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.

 

[pdk42]

Lenstip have done their usual comprehensive test and it more or less confirms what I said above. Overall they like it and think the compromises have been well managed.

Sigma C 20-200 mm f/3.5-6.3 DG review - Introduction - LensTip.com

Best digital cameras and lens reviews. If you are looking for the information about digital cameras and lenses you are in a right place. We have many professional tests of digital photography equipment.

www.lenstip.com

 

[CharlesH]

Overall they like it and think the compromises have been well managed.

After you have used this for some time now, do you expect to keep your 24-105? And what is your real world experience using IBIS only up to 200mm?

 

[pdk42]

After you have used this for some time now, do you expect to keep your 24-105? And what is your real world experience using IBIS only up to 200mm?

The 24-105 has sat on the shelf since I got the 20-200. Stabilisation at 200mm is acceptable, but I have a steady hand and I take several to make sure one is sharp. I think I can get sharp images down to about 1/15s at 200mm, or and 1/8 with a worse keeper rate.

I think I’ll be selling the 24-105. No point It gathering dust on a shelf.

 

[CharlesH]

No point It gathering dust on a shelf.

Thanks. I am starting to get GAS about the 20-200 as a travel lens. Along the line of carrying less lenses for travel I'd also try for less lenses on the shelf. So I'd sell the 24-105 and the 28-200. And maybe the the 70-200 f/4.

A hesitation, I do not have very stable hands so I could be running up the shutter speed and ISO at the long end. But I guess Lightroom Denoise is always there.

I have another question. My Sigma Contemporary lenses fit very tight on the S1RII; to the point I worry about damaging the lens mount. I had the same issue with the S9, which is one of the reasons I sold that camera. How does the Sigma 20-200 mount on your S1RII? Is it overly stiff (or more like a Panasonic lens)?

 

[pdk42]

Thanks. I am starting to get GAS about the 20-200 as a travel lens. Along the line of carrying less lenses for travel I'd also try for less lenses on the shelf. So I'd sell the 24-105 and the 28-200. And maybe the the 70-200 f/4.

A hesitation, I do not have very stable hands so I could be running up the shutter speed and ISO at the long end. But I guess Lightroom Denoise is always there.

I have another question. My Sigma Contemporary lenses fit very tight on the S1RII; to the point I worry about damaging the lens mount. I had the same issue with the S9, which is one of the reasons I sold that camera. How does the Sigma 20-200 mount on your S1RII? Is it overly stiff (or more like a Panasonic lens)?

There’s no Issue with mounting the 20-200 on either of my bodies (S5 and S1Rii).

 

[pdk42]

After you have used this for some time now, do you expect to keep your 24-105? And what is your real world experience using IBIS only up to 200mm?

Here are five consecutive shots at 1/13s at 200mm on the S1Rii. I was standing upright with no bracing to my body or arms or hands. All are pin-sharp - the images are 100% crops. I've shown the full scene too.

• Panasonic DC-S1RM2
• ƒ/8
• 200mm
• 1/13s
• ISO 80

• Panasonic DC-S1RM2
• ƒ/8
• 200mm
• 1/13s
• ISO 80

• Panasonic DC-S1RM2
• ƒ/8
• 200mm
• 1/13s
• ISO 80

• Panasonic DC-S1RM2
• ƒ/8
• 200mm
• 1/13s
• ISO 80

• Panasonic DC-S1RM2
• ƒ/8
• 200mm
• 1/13s
• ISO 80

• Panasonic DC-S1RM2
• ƒ/8
• 200mm
• 1/13s
• ISO 80

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

Lenstip have done their usual comprehensive test and it more or less confirms what I said above. Overall they like it and think the compromises have been well managed.

Sigma C 20-200 mm f/3.5-6.3 DG review - Introduction - LensTip.com

Best digital cameras and lens reviews. If you are looking for the information about digital cameras and lenses you are in a right place. We have many professional tests of digital photography equipment.

www.lenstip.com

Yeah I saw that too. The 20-200 did very well. Some nasty vignetting at 20mm, and their copy fell off in resolution a bit at 200mm, but, as they said, the compromises are not surprising and well managed. I’ve not seen them test a travel zoom before; I’m happy to see it. The advances in lens design in this category are perhaps the most amazing we have seen industry-wide, even if they are not the sexy fast and ultra sharp lenses that often get the spotlight.

