Non-exacting comparison of Lumix S 28-200 and Mario-Elmarit-SL 24-90 on an SL3

[vikasmg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is a non-scientific comparison of the two lenses.  All the four shots were taken with the camera EV set to -1/3.  In all four cases, the following Lightroom adjustments were made:

• Exposure was increased by +0.60 and
• Clarity was increased by +15

My off-the-cuff observation is that when looked at 100% resolution the Vario-Elmarit does outperform the Lumix.  However in a real-world situation, looking at the pictures on even a large monitor, it's hard to tell the difference.

Lumix 28-200 1/125 f5.5

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Various-Elmarit 24-90 1/160 f3.9

 

 

Lumix 28-200 1/125 f5.5

Various-Elmarit 24-90 1/160 f3.9

Edited July 20, 2024 by vikasmg

[SrMi]

I do not think that we can conclude anything firm this test.

I got 28-200 yesterday but had to return is because the lens is defective: it is not possible to get sharp images. I may get a replacement later once the production stabilizes.

[vikasmg]

It isn’t intent to be a test as such :-).  Too many uncontrolled variables for that!

Edited July 20, 2024 by vikasmg

[jrp]

Super Mario?!

[vikasmg]

Ha ha.  Ganesh, the Hindu God 🙂

So … close?

[dpitt]

Thanks for the test. But it would be more helpful if you shot in A mode and both lenses at the same aperture + FL.
The focus point seems to be different too, or maybe that is just the difference in DOF between F5.5 and F3.9

[vikasmg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, dpitt said:

Thanks for the test. But it would be more helpful if you shot in A mode and both lenses at the same aperture + FL.
The focus point seems to be different too, or maybe that is just the difference in DOF between F5.5 and F3.9

You’re right - I thought of that as well.  I was trying to shoot a few pictures the way I’d probably land up shooting generally, but I’m curious to try aperture mode.

For focus I was using spot mode with the crosshairs on the central mark on the forehead. 
 

Controlling focal length is a problem because the two lenses are not marked with similar focal lengths on the barrel.  But worth another try soon.

Edited July 21, 2024 by vikasmg

[vikasmg]

On 7/21/2024 at 12:10 PM, dpitt said:

Thanks for the test. But it would be more helpful if you shot in A mode and both lenses at the same aperture + FL.
The focus point seems to be different too, or maybe that is just the difference in DOF between F5.5 and F3.9

FWIW, I had some spare time and I did another set of shots controlling for aperture.  This time I used four different lenses, which only complicates things, but here they are.  All on the SL3 and at at 6.3 aperture.  I used spot focus on this point in all the images:

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Various-Elmar-TL at 56mm (this is an APS-C lens)

 

Lumix S 20-60 at 60mm

 

Lumix S 28-200 at 58mm (the closet match to 60mm that I could aproximate)

 

Various-Emarit-SL 24-90mm at 60mm

 

It's hard to tell at the resolution that the site allows but even at 1:1 in Lightroom I found little in any of the images to complain or remark about relative to each other.  When the light levels allow, I'm going to put away the bulky Vario-Elmarit 24-90 for a while and stick to the Lumix S 28-200 and see if I miss anything other than the weight!

 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I’m doing something similar for a trip. I leave tomorrow. Weight is a bit of an issue as I really want something longer than 200mm and we have at least two half day hikes. I’ve been comparing the 24-90 with various lenses at f8 (it’s a landscape trip mostly) to see if I can save some weight. I have the 24-90, 20-60 Panny, 24-70II Siggy and 20-105 (Panny). For this trip the 24-105 is the winner, which I’ll match with the 100-400 Leica (better weather sealing than the Sigma). The 20-60 was the weakest, just. The rest were basically the same at f8. Giving the files a run through DXO Raw4 means they compare extremely well to the GF 45-100 on a GFX100II (also run through DXO). 

I still like the 24-90 at wider apertures, although the Sigma 24-70II is so very very close. Maybe as good without the reach. I also like the 24-90 in strong backlighting. Its near APO performance is really good. But for general landscapes there are other just as capable lenses.

We may be shooting Puffins as well if they haven’t all migrated yet. I do really wish the SL cameras had EFCS. Electronic shutter isn’t going to cut it for them. But for most of the trip that’s what I’ll be using.

Gordon

[vikasmg]

Have a good trip!

I think the LUMIX 28-200 along with some cropping that the SL3’s 60 megapixels makes possible will be adequate for me for now.

[Stuart Richardson]

With respect, I think it is hard to draw too many conclusions from this exercise, unless this is how you intend to photograph with the lens. What you are really testing for here is sharpness only in dead center at close range. If you intend to use the lenses out in landscapes for example, you might find many more complicating factors. For example, performance in the edges and corners, color fringing, flare and so on. If you do intend to do that kind of photography and want to test out a bit before you go on a large trip, I would encourage you to try photographing outside at something a bit further away with detail across the whole frame at a similar distance. That might be a more helpful way to compare their performance. That said, should that not be significant for you, then by all means just enjoy!

