Sigma 20-200 review & comparison with Lumix 14-28 & 24-105

[GeorgeHudetz]

It’s unclear to me how important dual stabilization is at very long focal lengths - the conventional wisdom is that IBIS become less effective at long focal lengths, so perhaps out at 500mm it’s mostly OIS that does the heavy lifting. I’ve been experimenting with the Sigma 500/5.6 and have captured a couple of decent shots at 1/15s, but I need to do more shooting with it.

Of course, the 100-500 and 70-300 have “intermediate” focal lengths where perhaps dual stabilization is more important. No sure.

 

[xaviergut]

Overall image quality

Thank you so much, Paul, for such a thorough comparison. These are the photos I've been waiting for... I think your comparison confirms my belief that the 24-105mm f/4 is the best Lumix zoom lens for landscape photography, as everyone says it's an excellent lens... and if I was almost 80% convinced it would be my next purchase, now I'm 100%

Just one question regarding overall image quality: is the new Sigma 20-200mm significantly better than the Lumix 20-60mm?

 

[pdk42]

Thank you so much, Paul, for such a thorough comparison. These are the photos I've been waiting for... I think your comparison confirms my belief that the 24-105mm f/4 is the best Lumix zoom lens for landscape photography, as everyone says it's an excellent lens... and if I was almost 80% convinced it would be my next purchase, now I'm 100%

Yes, the 24-105 is an excellent lens. It's been my main landscape lens since I got into Panasonic FF. I have no hesitations in recommending it. But it is quite big & bulky for the focal length on offer.

Just one question regarding overall image quality: is the new Sigma 20-200mm significantly better than the Lumix 20-60mm?

Not in my opinion. I think the 20-60 is every bit as good as the 24-105 (at least with my copy). If I had to put them on a scale, where 0 = my crappy old OM 135mm f3.5 (it's awful) and 10 = my Sigma 105 f2.8 macro, then I'd rate the IQ of L-mount lenses I've used or owned as follows:

10 - Sigma 105mm f2.8 macro, Sigma 35mm f2
9.5 - Panasonic 50mm f1.8, Sigma 70-200 f2.8
9 - Panasonic 70-200 f4, Panasonic 24-105, Panasonic 20-60
8.5 - Panasonic 14-28, TTArtisan 11mm f2.8 FE, Sigma 16-28, Panasonic 16-35
8 - Sigma 20-200, Panasonic 70-300 (when it focuses!)
7 - Sigma 100-400
5- Panasonic 28-200

I guess 8/10 is my cut off for IQ!

 

[NerdyTimelapser]

Thanks for another great review! I use tripod 99% of the time, so it would certainly be an interesting lens for me

 

[pdk42]

Thanks for another great review! I use tripod 99% of the time, so it would certainly be an interesting lens for me

Yes, for tripod use, its two biggest limitations (no OIS, small max aperture) are not a factor. I think the IQ is good enough for most people's needs, even if it's not going to win any awards for being the sharpest lens in the system.

And I'm finding that the IBIS does a decent job anyhow if you need to handhold. I shot some images yesterday evening in fading light with the S1Rii and got plenty of sharp images at 200mm and 1/20s (see image below). In fact, even at 1/3s, I can get about 50% of the images sharp at the long end. I'm happy with that.

1/20s handheld at 200mm:

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

Overall this looks like a pretty good show. I'd even say it's impressive for a super-zoom, especially one that goes this wide.

As for comparisons with the 20-60mm, I think there must be some poor copies out there because my 20-60mm, and my original one which was swapped after I discovered it had blue fogging, performs superbly at all focal lengths. It has absolutely no problems with sharpness and the only reason I don't use it more is that it lacks speed, so I use the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8.