Using Manual Lenses with the Leica SL line
Learn about using manual lenses on the Leica SL3.
Recently, I was asked about my experience using manual lenses on a Leica SL3 camera. Shortly after, during a photo walk, I lent a photographer friend my 50mm Summicron to use on a Leica SL2 he was testing. We began discussing the experience of using autofocus lenses compared to manual lenses, and that led me to want to write about it.
This post is part gear review and part experience review (for lack of a better term). I will discuss my experience using manual lenses with the Leica SL line of cameras and explain why you should try it. I will also share many opinions and thoughts based on my experience. I will use “SL” to refer to Leica's various models of SL cameras while also referencing specific models at times.
I want to get this out of the way first:
Do you need a Leica camera to use a manual lens?
No.
Would you enjoy it more if you did?
Maybe…possibly…probably…
Captured on a Leica SL2-S and Canon Serenar 135mm from about 1948
You can adapt most cameras with a manual lens; your experience will vary depending on the camera. I won’t claim you need a Leica to do it right, but I will argue that using a manual lens on a Leica is a great experience.
I always shot on autofocus; the thought of manual focus seemed foreign. Why do that when the camera could do better, right? I sold all my old gear a few years back and got a Leica Q2. This camera got me to try taking photos manually, and then I added the Leica SL Type 601 to my kit. That camera and some vintage lenses solidified the experience for me. Later, when I decided to move on from the SL Type 601, I tried a Lumix S5 II and initially had a terrible time using it with manual lenses. However, when I invested the time to configure it like a Leica, the experience improved, but it still didn't match the Leica's experience…in my opinion.
What makes a Leica SL Ideal?
The SL line of cameras has consistently featured a fantastic EVF in all its iterations, which I would argue is one of the most important requirements for shooting with a manual lens. The SL’s EVF is not only sharp but also very responsive; you can set it to a frame rate of 60Hz to save battery life or increase it to 120Hz. Regardless, it lets you quickly determine when the image is in focus, hardly making you feel like you are looking at a screen. The SL also includes responsive focus peaking that assists you by highlighting the edges that are in focus. As standard, it is set to red dots but can be changed to green, blue, or white.
The next reason the SL is ideal for shooting manual lenses is its ergonomics. Specifically, the SL3 has been refined to allow a photographer to make most, if not all, adjustments with their right hand while the left is free to focus or adjust the aperture on the lens. All buttons have been repositioned to the camera's right side, leaving only the ISO dial and power button on the left. Many users may initially find an SL confusing due to the absence of marked buttons. However, most buttons on the SL can be easily programmed to suit your preferences. Holding a button down for a second allows you to select a function from a list and assign it. You can take this further by investing some time in customizing the list of assignable functions to display only those that are relevant to you.
Compared to the Lumix S5 II, I rarely accidentally press a button when shooting manually. During my time with that camera, I found that I frequently would accidentally click the display button, move the menu wheel, or hit one of the other buttons on the back. While on the SL, the only button I sometimes accidentally move is the thumbwheel, but this is rare, and more often when I am walking around and raising the camera to my eye.
Finally, instead of explaining why an SL is ideal for manual focus lenses, why are manual lenses ideal for an SL? SL cameras tend to be heavier and bulkier; using a manual lens is the easiest way to make them lighter and smaller. Granted, if you choose a lens that is too small, it might look a bit off, but if you want to make the camera more travel-friendly, this is a great approach. If you haven’t had a chance to read my review on the Lumix 28-200mm lens, check it out. In that review, I discuss how I purchased this zoom lens for a trip to Greece; however, I found that most of my shots were taken with either the Leica 35mm Summarit-M or the Leica 50mm Summicron-M lenses.
Captured with a Leica SL2-S and Leitz Elmar 5cm from about 1928
Some suggested customizations for manual shooting:
I suggest customizing the thumbwheel with the ISO setting if you frequently change the ISO. This will allow you to change the ISO with only your right hand instead of using your left hand.
Disable automatic zoom and utilize the joystick to punch in to zoom for focusing. It was great initially, but I found the autozoom can be annoying after a while.