 

[pdk42]

Yeah I saw that too. The 20-200 did very well. Some nasty vignetting at 20mm, and their copy fell off in resolution a bit at 200mm, but, as they said, the compromises are not surprising and well managed. I’ve not seen them test a travel zoom before; I’m happy to see it. The advances in lens design in this category are perhaps the most amazing we have seen industry-wide, even if they are not the sexy fast and ultra sharp lenses that often get the spotlight.

Having spent more time with the lens now, I can definitely say that the vignetting at the wide end is its worst fault. Even for someone who usually adds a vignette to most of my images I find it's a bit much! But it's OK, I can live with it. It's totally correctable in PP of course.

I'm not finding the optical performance at 200mm to be much worse than the rest of the range though. It seems pretty good (see the above images of the teapot!).

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

I'm not finding the optical performance at 200mm to be much worse than the rest of the range though. It seems pretty good (see the above images of the teapot!).

Yes, no doubt. 50 lp/mm (what Lensrtip reports at the center, at F8 & 200mm) is still above what they consider the “decency level” for a 43 MP sensor. So, no shame there. And it’s good to know your lens isn’t indecent!

 

[JoakimFrostmo]

I appreciate the effort, OP, and apologize in advance for my lack of succinctness.

For making travel videos I'm thinking to replace or supplement my Panasonic 20-60 with a Sigma 20-200 and possibly add a Sigma 150-600 at a later date. Good idea?

Or would you keep the Panasonic 20-60 and supplement with a Panasonic 70-300 or 100-500?

I also hear a lot about the Panasonic 24-105. Perhaps combine that with a telefoto? It's stretching the budget though.

Will get a Panasonic 18mm when the price is right.

Some (a lot of) background info: I mostly travel by boat, train or car. I'm walking around less these days so I'm hoping the zoom can shorten the distances for me. In the past I've often arrived at viewpoints, filmed from a cruise ship or similar situations. I don't see myself using a tripod if I can avoid it, but in these situations it's very doable. Often I want to show the landscape and in addition there is something off in the distance that i want to zoom in on, in order to highlight and explore it. In Norway there are very many locations and views like that, and they spark my curiosity; Glaciers, solitary farms up steep hillsides, fishing boats heading out, sites of past landslides, etc. I also travel to Indonesia, where the 20-200 would be invaluable, but that's like 3 weeks every 1.5 years. I'll eventually get a telephoto either way, sure. But to be able to go from wide landscape to mid-range without changing lenses or even stop recording seems very appealing. With the 24-105 I might get stuck switching lenses every location. On the other hand this reduction in quality at 20mm seems impractical, as I spend a lot of time at that range. I'm new at this and not good at pixel peeping so it's hard to evaluate for my self how much that would matter in real life, during filming, sometimes possibly even in aps-c mode to mitigate rolling shutter.

Is the 24-105 still on the shelf? And in your opinion does the 20-200 sound like the smarter choice for the situations I'm listing?

I also saw a review saying that during filming and zooming at the same time the 20-200's AF isn't very good. It looked kind of ok to me, but I'm easy. Opinions? You tried that out yet? Or are you just doing photography? If you fell asleep half way through the post, that's fine too, get some rest. But I would appreciate any help I can get.

 

[pdk42]

I appreciate the effort, OP, and apologize in advance for my lack of succinctness.

For making travel videos I'm thinking to replace or supplement my Panasonic 20-60 with a Sigma 20-200 and possibly add a Sigma 150-600 at a later date. Good idea?

Or would you keep the Panasonic 20-60 and supplement with a Panasonic 70-300 or 100-500?

I also hear a lot about the Panasonic 24-105. Perhaps combine that with a telefoto? It's stretching the budget though.

Will get a Panasonic 18mm when the price is right.

