Lumix 28-200

[pdk42]

You scared me so I took a couple of 200mm shots- phew, mine is sharp.
Did you use an ND filter? 50th of a second is quite slow for outdoors- I am at 1/250 even in deep shade.

No filter fitted and the camera was on a tripod. I guess it's a duff copy. Probably why it was up for sale used so soon after release.

But here's the thing ... this is now the third Lumix S lens I've tried (out of about 10) that has been a bad copy (my first 70-300, a 70-200 f4 I got on loan from Lumix, and now this 28-200). That's a really bad statistic. I guess I could be unlucky, but...

 

[ChrisM]

I need to look on a larger (not a phone screen) but I’m wondering if I would have noticed. I’m keen to look later.

 

[AlanC]

No filter fitted and the camera was on a tripod. I guess it's a duff copy. Probably why it was up for sale used so soon after release.

But here's the thing ... this is now the third Lumix S lens I've tried (out of about 10) that has been a bad copy (my first 70-300, a 70-200 f4 I got on loan from Lumix, and now this 28-200). That's a really bad statistic. I guess I could be unlucky, but...

It happens, even with the most expensive lenses. Have a look on FredMiranda or DPReview at the problems some people have had getting good copies of Sony's GMii zooms as well as something more affordable like the 20-70 f/4:

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1765071/
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1826454/
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4757628

I've got 3 of Panasonic's zooms: 16-35, 20-60 and 70-300: the 70-300 is slightly soft in the lower left corner but not bad enough for me to have tried to get a replacement. I also have 5 Sigma i-series primes: 17/4, 24/3.5, 35/2, 45/2.8 and 65/2 and the only one I had any problems with was the 35/2 where the first copy was soft on the right hand side. The others are very good, as is the replacement 35/2. And Sigma do say that they test every lens individually now, so there should be less chance of getting a bad example from them than from other brands.

 

[Nevyn72]

Ok, I went out, especially for @pdk42 and made some comparison photos. These are shot at 28mm, 50mm, 85mm & 105mm.. Next post will be the more telephoto pictures.
All shot at F8, On my travel tripod (but the pier was not that stable). All pictures are unaltered.

Raw files can be found here: 28200

 

[Nevyn72]

These were shot at 150mm, 185mm, 200mm, also on tripod. All pictures are unaltered.

200 mm Shot twice, also from closer by.

Raw files can be found here: 28200

 

[Nevyn72]

And another few pictures shot handheld:

Raw files can be found here: 28200

All pictures are unaltered.

 

[pdk42]

These were shot at 150mm, 185mm, 200mm, also on tripod. All pictures are unaltered.

200 mm Shot twice, also from closer by.

Raw files can be found here: 28200

They are much better than the images I got from the copy I had (it's already on the way back to MPB !).

 

[Oíche]

Nevyn72, they look excellent so felt no need to peep the RAW.

 

[Oíche]

They are much better than the images I got from the copy I had (it's already on the way back to MPB !).

That was quick , I remember someone else saying you'll end up buying back another 70-300, I can't prise it off the camera.

Or if you could face it, try a new 28-200 as Nevyn72 shows it looks great to me.

 

[pdk42]

That was quick , I remember someone else saying you'll end up buying back another 70-300, I can't prise it off the camera.

Or if you could face it, try a new 28-200 as Nevyn72 shows it looks great to me.

I'm deeply frustrated at present with tele lens options. This is how it seems to me at the moment:

- 70-300 - probably the best of the lenses in this range I've had. When it focussed, the IQ was very good - but, at least on landscape shots focussed near infinity, there was too much AF variability - so getting sharp shots of distant objects was a crap-shoot.

- Lumix 70-200 f4 - bigger and heavier than I'd like, but the test copy I got was badly de-centered and even where it was sharp it wasn't exactly wowing me given its price.

- Lumix 70-200 f2.8. Too big and heavy.

- Sigma 70-200 f2.8. I really liked this lens when I used it - but size and weight are against it, as is the quasi-permanent tripod foot.

- Sigma 100-400. Decent IQ, but in the end more reach than I need and bigger than I need.

- 28-200. OK, so I got a crappy copy. But even so, I think at £900 it's way overpriced. For not a lot more I can get the new Sigma 24-70 f2.8 and it's stellar (not in the right FL range of course, but just drawing a comparison of what you get vs ££).

And that's it!

I think I'm going to try a Sony A7CR (or A7R IV) with the Tamron 28-200 and see what I think. The ideal solution would be for Tamron to bring that lens to L-mount, but given that they have not signed up to L-mount (and IIRC are part-owned by Sony), this is somewhat unlikely.

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

It's a shame that the person who originally bought this sold it on to MPB instead of returning it as a sub-par copy, where at least it might have been sent back to Lumix to be fixed or binned. Now someone will end up with it and be stuck with it.

 

[Oíche]

70-300 - probably the best of the lenses in this range I've had. When it focussed, the IQ was very good - but, at least on landscape shots focussed near infinity, there was too much AF variability - so getting sharp shots of distant objects was a crap-shoot.

Yeah I remember your posts, I haven't noticed any such problems and I do lots of distant photography. I like the horizontal AF zone bar for this in both landscape and portrait orientation. One of the reasons why I'm not needing the rear screen much is because it really is nailing the focus exactly where I want it. Only when editing I'm peeping in LR and I'm fully confident in it.

 

[Oíche]

It's a shame that the person who originally bought this sold it on to MPB instead of returning it as a sub-par copy, where at least it might have been sent back to Lumix to be fixed or binned. Now someone will end up with it and be stuck with it.

