The main goal of the S series of lenses apears to be versatile, portable, practical and affordable and this lens fits that pattern. Pixel peepers, bokeh chasers or low light shooters might prefer other, more specialized lenses but for most people, these lenses will do just fine.
Full disclosure… I work for Panasonic LUMIX. With that out of the way, I am genuinely curious for people’s opinions on the importance for large apertures (fast apertures) in ultra wide and wide lenses? My take has been that shallow DoF is not needed,possible even at f2.8 and with modern stabilization the faster shutter speeds are less important. I see a need for Astro work but that’s the biggest use case I can think of for the brighter aperture. Please let me know your thoughts.
f/2.8 would be nice for indoor shooting without lights. E.g. during travels. Granted with modern full frame sensors, 6400 ISO is nothing, but I know some friends who're allergic to noise and would pass away if they ever kept a photo or video shot higher than 1600 ISO. It's probably not needed for paid work where lights are available. I think fast ultrawide primes make more sense, 18 or 20 f/1.4 or f/1.2 even for astrophotography. But something like a 16-35mm type of zoom, f/2.8 is more than enough. f/5.6 is a bit too slow imo, essentially a dealbreaker. That's basically worse ISO performance than using a f/2.8 equivalent on an APS-C (though a zoom lens of this equivalent range doesn't exist on APS-C yet)
Both F2.8 and F4+ ultra-wide lenses starting at 14mm have their place IMO. F2.8 is useful for low-light video but not that many people need it, so it is important to offer more affordable darker aperture ultra-wide zoom as well.
Aperture definitely matters less in my calculus for zooms and wides, since it's not their forte in the first place; and also less for telephoto, since the compression can deliver separation. So for FOV 35-90mm primes it matters most to me. (It still matters, just less.) With stabilisation even dark interiors are less of an issue now, too. I'm considering this or the 18mmF1.8 for double duty between an S1R and an aps-c TL2. The Sigma Contemporary F/2.8 is a strong alternative, but I already have the 18-50mm aps-c so the light weight and 21-42mm FOV on the TL2 tilts me in favour of this 14-28. I'm most attracted to the new Art 20mm f/1.4, but even 400g lighter than its SLR version it's still double the weight of the 14-28 or 18, so it's a less incidental mode of use. They're all a bit expensive, so I'll probably get which ever one is on a good sale at the right time. Then again, I'm trying to hold out on lenses to save for the rather fetching S5IIx...
For me it's the variable aperture on this lens and price that keeps me from wanting to purchase it. Why bother when you can get a sigma 2.8 at the same price, with more range and a consistent aperture at whatever zoom.
@@peterjamus Because there is a huge difference between having 14mm and 16mm on the wide end, if you mean 16-28mm F2.8 (it has less focal range, not more). If you mean Sigma 14-24mm F2.8, that one also has less focal range, is more than 3 times heavier and costs twice as much.
Very nice. A Panasonic FF is on my shortlist of cameras. I appreciate the fact that their lens lineup with essentials like the 50mm f/1.8 are more affordable than the Z-Mount lenses of my preferred brand. That Sigma makes L-Mount lenses is another plus.
The fact that canon EF lenses can be adapted to the S5II (and I hope future LUMIX cameras) using the Sigma MC21 and deliver ‘like native’ AF performance including CAF in video is brilliant. Lens IS still won’t work though with LUMIX IBIS (ie dual IS).
THe 14-28 Pana + the Sigma 28-70 make an incredibly affordable, light and versatile setup with few compromises the L Mount is really shaping up to not be for people who can afford Leica Glass
What about correction barrel distortion in film? perhaps I'm being naïve, I'm used to successfully getting rid of it in Lightroom but I'm new to shooting film. Great review, thank you! =)
If I keep my GH5ii as a B camera for the S5ii is it easy to match up? I prefer V-log but am open to other color profiles for my multicam shoots. I want to a super wide lens on the GH5 and use it in most cases where I am currently using the GoPro 11 as a B cam.
Thanks for the review. I really wish Panasonic had included LENS stabilization with this lens (to help reduce corner warping when walking). That's the main reason I use a Canon EF 16-35 f/4 L IS on my S1 and S5 bodies instead of the Panasonic 16-35 f/4 L or the Panasonic 20-60, since neither of those two Lumix lenses has lens stabilization.
Sony A7IV vs Panasonic S5 II - Hybrid Comparison - bit.ly/A7IVvsS5II Sony A7IV vs Panasonic S5 II - IBIS / Stabilization Comparison - bit.ly/A7IVvsS5II-IBIS
No, this is a very different type of lens, they don't really have that much in common. I actually despise Leica branding on all products from smartphones and action cameras to branded Panasonic lenses (Zeiss and Hasselblad branding as well). Fortunately, 16-35 is not Leica branded, just certified... whatever that means.
