size and weight (and price) and I'm probably not really needing quite this much reach.

I'm really leaning towards the Sigma 70-200 f2.8. I know it's a great performer and I have a lot of respect for Sigma lenses. And I could add a TC to get me to a 283mm f4 or a 400 f5.6. Has anyone used it with the TCs?

We have a big show coming up in March in the UK and there are usually deals to be had there so I'll probably mull over the decision and then press the button when I'm there.

 

[StanFoxworthy]

Paul, if you were in the southeastern US, I would happily loan you my Sigma 70-200 2.8 as the image IQ is quite nice. I have two niggles with it though; the zoom & focus rings are swapped, and half of the zoom ring is covered by the lens hood making it somewhat uncomfortable to use. I’ve actually been thinking about selling it and replacing it with either the LUMIX 70-200 2.8 pro, the LUMIX 100-500 or even the Leica 90-280. If you don’t mind the handling of the Sigma, I think you’ll be quite pleased with the images it produces. Cheers!

 

[CharlesH]

so I'll probably mull over the decision and then press the button when I'm there.

Of these options the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 seems to me the obvious choice, especially since you are moving to Sigma lenses. From my experience with TC's I never recommend a 2X, but 1.4X should perform really well with this lens.

For what it is worth I'm finding the Lumix 100-500 is quite a good lens, although I know it's on your Panasonic black list.

 

[Jan.Wedekind]

I would recommend taking the emotional part out of it. If it was your second most used lens, it tells you something. And forums aren’t full of complaintse about dead Panasonic pro glass neither. You got unlucky Mine is 7y old bought used. I’d buy it again for sure if it died tomorrow. Why not check MBP or similar?

Besides that: the Sigma I’m sure is amazing but heavier. TCs: both Pana and Sigma TCs can be used interchangeably on either.

 

[pdk42]

Paul, if you were in the southeastern US, I would happily loan you my Sigma 70-200 2.8 as the image IQ is quite nice. I have two niggles with it though; the zoom & focus rings are swapped, and half of the zoom ring is covered by the lens hood making it somewhat uncomfortable to use. I’ve actually been thinking about selling it and replacing it with either the LUMIX 70-200 2.8 pro, the LUMIX 100-500 or even the Leica 90-280. If you don’t mind the handling of the Sigma, I think you’ll be quite pleased with the images it produces. Cheers!

Yes, I'm aware of the strange zoom/focus ring layout. But I seldom use lens hoods so it covering the zoom ring wouldn't bother me. I'd prefer the zoom ring to be at the rear though.

 

[pdk42]

I would recommend taking the emotional part out of it. If it was your second most used lens, it tells you something. And forums aren’t full of complaintse about dead Panasonic pro glass neither. You got unlucky Mine is 7y old bought used. I’d buy it again for sure if it died tomorrow.

I know that my emotions are playing a part in this, but I do feel badly let down by this lens, and by Panasonic. I'm looking at it now and it's pristine with beautiful glass - it's really criminal to have to throw it away. Almost certainly it's a fried circuit board or broken cable and it irks me that it's unrepairable because of a Panasonic "do no resuscitate" policy.

As for failures - I've done a bit of searching to see the prices of used copies and there are several for sale right now in the UK as "not working, spares or repair only" so I suspect these things have some weaknesses in their electro mechanical design or fabrication. The Lensrentals article I previously linked also said that the AF system uses glue to secure internal components that can easily fail. Obviously they were happy to strip it down and fix it, but it seems this isn't an option for most repairers.

Why not check MBP or similar?

A used replacement will set me back £800 or thereabouts and I'll be living in fear of it failing again. I can get a new Sigma 70-200 f2.8 for about £1300. It's a lot more, but it'll be new and with a good warranty. A new 70-200 f4 is £1749 on the Panasonic UK website at the moment - which given that you can buy it new in Japan for about £700 sort of sticks in the throat.

Besides that: the Sigma I’m sure is amazing but heavier. TCs: both Pana and Sigma TCs can be used interchangeably on either.

Yes, it's heavier, but every one of the options above is heavier than the 70-200 f4. That was the primary reason why I went with it in the first place.

 

[The Rigger]

Why not rent a Sigma 70-200 2f/.8 and see if you can live with the idiosyncrasies.

 

[Nomad Nate]

No advice here - just wanted to commiserate. I would be gutted if a piece of my gear died like that with no recourse. Very sorry to hear - especially since a lot of us picked Panasonic because we believed they try to do right by their customers. I can't stand how Canon tries to upsell you to get basic features like weather sealing, ibis, or dual card slots - but I will say the limited experience I had with their service department - I was very impressed.