Assign one of the front function buttons to turn focus peaking on and off. You don’t always need it on.
Assign one of the top function buttons on top of the camera, next to the correct setting wheel, as the exposure compensation.
I like using the back FN button to quickly enable and disable the perspective control.
Leica M to L (far left) allows for various thread mount lenses to be adapted.
How do you adapt manual lenses to a Leica SL?
Various adapters are available; depending on the lens, you may use more than one adapter. For example, when mounting a thread-mount lens to the SL, you might use a thread-mount to M adapter and an M to L-mount adapter. Or you could use just one adapter, such as a M39 to L-mount. Before purchasing a lens, research what adapters are required and what brands are recommended; you often get what you pay for here.
My go-to adapters come from Urth. So far, I have used multiple adapters from them and have not had any issues with them. They have all fit correctly and are decently priced. I’ve used my money on these adapters and feel confident recommending them.
If you are adapting M mount lenses, Leica offers an adapter at a high cost. If the lens is coded, the Leica adapter may be worth it. It will pass the code to the SL and make some in-camera corrections; for SL models with IBIS, it will also pass along information for that as well. There are ways to code non-Leica and non-coded Leica lenses. If you're interested, more information is available on Google.
There are other “close-focus” adapters. These adapters have the benefit of allowing you to focus on objects closer than the minimum focus distance of a lens. I haven’t used any yet, but I have read good things about the Light Lens Lab adapters; again, do your research!
Captured on a Leica SL3 with a Helios 44-2 somewhere between 1969-1984
Why shoot a manual lens?
I would argue that learning to shoot a manual lens helps you understand photography better. Manually focusing slows you down and teaches you to be more intentional. You become more involved with capturing or creating the image. Yes, you may sometimes miss shots, but as photographers, we should learn to accept this. A particular anxiety comes with the need to capture everything and miss nothing, which is why sometimes we can’t decide what gear to take with us when we shoot and pack more than we need.
Captured on a Leica SL3 with a Helios 44-2 somewhere between 1969-1984
Learn to gauge distance better
To improve your manual focusing, you need a good sense of distance. You will want to learn to zone focus, which helps you consider the distance to your subject and the depth of field you want in your image. Unlike autofocus lenses, most manual lenses have a distance scale printed on them. In short, this scale indicates at each aperture which distances will keep your subject in focus. For example, at f/4, a subject that is about 5 to 6 feet away will be in focus, while at f/16, a subject about 5 to 10 feet away will be in focus. Knowing this you can start to predetermine where your lens should be set to get focus while walking around taking photos.
When I first started out, an exercise I would do to help me improve was to take a tape measure about 25 feet long, lay it out, and place some of my kids’ toys at different distances: 5 feet, 10 feet, and so on. I would sit or stand at the beginning of the tape and practice focusing on the objects, noting the distances of each to get a better sense of how far each distance was from me.
Learning to visualize objects to determine distance also helps. In a blog post I had read once, the author recommended that if you can visualize a car parked between you and your subject, where the width and not the length were between you, then you can estimate it to be about 6 feet away, or that a subject across the street of a two-lane road may be about 20 to 30 feet away.
Become less dependent on your camera
As you learn zone focusing, think more about the exposure triangle and consider your settings more carefully. While shooting strictly with autofocus, I understood the exposure triangle, but once I began focusing manually, I started using it more and better understood how they affect each other. This helped me to start deciding my camera settings more and being less reliant on the camera.
My thought process:
If my subject is moving around a lot, I prefer a smaller aperture for less depth of field, which provides a larger area of focus and increases the likelihood of my subject being in focus. However, I also need a fast shutter speed to freeze the action; my image may be underexposed, so I might need to raise the ISO.
But wait, do I want a good amount of separation between my subject and the background? Will trying to focus with a smaller focal area and a larger aperture be worth it for the separation? I’ll still need a faster shutter, but will lowering my ISO be enough to prevent this from being overexposed?