Yeah I agree, however I know people who have proper camera gear and don't care about precision photography. They just want photos and they would be happy with that 28-200 and wouldn't even care or notice. I know a guy like this who owns Canon R6 and R7 and just enjoys the AF doing the work, he's not technical whatsoever yet does paid work at weekends and the people paying him just want him to always be there and get decent photos for them.

 

[Pete_W]

I'm deeply frustrated at present with tele lens options. This is how it seems to me at the moment:

- 70-300 - probably the best of the lenses in this range I've had. When it focussed, the IQ was very good - but, at least on landscape shots focussed near infinity, there was too much AF variability - so getting sharp shots of distant objects was a crap-shoot.

- Lumix 70-200 f4 - bigger and heavier than I'd like, but the test copy I got was badly de-centered and even where it was sharp it wasn't exactly wowing me given its price.

- Lumix 70-200 f2.8. Too big and heavy.

- Sigma 70-200 f2.8. I really liked this lens when I used it - but size and weight are against it, as is the quasi-permanent tripod foot.

- Sigma 100-400. Decent IQ, but in the end more reach than I need and bigger than I need.

- 28-200. OK, so I got a crappy copy. But even so, I think at £900 it's way overpriced. For not a lot more I can get the new Sigma 24-70 f2.8 and it's stellar (not in the right FL range of course, but just drawing a comparison of what you get vs ££).

Paul - from memory your 28-200mm test shots are similar to those you took with the 70-300mm, i.e. a distant tree.

I think these can be difficult subjects to prove sharpness at a telephoto focal length with a full frame camera unless you stop well down. My experience is that the plane of focus at telephoto focal range will still be narrow under f8, so unless you set the aperture at f10 or a higher number, subjects like large trees that have a lot of depth will not look sharp across the frame. When you stopped down with the 28-200 to f11, the image sharpened up.

For testing sharpness, I think that a flatter subject and something with a more solid surface is required.

 

[Oíche]

I think the likes of this is a better test, focus was on the moving speedboat but surprisingly the DoF using 300mm f8 was still good to the docks 12km away. You can't peep this low res file but doing so on the RAW shows quite good sharpness to the cranes, buildings and all the lovely details in the docks, even though it wasn't the primary focal point.

This is why I'm mega happy with my 70-300, just one of the reasons and it's better than my top of the range Pentax F*300 f4.5 as I described a while back. OK that is more than 30 years old but it is still excellent on digital, the modern Lumix coatings obviously make the contrast difference and perceived sharpness but still I never thought it would have been possible for a 70-300 zoom to beat it.

• Panasonic - DC-S5M2
• LUMIX S 70-300/F4.5-5.6
• 300.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/80 sec
• Pattern
• ISO 250

 

[CharlesH]

And that's it!

I think I'm going to try a Sony A7CR (or A7R IV) with the Tamron 28-200 and see what I think. The ideal solution would be for Tamron to bring that lens to L-mount, but given that they have not signed up to L-mount (and IIRC are part-owned by Sony), this is somewhat unlikely.

I like the concept of the A7CR very much. But 200mm is too short for me if I really do telephoto, and the longer Sony lenses are just too big and heavy.

And here is my sad story. I got the Sony a6700 some time back with the idea of a small carry around camera (which it is). On top of that I got the Sony APS-C telephoto 70-350mm, with the idea that I could also have a lighter telephoto than the full frame Sony telephotos. This is a highly regarded lens by Sony shooters. I was on a trip and took a few telephoto shots that didn't turn out well. I wrote this off as the shooting conditions and didn't have time to do more testing. Later on, much later, I got around to testing the lens. It is really poor. I tested my m43 telephotos at the same time and they are quite good. I've had the lens too long to send it back, and I don't want to sell it to an unsuspecting buyer. So I'm stuck with a lemon lens. (My only choice, I can send it to Sony service and see if they make it better.)

It is not just Panasonic. I actually recommend that you try another Lumix 28-200. The pictures Nevyn72 showed are really good; it seems worth trying for a good copy.

 

[CH_CH]

No filter fitted and the camera was on a tripod. I guess it's a duff copy. Probably why it was up for sale used so soon after release.

But here's the thing ... this is now the third Lumix S lens I've tried (out of about 10) that has been a bad copy (my first 70-300, a 70-200 f4 I got on loan from Lumix, and now this 28-200). That's a really bad statistic. I guess I could be unlucky, but...

That is really bad luck and bad QC.
The only lens I have had a problem with was the 12-60 Leica (decentered), and I smashed it to the ground before I could return it...
My 70-300 is very very nice.

 

[Greytop]

For what it's worth I would be inclined to give another 28-200 a go.
It's quite obvious that the MPB unit was very lacklustre at 200 mm and Nevyn72's copy is a much better performer.

 

[xaviergut]

I saw this video yesterday comparing the Lumix 28-200mm vs the Lumix 24-105mm, and his results seem to be interesting. The 28-200mm is not bad at all:

 

[Nevyn72]

The 28-200mm is not bad at all

Yeah I also saw this video, and I really like the 28-200mm.

But I would not use the 28-200mm as a 'only' lens. You have to have others lenses to fix the 'downsides' of this lens, the lowlights performance and the lack of wide angle.

But when you already have the 20-60mm, this would be a good second.

In my case the 16-28 is good for the wide angle and low light, perhaps with a prime like the 35mm of 50mm. So i have this covered