I guess that is one other option - the Canon ef 70-200 f4 L IS is like $650 (crazy, because I bought mine 6 years ago for $600 so they hold their value extremely well) with the adapter. It's not going to be as sharp as the panasonic, but mine had a nice IQ probably on bar with the 24-105 lumix.

 

[pdk42]

No advice here - just wanted to commiserate. I would be gutted if a piece of my gear died like that with no recourse. Very sorry to hear - especially since a lot of us picked Panasonic because we believed they try to do right by their customers. I can't stand how Canon tries to upsell you to get basic features like weather sealing, ibis, or dual card slots - but I will say the limited experience I had with their service department - I was very impressed.

I guess that is one other option - the Canon ef 70-200 f4 L IS is like $650 (crazy, because I bought mine 6 years ago for $600 so they hold their value extremely well) with the adapter. It's not going to be as sharp as the panasonic, but mine had a nice IQ probably on bar with the 24-105 lumix.

Ha, the irony is that I had that Canon lens back circa 2010 when I was running Canon DSLRs. It was a good lens (and in fact, my nephew still has it).

 

[Miker]

Yes, it's heavier, but every one of the options above is heavier than the 70-200 f4. That was the primary reason why I went with it in the first place.

Except for the 70-300 which is 200g lighter than you 70-200 and 550g lighter than the sigma, plus longer without messing with TCs with even more weight and cost. I find it ideal for landscapes. Bonus it focuses to 0.5 x life size, and is the least expensive option. I haven’t experienced focusing quirks with it, maybe I’ve been lucky or just not noticed it. I’m mainly on a tripod, plenty of time to focus.

 

[pdk42]

Except for the 70-300 which is 200g lighter than you 70-200 and 550g lighter than the sigma, plus longer without messing with TCs with even more weight and cost. I find it ideal for landscapes. Bonus it focuses to 0.5 x life size, and is the least expensive option. I haven’t experienced focusing quirks with it, maybe I’ve been lucky or just not noticed it. I’m mainly on a tripod, plenty of time to focus.

Here’s a little write up I did on the problems I had.

Post in thread 'Going crazy with my 70-300!'
https://l-mount-forum.com/community/threads/going-crazy-with-my-70-300.406/post-4311

 

[Pete_W]

Except for the 70-300 which is 200g lighter than you 70-200 and 550g lighter than the sigma, plus longer without messing with TCs with even more weight and cost. I find it ideal for landscapes. Bonus it focuses to 0.5 x life size, and is the least expensive option. I haven’t experienced focusing quirks with it, maybe I’ve been lucky or just not noticed it. I’m mainly on a tripod, plenty of time to focus.

The 70-300 and 24-105 are the two lenses I use the most. I've been extremely happy with the performance of both.

 

[Miker]

Here’s a little write up I did on the problems I had.

Post in thread 'Going crazy with my 70-300!'
https://l-mount-forum.com/community/threads/going-crazy-with-my-70-300.406/post-4311

I’m having trouble understanding your results. According to standard depth of field calculators, a 300mm lens at 5.6, focused at 500 m, has a depth of field of 8400m. It would have to be wildly out to miss focus , even with a stricter definition of depth of field.

 

[pdk42]

I’m having trouble understanding your results. According to standard depth of field calculators, a 300mm lens at 5.6, focused at 500 m, has a depth of field of 8400m. It would have to be wildly out to miss focus , even with a stricter definition of depth of field.

Yeah, I think the post I did about DOF was wrong. The one where I showed focus accuracy is I think more helpful!

 

[Miker]

Yeah, I think the post I did about DOF was wrong. The one where I showed focus accuracy is I think more helpful!

With those tree images, what part of the tree are you focusing on? A specific branch? With trees, depending on distance, focal length and size of tree, I find I have to be careful what part of the tree to focus on to make sure I get in focus the part that is important to me. If aiming at the center, the af sensor can cover branch’s/ twigs that can be 40-50 ft apart ( front to back) and it is a crap shoot which the camera will pick to focus on.

 

[pdk42]

With those tree images, what part of the tree are you focusing on? A specific branch? With trees, depending on distance, focal length and size of tree, I find I have to be careful what part of the tree to focus on to make sure I get in focus the part that is important to me. If aiming at the center, the af sensor can cover branch’s/ twigs that can be 40-50 ft apart ( front to back) and it is a crap shoot which the camera will pick to focus on.