Now it’s a valid argument: why not just set the camera to aperture priority mode and concentrate more on nailing focus? When you begin, it’s probably a good idea to start in aperture priority mode. This approach will help you get a feel for the lens; you can learn about the focus throw, the distance from the minimum focus distance to infinity, and, more importantly, which direction to turn the lens to achieve focus from one end to the other.
Captured on a Leica SL2-S and Canon Serenar 135mm from about 1948
Access to vintage glass
This alone could be a post all in itself, but I will keep it short. Older lenses render differently from modern lenses. To paint with a broad stroke, just about any lens made within the last few years will be amazing. They will be clean and sharp. Clinical is the term often used here, and yes, it’s all subjective. The imperfections that can be found in vintage lenses can give a different feel to your images. It may be the way the highlights glow, or the colors may be muted. Some vintage lenses will not be as sharp, and a subject’s skin will be rendered differently. And finally, some of the bokeh you can get from vintage lenses can be amazing.
Yes, you can buy filters to add to a modern lens, but they are not the same. Maybe I’m romanticizing it, but there is something to getting your hands on an older lens, discovering what images it can produce, and learning to embrace their imperfections.
Is using an autofocus lens manual the same as using a manual lens?
Here, I will argue that the experience is not the same. With a manual lens, you have a clear stop from the minimum focus distance to infinity with markings. Without looking at the lens, you can rotate it and know when you have reached either end. This means that if you are shooting close subjects, you can set your lens to the minimum distance and turn it the opposite way as needed, or if the subject is farther away in the distance, turn it to the opposite side for infinity, then rotate it back.
When walking around doing street photography, I move my focus tab into the middle. This way, I am ready regardless of where the subject is. If I see something close, I can move the tab to the left or the right for further subjects.
Most automatic lenses do not provide this tactile or visual feedback, making manual focus less efficient. It can be fine for minor adjustments, but it’s more of a hassle for anything else.
Another benefit most manual lenses have over automatic lenses is their lifespan. Because they do not contain electronics, there are fewer things to break. The oldest lens in my kit dates back to the 1930s; it still works today. If I don’t drop this lens or damage the glass, it can be dismantled, cleaned, and used for decades.
Several months ago, I discovered dust in my Leica 24-90mm Vario-Elmarit lens. I opened it up and cleaned the front element, but accessing the rear element was beyond my skill set. Wires had to be disconnected, and boards had to be removed; it wasn’t worth the risk of causing bigger problems.
Captured on a Leica SL3 with a Helios 44-2 somewhere between 1969-1984
Conclusion
More can be discussed, but this has covered a reasonable amount so far. At no point did I want this post to sound like a debate between manual and autofocus or imply that you need a Leica to do it right. Photography should be fun, challenging, and satisfying, regardless of whether it’s a hobby or your livelihood. Use the tools and techniques that bring you the most joy.
Additional Sample Images
Camera Review: Leica D-Lux 8
Is the Leica D-Lux 8 a do everything camera?
Welcome to my second review. I recently rented a Leica D-Lux 8 and wanted to share my thoughts about this camera, its strengths and weaknesses, and who it is and isn’t for. But is a weekend enough to fully judge a camera? No, it is not, but as a previous user of the Leica D-Lux7, I will also share my thoughts on the D-Lux system. Before we jump into discussing the Leica D-Lux 8, here is a little bit of background.
My first entry into the Leica system began with the Leica D-Lux 7. Previously, I used Canon as my go-to camera system for years. Then I hit a creative rut with photography, and before I knew it, a few years had passed, and I hadn’t used my camera much at all. My cellphone became my primary camera; I now had kids, and the idea of carrying around the essentials young children needed when going out and a DSLR with multiple lenses was not appealing.
It wasn’t until my kids were no longer infants and I had an idea of a gift for my wife that involved printing some pictures I took with my cellphone that I realized my mistake. Cellphone pictures don’t look good when printed. I bought the newest cellphone each year, impressed by the advancements over the previous model. I thought I was future-proofing my images, but I was wrong.
