Lumix 28–200mm f/4–7.1 Sample Images

[RuleOfThirds]

Another 28 and 200mm picture, exactly same spot. Zoomed in in the right bottom corner of the first image with 200mm.

• Panasonic DC-S5M2
• LUMIX S 28-200/F4-7.1
• ƒ/11
• 28mm
• 1/250s
• ISO 640

• Panasonic DC-S5M2
• LUMIX S 28-200/F4-7.1
• ƒ/11
• 200mm
• 1/250s
• ISO 500

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

This is from last spring.

• Panasonic DC-S1RM2
• LUMIX S 28-200/F4-7.1
• 200mm
• 1/80s
• ISO 80

 

[RuleOfThirds]

There is something weird going on with this lens on infinity focus when the subject is very far away (1km?), I think that this is where @pdk42 got his troubles with this lens too. It might have to do with s5ii misfocussing.
full

• Panasonic DC-S5M2
• ƒ/10
• 124mm
• 1/320s
• ISO 320

100% crop right, focus point on the citadel

100% crop left of the image (horendous)

 

[RuleOfThirds]

Bit later in the walk, fine performance. Roughly same focal length, same f-stop, just a bit closer, probably infinity, but less infinity if you understand what I mean

• Panasonic DC-S5M2
• LUMIX S 28-200/F4-7.1
• ƒ/10
• 118mm
• 1/320s
• ISO 200

Right:

Left

When used in a zoo, or whatever, it is fine, but as soon as you go far infinity zoom >100mm, maybe some atmospheric haze, it goes crazy like the previous post. This behaviour is hardly recognisable in the viewfinder or rear-screen and you only find out after the fact.

I've got very very nice pictures with this lens, but now have trust issues. The citadel example is not the only one, I have more. And what they have in common is >100mm and hazy, and far away infinity subject. What is where I tend to use the a tele lens.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

And most of the time it is perfect....

• Panasonic DC-S5M2
• LUMIX S 28-200/F4-7.1
• ƒ/10
• 99mm
• 1/250s
• ISO 200

• Panasonic DC-S5M2
• ƒ/9
• 136mm
• 1/125s
• ISO 500

 

[Hythloday]

It might have to do with s5ii misfocussing.

The left part of the picture is further away than the right part of the picture. Personally I always use AF-S centre point only and I would focus on the left part of the picture, lock focus and frame it as you did. In that case everything should be sharp.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

The left part of the picture is further away than the right part of the picture. Personally I always use AF-S centre point only and I would focus on the left part of the picture, lock focus and frame it as you did. In that case everything should be sharp.

I know that that it is not plain. But at that distance with F10 the DoF should have been enough I guess. Not like this.

A Quick AI calculation claims that 130mm F10 in full frame from 56m should have infinity DoF.

 

[Hythloday]

A Quick AI calculation claims that 130mm F10 in full frame from 56m should have infinity DoF.

In theory you are 100% right but in real life situations it does not work out. I had a similar case 2 years ago and I have never experienced it again with my way of focussing. In my experience anything beyond the point you focus on will be less sharp. Most lenses behave like this, but with some lenses it is less clear than with the 28-200mm.

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

The left part of the picture is further away than the right part of the picture. Personally I always use AF-S centre point only and I would focus on the left part of the picture, lock focus and frame it as you did. In that case everything should be sharp.

The greater distance also means more atmospheric effects, but it doesn’t seem like a great enough difference in distance (to the right side) for haze to be a good explanation. It certainly does not look like heat rising off the rocks.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

Not only in theory. The 2nd picture of the church was at least 200m, and there with F10 there is more sharp in the DoF then the far away picture which should have more DoF still.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

that last mountain shot is also a km away. And a hazy day in the mountains

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

that last mountain shot is also a km away. And a hazy day in the mountains

Yes, it does not look like haze anyway. More like mis-focus or a de-centered lens, which yours clearly is not.

You said focus was on the citadel - is that where the flag is? If so, were your other images focused in the center?

If you focused on the right, we could be seeing a manifestation of field curvature.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

The church picture was focused on the church anyway. I know the lens might be slightly better on the right then it is on the left.

But still… there are a few more and all on that grey citadel that focussed false. Probably more a focus problem than a lens. Zooming in could explain it, low contrast grey, and closing variable aperture when zooming in.

 

[CH_CH]

I have had problems with sharpness using AFC when focusing very far, I frequently change to AFS. Maybe it is this?

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

There is something weird going on with this lens on infinity focus when the subject is very far away (1km?), I think that this is where @pdk42 got his troubles with this lens too. It might have to do with s5ii misfocussing.
full
View attachment 18079

100% crop right, focus point on the citadelView attachment 18081

100% crop left of the image (horendous)
View attachment 18080

Much better image quality on one side of the image than on the other when focus distance is the same indicates a de-centred lens. If it's intermittent then something is loose. Either way it's a faulty lens.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

I have had problems with sharpness using AFC when focusing very far, I frequently change to AFS. Maybe it is this?

I do think so

 

[Hythloday]

Right:


Left
View attachment 18084


The citadel example is not the only one, I have more. And what they have in common is >100mm and hazy, and far away infinity subject. What is where I tend to use the a tele lens.

I have gone through my pictures taken with the 28-200mm and I have all come across a few "problem" pictures. When you have a look at the left side bottom corner of the picture above, you see the problem: the words "urant grill", just as the bricks, are not razor sharp but soft.

At first I thought it was a focus problem. So I tested my lens (on a Leica SL2-S) by taking pictures of car number plates. By looking at the registration number but especially at the very small printed words below (name of garage, etc.) I saw that some pictures taken a 1/100 sec. were not razor sharp. So the IBIS is not good enough for this lens. BTW I had the same problem with my former Lumix S5D with dial IS.