Yes, I agree with that. I think my test was probably flawed. On top of that, I think that using a small focus point with CDAF is also problemmatic because the algorithm used to determine the sharpness might not have enough data to work on. We probably assume too much from AF at times!

 

[pdk42]

Well, I've decided on my strategy...

- I'm not going to get another 70-200, of any denomination. I think the 20-200 will cover me well enough in the 70-200 range.

- I've picked up a Sigma 100-400. It'll be useful for the relatively limited amount of aircraft shooting I do, but more importantly, it'll give me some new perspectives on landscapes. Looking at my landscape images over the past year or two, I can see that I've got into a "wide" mindset. I've been looking at a number of landscape photographers who use long lenses and I can see that there are a lot of composition techniques that I currently don't use much. So, it'll be an opportunity to expand my horizons a bit (well, actually to narrow them, but you get my drift).

I'll also be letting my 24-105 go which will leave me with just the 14-28 as the only Panasonic "workhorse" lens. In time, I'll probably replace this with a Sigma lens - maybe the 14-24, or if I can't justify its price and weight, then the 16-28. That'll leave me with only two Panasonic lenses - the 20-60 and 50/1.8. I may replace the 50/1.8 with the Sigma 50/2 in time.

 

[Nevyn72]

In time, I'll probably replace this with a Sigma lens - maybe the 14-24, or if I can't justify its price and weight, then the 16-28. That'll leave me with only two Panasonic lenses - the 20-60 and 50/1.8. I may replace the 50/1.8 with the Sigma 50/2 in time.

I don't know if you are interested, but a Samyang 14-24 F2.8 is also coming soon:

New Samyang 14-24mm f/2.8 L-mount lens will be announced soon! - L mount system camera rumors and news

Image courtesy Marco Bakker Finally Samyang will announce the new 14-24mm f/2.8 L-mount lens (E-mount lens version is already listed here). It's coming at the CP+ show. We should also see a near final version of the 24-60mm f/2.8 L-mount lens which could be coming in Q2.

www.l-rumors.com

But will proberbly not be on Sigma standards....

 

[pdk42]

I don't know if you are interested, but a Samyang 14-24 F2.8 is also coming soon:

New Samyang 14-24mm f/2.8 L-mount lens will be announced soon! - L mount system camera rumors and news

Image courtesy Marco Bakker Finally Samyang will announce the new 14-24mm f/2.8 L-mount lens (E-mount lens version is already listed here). It's coming at the CP+ show. We should also see a near final version of the 24-60mm f/2.8 L-mount lens which could be coming in Q2.

www.l-rumors.com

But will proberbly not be on Sigma standards....

Thanks for posting that. Interesting. It's good to see more players in the L-mount market.

But ... I've had two Samyang lenses in the past - the 14mm f2.8 DSLR lens and the little 7.5mm f3.5 MFT fisheye. Neither had great build quality. Maybe they've moved on, but I don't think I'd want to take a risk with them.

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

- I've picked up a Sigma 100-400. It'll be useful for the relatively limited amount of aircraft shooting I do, but more importantly, it'll give me some new perspectives on landscapes. Looking at my landscape images over the past year or two, I can see that I've got into a "wide" mindset. I've been looking at a number of landscape photographers who use long lenses and I can see that there are a lot of composition techniques that I currently don't use much. So, it'll be an opportunity to expand my horizons a bit (well, actually to narrow them, but you get my drift).

I'll also be letting my 24-105 go which will leave me with just the 14-28 as the only Panasonic "workhorse" lens. In time, I'll probably replace this with a Sigma lens - maybe the 14-24, or if I can't justify its price and weight, then the 16-28. That'll leave me with only two Panasonic lenses - the 20-60 and 50/1.8. I may replace the 50/1.8 with the Sigma 50/2 in time.

Did you buy the Sigma new or used? I am a big fan of telephoto landscapes and find they're often more engaging than wider-angle work.

The Sigma 50/2 is excellent and for static subjects will provide great quality. It's not weather sealed though.

Thanks for posting that. Interesting. It's good to see more players in the L-mount market.

But ... I've had two Samyang lenses in the past - the 14mm f2.8 DSLR lens and the little 7.5mm f3.5 MFT fisheye. Neither had great build quality. Maybe they've moved on, but I don't think I'd want to take a risk with them.

The new Samyang zooms I think may be different and built to a higher standard. They are f/2.8 zooms which is not a lens type that usually has sub-par build quality. I'd wait for reviews before making any decisions.