[vikasmg]

I don't disagree with you.  This was not intended to be a full cast as such but just something I had the opportunity to try out.  I have been using the lens for more than that one shot and I've also seen the results of reviews and tests done by others.  On the whole I'm happy with the lens though I am aware that there are compromises when compared with other lenses, such as the Vario-Elmarit 24-90.

[dpitt]

Thanks for this test. 
The full frame comparisons are very useful. F6.3 is a good compromise,  because it ensures that each lens is stopped down at least half a stop at your chosen focal length. 
Comparing the cropped TL VE is a bit harder because you did not get the same FOV at 56mm, but other than that it seems to perform well.
If you want to compare it in further tests, you could maybe just try to match the picture area and distance from the subject by zooming each lens in or out from the same spot.

Differences between the FF lenses were smaller than I expected, and in particular both Panasonics seem very close. I do have the Panasonic 20-60 and can confirm that is a very sharp and competent lens, maybe even more at the wide and middle part of the zoom than at 60mm, so I was happy it seems to keep up with the 28-200 at 60mm.

To my eyes, from what I can see on the limited forum size, the Leica lenses just seem to have an edge in the 3D rendering department, and a bit in colors too. To some it might not be a lot, and it will vary from shot to shot, but it is often this quality that draws me to my Leica lenses. I compared my Panasonic 20-60 with some vintage Leica R zooms and primes. It does really well in the sharpness department, but even the old R lenses somehow seem to give more pleasing results to my eyes.

As some suggested, this subject and distance is probably not reflecting your main use case, so a test in the field might reveal more differences.

Edited July 27, 2024 by dpitt

[vikasmg]

I generally like the Leica lens results as well but I have to say there I'm hard pressed to come up with an objective reason why.  Perhaps its just that th 24-90mm goes up to f2.8 that that has the result of giving a better impression.

[huwm]

I can see the 28-200 being my hiking lens rather than the 24-105 or 16-35/70-300 combo

in combination with my Q3 it could be my general tourist set up too

[rcusick]

I just ordered this lens from mpb.  I may have had a bad copy but image quality was mediocre. I wasnt expecting it to be anything like my Leica zooms but hoped it would be as good as the Panasonic 20-60.  Not even close.  Returned it. 

[huwm]

On 8/14/2024 at 2:12 AM, rcusick said:

I just ordered this lens from mpb.  I may have had a bad copy but image quality was mediocre. I wasnt expecting it to be anything like my Leica zooms but hoped it would be as good as the Panasonic 20-60.  Not even close.  Returned it. 

Might be why it was on mpb

Not dissing mpb who I’ve had a good few successful deals (buy and sell) with but may be just this one a lemon, hope they check it out before resisting 

[rcusick]

8 hours ago, huwm said:

Might be why it was on mpb

Not dissing mpb who I’ve had a good few successful deals (buy and sell) with but may be just this one a lemon, hope they check it out before resisting 

Could be... I really wanted the lens to work.  Size is amazing.

[o2mpx]

@FlashGordonPhotography based on the lens comparisons, for landscapes at F8, one can just take the 24-105 and have 1 lens with great coverage. With a SL2, combined weight will be 1596g  

Was thinking of taking a Fuji X-H2 with 16-80 specifically for zodiac landings while in Antarctica, which is 1100g combined. Not sure the 500g heavier SL2 setup will yield better IQ with the FF sensor. 

Alternatively, can go with the 20-60 with SL2 and weight will be 1266g but lose 40mm reach…

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[FlashGordonPhotography]

3 hours ago, o2mpx said:

@FlashGordonPhotography based on the lens comparisons, for landscapes at F8, one can just take the 24-105 and have 1 lens with great coverage. With a SL2, combined weight will be 1596g  

Was thinking of taking a Fuji X-H2 with 16-80 specifically for zodiac landings while in Antarctica, which is 1100g combined. Not sure the 500g heavier SL2 setup will yield better IQ with the FF sensor. 

Alternatively, can go with the 20-60 with SL2 and weight will be 1266g but lose 40mm reach…

The 16-80 isn't as good as the Panasonic 24-105. You'll need the 16-55 to match it. And the IBIS/OIS is better on the Leica. There's nothing wrong with the Fuji. It's excellent. And it is significantly lighter with some lenses. But no. You would notice a small IQ bump on the larger system.

For smaller/lighter I'd look at an OM1ii and 12-100, Z7II and 24-120 or Sony A7CR and 24-105 depending on the resolution you need. Personally, I'd carry the 500 grams.

Gordon