What struck me was that all the "unsharp" (perhaps 1% of all my pictures taken with this lens) had one thing in common: lots of sunlight and high contrast. When for example you take a picture of a black shed with white window frames, the white frames will not be sharp, the same as you will see in the left hand bottom corner of the picture above.

The Lumix 28-200mm is a slow lens and I tested at 200mm. To get a higher shutter speed, you can put up ISO of choose a wider aperture. Choosing a wider aperture is not possible with this lens, so I ordered a Samyang 60-180mm which I received yesterday. This morning I took pictures at 60, 120 and 180mm and compared them to the pictures taken with the Lumix last week. The Lumix is softer on the edges than the Samyang lens, especially at 120 and 180mm.

This afternoon I made my cycling tour and took pictures with my new Samyang lens. Some were practically identical to those taken with the Lumix 28-200mm some time ago. When pixelpeeping at 100% they were sharp, unlike those taken with the Lumix lens.

My conclusion is that there may be a problem with IS, but the main problem is that the lens is in trouble in high contrast, sunlit situations between 100 and 200mm.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

I have gone through my pictures taken with the 28-200mm and I have all come across a few "problem" pictures. When you have a look at the left side bottom corner of the picture above, you see the problem: the words "urant grill", just as the bricks, are not razor sharp but soft.

At first I thought it was a focus problem. So I tested my lens (on a Leica SL2-S) by taking pictures of car number plates. By looking at the registration number but especially at the very small printed words below (name of garage, etc.) I saw that some pictures taken a 1/100 sec. were not razor sharp. So the IBIS is not good enough for this lens. BTW I had the same problem with my former Lumix S5D with dial IS.

What struck me was that all the "unsharp" (perhaps 1% of all my pictures taken with this lens) had one thing in common: lots of sunlight and high contrast. When for example you take a picture of a black shed with white window frames, the white frames will not be sharp, the same as you will see in the left hand bottom corner of the picture above.

The Lumix 28-200mm is a slow lens and I tested at 200mm. To get a higher shutter speed, you can put up ISO of choose a wider aperture. Choosing a wider aperture is not possible with this lens, so I ordered a Samyang 60-180mm which I received yesterday. This morning I took pictures at 60, 120 and 180mm and compared them to the pictures taken with the Lumix last week. The Lumix is softer on the edges than the Samyang lens, especially at 120 and 180mm.

This afternoon I made my cycling tour and took pictures with my new Samyang lens. Some were practically identical to those taken with the Lumix 28-200mm some time ago. When pixelpeeping at 100% they were sharp, unlike those taken with the Lumix lens.

My conclusion is that there may be a problem with IS, but the main problem is that the lens is in trouble in high contrast, sunlit situations between 100 and 200mm.

It is not only in high contrast scenes, but also in low contrast.

• Panasonic DC-S5M2
• ƒ/8
• 57mm
• 1/250s
• ISO 100

100% left bottom, weird unsharpness

for reference, S35/1.8@5.6 so much more detailed, even with 35mm and from a standpoint further away.

• Panasonic DC-S5M2
• ƒ/5.6
• 35mm
• 1/250s
• ISO 100

The thing is, it can take very nice pictures, and then It all of the sudden for no reason it is letting you down. Maybe it something weird with the OIS, who knows. I already decided in my mind to sell it, and go back to my 24-105. Probably sell of the 24-60 too, because I can't stand the vignette at 24mm. Although it is very sharp, and way better then the 28-200 and actually like it a lot. This day to Amsterdam I had my backpack with 16-35, 35 and 28-200. Goal was to use the 35/1.8 as much as possible, and the zooms for just in case.

 

[Hythloday]

100% left bottom, weird unsharpness

The gap in lightness between the yellow hotdog van and the dark background is too much for this lens to bridge. The result is that things become soft in a strange way resembling camera shake. Superzooms are always a compromise. The 28-200mm is not a bad lens at all but it certainly has its weak points. The pictures I have taken with this lens are for 99% OK, but I use the range 28-100mm most of the time. I did not want to buy a telezoom because I miss the WA side. But the slow aperture between 100 and 200mm made me think again. I now have the Schneider Kreuznach Samyang 60-180mm/f2.8 for it.

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

In my experience, the main thing that causes softness in 28-200 images is aperture. Most (but not all) lenses need to be stopped down 1 to 2 stops to reach peak sharpness; the only question is - how soft is it wide open? And, in the case of the 28-200, it exhibits a significant delta from wide-open to F11, particularly on the long end. So yeah, wide-open it’s soft. And stopping down a lens who’s maximum aperture is F7.1 necessitates getting into diffraction territory. But at F11 it is acceptable to me, mainly because (a) I normally only use it for hikes when I want to minimize weight, where F11 for landscapes is fine, and (b) I don’t expect record setting sharpness from this lens anyway. So, even on an R body, I normally use it at F11 (again, especially on the long end).

I don’t think the dynamic range of the scene has any effect on image quality with the 28-200. I’ve never seen any sort of softness that seemed associated with scenes that have high dynamic range, nor with dark vs. bright comps. Other than what you might see when using a higher ISO in a dark scene, as necessitated by a dark lens as such as this - particularly one that needs to be stopped down to F11. But the idea that you need to avoid light, dark, or HDR comps with this lens just doesn’t track with my experience.

I’m not saying it is impervious to mis-focus or OIS issues. But in general I’ve found mine to be reliable, if soft wide-open.

But yes, the Samyang 60-180 F2.8 is in another league, for sure.