@@TheHybridShooter I know what you mean - it can seem crasse on phones and things. I wasn't so much referring to the branding as the collaborative influence. Yamane-san stated in one of the interviews that the S PRO lenses were produced in the same way as the m4/3 Leica lenses; just not branded so as to avoid confusion. I didn't pay much attention to them for a long time, but the S PRO and Leica Lumix lenses do have a rendition advantage to my eye. I think some people will be cross-shopping the 16-35mm with this, though.
@@fellowcitizen I don't want to go deeper into the controversies here, but there is evidence that a lot of "Leica" M43 lenses were designed and patented by Sigma. In my very personal opinion, Panasonic should abandon Leica branding and promote S Pro brand instead. Much like Sony when they replaced Tamron made "Zeiss" lenses by G Master branding. There is a big price difference between 16-35 and this. IMO people should decide which type of ultra-wide zoom they need, rather than compare these two specific lenses.
@@TheHybridShooter Thanks, I hadn't heard that, but Sigma has certainly worked with Leica since the 1990s, and obviously more recently prior to the L-Mount Alliance since it originated from both Lumix and Sigma working with them. I had heard of Sigma patents for Olympus and others, though, so it's not surprising. Thanks, and keep up the good work!
@@TheHybridShooter I agree with you. Only using S and S Pro for the panasonic lenses helps people to understand the difference more easily (affordable, pretty sharp, light or more expensive, top-of-the-line and robust for example). Leica should only bring out their self-made lenses with the nice red L badge, for the people that do like it (too expensive for me tough).
I think many who buy this lens will own it as part of a lens set which would typically include an f4 or f2.8 24-70mm or 28-70mm or, in LUMIX’s case, a kit 20-60mm, or a wide prime or two.
Thanks for reviewing this. Not many reviews out there as most UA-camrs gravitated toward only reviewing the S5 II
The main goal of the S series of lenses apears to be versatile, portable, practical and affordable and this lens fits that pattern. Pixel peepers, bokeh chasers or low light shooters might prefer other, more specialized lenses but for most people, these lenses will do just fine.
Just say the word budget
Full disclosure… I work for Panasonic LUMIX.
With that out of the way, I am genuinely curious for people’s opinions on the importance for large apertures (fast apertures) in ultra wide and wide lenses?
My take has been that shallow DoF is not needed,possible even at f2.8 and with modern stabilization the faster shutter speeds are less important. I see a need for Astro work but that’s the biggest use case I can think of for the brighter aperture.
Please let me know your thoughts.
f/2.8 would be nice for indoor shooting without lights. E.g. during travels. Granted with modern full frame sensors, 6400 ISO is nothing, but I know some friends who're allergic to noise and would pass away if they ever kept a photo or video shot higher than 1600 ISO. It's probably not needed for paid work where lights are available.
I think fast ultrawide primes make more sense, 18 or 20 f/1.4 or f/1.2 even for astrophotography. But something like a 16-35mm type of zoom, f/2.8 is more than enough. f/5.6 is a bit too slow imo, essentially a dealbreaker. That's basically worse ISO performance than using a f/2.8 equivalent on an APS-C (though a zoom lens of this equivalent range doesn't exist on APS-C yet)
Both F2.8 and F4+ ultra-wide lenses starting at 14mm have their place IMO. F2.8 is useful for low-light video but not that many people need it, so it is important to offer more affordable darker aperture ultra-wide zoom as well.
Aperture definitely matters less in my calculus for zooms and wides, since it's not their forte in the first place; and also less for telephoto, since the compression can deliver separation. So for FOV 35-90mm primes it matters most to me. (It still matters, just less.)
With stabilisation even dark interiors are less of an issue now, too.
I'm considering this or the 18mmF1.8 for double duty between an S1R and an aps-c TL2. The Sigma Contemporary F/2.8 is a strong alternative, but I already have the 18-50mm aps-c so the light weight and 21-42mm FOV on the TL2 tilts me in favour of this 14-28.
I'm most attracted to the new Art 20mm f/1.4, but even 400g lighter than its SLR version it's still double the weight of the 14-28 or 18, so it's a less incidental mode of use.
They're all a bit expensive, so I'll probably get which ever one is on a good sale at the right time. Then again, I'm trying to hold out on lenses to save for the rather fetching S5IIx...
For me it's the variable aperture on this lens and price that keeps me from wanting to purchase it. Why bother when you can get a sigma 2.8 at the same price, with more range and a consistent aperture at whatever zoom.
@@peterjamus Because there is a huge difference between having 14mm and 16mm on the wide end, if you mean 16-28mm F2.8 (it has less focal range, not more).
If you mean Sigma 14-24mm F2.8, that one also has less focal range, is more than 3 times heavier and costs twice as much.