Some (a lot of) background info: I mostly travel by boat, train or car. I'm walking around less these days so I'm hoping the zoom can shorten the distances for me. In the past I've often arrived at viewpoints, filmed from a cruise ship or similar situations. I don't see myself using a tripod if I can avoid it, but in these situations it's very doable. Often I want to show the landscape and in addition there is something off in the distance that i want to zoom in on, in order to highlight and explore it. In Norway there are very many locations and views like that, and they spark my curiosity; Glaciers, solitary farms up steep hillsides, fishing boats heading out, sites of past landslides, etc. I also travel to Indonesia, where the 20-200 would be invaluable, but that's like 3 weeks every 1.5 years. I'll eventually get a telephoto either way, sure. But to be able to go from wide landscape to mid-range without changing lenses or even stop recording seems very appealing. With the 24-105 I might get stuck switching lenses every location. On the other hand this reduction in quality at 20mm seems impractical, as I spend a lot of time at that range. I'm new at this and not good at pixel peeping so it's hard to evaluate for my self how much that would matter in real life, during filming, sometimes possibly even in aps-c mode to mitigate rolling shutter.

Is the 24-105 still on the shelf? And in your opinion does the 20-200 sound like the smarter choice for the situations I'm listing?

I also saw a review saying that during filming and zooming at the same time the 20-200's AF isn't very good. It looked kind of ok to me, but I'm easy. Opinions? You tried that out yet? Or are you just doing photography? If you fell asleep half way through the post, that's fine too, get some rest. But I would appreciate any help I can get.

Well, since I don’t do video it’s hard to offer advice. I guess stabilisation is important in video so maybe the 24-105 with its OIS will be better than the 20-200. As to AF, I can’t see any difference between the 20-200 and the 24-105. What I will say is that the zoom action on the 20-200 is a bit stiffer than the 24-105, especially in the 20-30mm range so if you plan on zooming whilst filming I think maybe the 20-200 will be a little more jerky.

But in other ways I’m really super happy with the 20-200. It’s become my go to lens for practically all my landscape shooting. The sharpness at the edges at 20mm is weaker than at longer focal lengths but it’s still good enough for me. I haven’t used the 24-105 since I got the 20-200.

As to comparison with the 20-60, apart from size there really is very little benefit of the 20-60 over the 20-200. In max aperture they are similar and although the 20-60 is a bit sharper at the wide end, it’s not enough of a difference to matter.

And for longer focal lengths, I recently picked up a Sigma 100-400 which adds a bit of extra reach over the 20-200. Its IQ is decent, if not stellar, so it’ll give me something for the rare occasions when I need something longer.

So bottom line - I can definitely recommend the 20-200, but with the caveat that I don’t use it for video.

 

[JoakimFrostmo]

Well, since I don’t do video it’s hard to offer advice. I guess stabilisation is important in video so maybe the 24-105 with its OIS will be better than the 20-200. As to AF, I can’t see any difference between the 20-200 and the 24-105. What I will say is that the zoom action on the 20-200 is a bit stiffer than the 24-105, especially in the 20-30mm range so if you plan on zooming whilst filming I think maybe the 20-200 will be a little more jerky.

But in other ways I’m really super happy with the 20-200. It’s become my go to lens for practically all my landscape shooting. The sharpness at the edges at 20mm is weaker than at longer focal lengths but it’s still good enough for me. I haven’t used the 24-105 since I got the 20-200.

As to comparison with the 20-60, apart from size there really is very little benefit of the 20-60 over the 20-200. In max aperture they are similar and although the 20-60 is a bit sharper at the wide end, it’s not enough of a difference to matter.

And for longer focal lengths, I recently picked up a Sigma 100-400 which adds a bit of extra reach over the 20-200. Its IQ is decent, if not stellar, so it’ll give me something for the rare occasions when I need something longer.

So bottom line - I can definitely recommend the 20-200, but with the caveat that I don’t use it for video.

I'll take what I can get at this point and I appreciate that you took the time to reply. This lens does not seem to get around much on the Facebook forums, as nobody seemed to own it, so there really has been 0 feedback other than yours.

At this stage it might become a question of what will go on sale first.