Very nice. A Panasonic FF is on my shortlist of cameras. I appreciate the fact that their lens lineup with essentials like the 50mm f/1.8 are more affordable than the Z-Mount lenses of my preferred brand. That Sigma makes L-Mount lenses is another plus.
The fact that canon EF lenses can be adapted to the S5II (and I hope future LUMIX cameras) using the Sigma MC21 and deliver ‘like native’ AF performance including CAF in video is brilliant. Lens IS still won’t work though with LUMIX IBIS (ie dual IS).
Canon EF glass adapted onto the S5ii is as good at video autofocus as the native mount glass
THe 14-28 Pana + the Sigma 28-70 make an incredibly affordable, light and versatile setup with few compromises the L Mount is really shaping up to not be for people who can afford Leica Glass
Great system, mega video. Thank You my friend and best regards from Kiel. Kai the bee filmer. 🤩
Thank you!
The macro capabilities are very interesting. It looks like the wide version of the 24-105
What about correction barrel distortion in film? perhaps I'm being naïve, I'm used to successfully getting rid of it in Lightroom but I'm new to shooting film. Great review, thank you! =)
This looks like a good combo!
thank you for nice review
I have s5ii is very cool
If I keep my GH5ii as a B camera for the S5ii is it easy to match up? I prefer V-log but am open to other color profiles for my multicam shoots. I want to a super wide lens on the GH5 and use it in most cases where I am currently using the GoPro 11 as a B cam.
Unfortunately, I don't know, I have never used GH5 II.
Thanks for the review. I really wish Panasonic had included LENS stabilization with this lens (to help reduce corner warping when walking). That's the main reason I use a Canon EF 16-35 f/4 L IS on my S1 and S5 bodies instead of the Panasonic 16-35 f/4 L or the Panasonic 20-60, since neither of those two Lumix lenses has lens stabilization.
Sony A7IV vs Panasonic S5 II - Hybrid Comparison - bit.ly/A7IVvsS5II
Sony A7IV vs Panasonic S5 II - IBIS / Stabilization Comparison - bit.ly/A7IVvsS5II-IBIS
great!
Is this tempting you away from the beloved S PRO 16-35mmF4? Or does the Leica influence give it something extra?
No, this is a very different type of lens, they don't really have that much in common.
I actually despise Leica branding on all products from smartphones and action cameras to branded Panasonic lenses (Zeiss and Hasselblad branding as well).
Fortunately, 16-35 is not Leica branded, just certified... whatever that means.
@@TheHybridShooter I know what you mean - it can seem crasse on phones and things. I wasn't so much referring to the branding as the collaborative influence.
Yamane-san stated in one of the interviews that the S PRO lenses were produced in the same way as the m4/3 Leica lenses; just not branded so as to avoid confusion.
I didn't pay much attention to them for a long time, but the S PRO and Leica Lumix lenses do have a rendition advantage to my eye.
I think some people will be cross-shopping the 16-35mm with this, though.
@@fellowcitizen I don't want to go deeper into the controversies here, but there is evidence that a lot of "Leica" M43 lenses were designed and patented by Sigma.
In my very personal opinion, Panasonic should abandon Leica branding and promote S Pro brand instead. Much like Sony when they replaced Tamron made "Zeiss" lenses by G Master branding.
There is a big price difference between 16-35 and this. IMO people should decide which type of ultra-wide zoom they need, rather than compare these two specific lenses.
@@TheHybridShooter Thanks, I hadn't heard that, but Sigma has certainly worked with Leica since the 1990s, and obviously more recently prior to the L-Mount Alliance since it originated from both Lumix and Sigma working with them.
I had heard of Sigma patents for Olympus and others, though, so it's not surprising.
Thanks, and keep up the good work!
@@TheHybridShooter I agree with you. Only using S and S Pro for the panasonic lenses helps people to understand the difference more easily (affordable, pretty sharp, light or more expensive, top-of-the-line and robust for example). Leica should only bring out their self-made lenses with the nice red L badge, for the people that do like it (too expensive for me tough).
I think id go with the sigma 14-24
this or the sigma 16-28 f2.8 ?
Those are very different lenses, not directly comparable, so it depends on requirements.
I will take the 16-35 f4 over this.
Why didn't U show macro for something with macro on their name and and this video as well
I have no idea what you’re asking.
Did you not watch the minimum focus distance section? Clearly covered macro.
4-5.6 is probably what is keeping me away from this. Especially that 5.6. Unacceptable.
F5.6 is perfectly acceptable at this price point.
I think many who buy this lens will own it as part of a lens set which would typically include an f4 or f2.8 24-70mm or 28-70mm or, in LUMIX’s case, a kit 20-60mm, or a wide prime or two.