It was at this point that I realized I wanted to start using a dedicated camera to document my kids’ lives. I didn’t want to feel the same disappointment I felt when printing a picture I loved, but I also didn’t want to return to carrying a large camera.
Enter the Leica D-Lux 7…
Shot on the Leica D-Lux 7
In the summer of 2022, traveling had started back up, and I was planning a family trip to Puerto Rico; this was the perfect time to use a dedicated camera again. I gathered all my Canon lenses and 6D and sold them to fund my new camera. I had always heard about Leica and its reputation for having excellent optics, so I was curious to try one. I knew I had found my new camera when I learned they had a small compact camera that produced fantastic images. I ordered one online, and off we went to Puerto Rico…
Here is where I will pause the history lesson and discuss the Leica D-Lux 8. As I discuss it, I will mention my experience with the Leica D-Lux 7 and how it compares to the 8.
2. Specs and Build Quality
Although I enjoy learning about camera specs, I don’t enjoy writing about them in depth. I recognize there are already a lot of reviewers out there who enjoy discussing every detail, and they are probably better suited to do so. Still, I will touch on enough that you will have a good idea about what the D-Lux system offers.
The Leica D-Lux 8 has a 17mp Four-Thirds sensor and a 24-75mm zoom lens with a fast variable aperture of f/1.7-2.8. It can do macro photography and comes with a small detachable flash.
The D-Lux 8 is not weather-sealed, but it is light and feels well-built. Its body is the same size as the D-Lux 7 but redesigned with the aesthetics of the Leica Q line. Some have called this the baby Q, but interestingly enough, when I first picked it up, I didn’t think of it as a baby Q. Instead, I had an immediate reaction that it reminded me of the Leica Digital CL, one of my favorite Leica cameras.
D-Lux size compared to a Leica SL3 and M10.
The camera is small and easily fits in most bags, but not into pockets. This was my first issue with the D-Lux 8; granted, I wasn’t expecting it to fit into my pants pockets, but I was hoping that it would fit into a pocket of my coat, which it did not. The lens sticks out enough to get caught in my coat pocket when I try to remove or put it back in. Now, depending on your usage, this may not be an issue. If you are looking for a camera to wear on a neck strap, then you will be fine; for me, that’s not what I wanted.
Focus
The lens of this camera produces sharp images and great colors, but the autofocus is another story. My experience with the D-Lux 8 autofocus was not very good; it was inconsistent in locking onto the proper object I wanted to capture. But it wasn’t so bad at other times; I could capture pictures of my dogs playing, and it did a good job, but when taking a landscape shot, it seemed only to want to focus on the closest object. So, I can attest that face detection worked well for me, but the other focus modes were not as effective. Thinking back to my time with the D-Lux 7, I don’t remember having this issue. I went back through my images from Puerto Rico and saw that most of the photos I took were fine. I don’t recall having to delete pictures because of focus issues. Maybe this was something with the rental, maybe not.
Sample shots with the Leica D-Lux 8
This is my issue with autofocus; I prefer to focus manually than rely on a camera to figure out what I want it to focus on. The nice thing is that the D-Lux line has a focus ring on the lens if you are inclined to focus manually. It’s not the best experience for me, but others may not have a problem with it. The focus ring moves almost too quickly; it felt like it could use a bit more resistance when turning it so that it would feel more precise. Again, I am probably being a bit picky here. But at the end of the day, I felt less joy shooting the camera. If I choose a compact camera over a bigger one, it is because I want it to feel fun to use, or I don’t want to think about photography as much and just take pictures.
Macro test shots with the D-Lux 8, hover over each image for notes.
One of the features I was excited about trying on the D-Lux 8 was its macro capabilities. I hadn’t used it much when I had the D-Lux 7, but I previously had a Leica Q2 and found it a fun feature.
Unfortunately, I wasn’t as impressed with the Macro on the D-Lux 8. At times, it felt nearly impossible to focus on objects. At its widest aperture, it did a better job, but even then, it was more frustrating than fun.
For Travel
As far as travel cameras go, it’s a good camera for many reasons. While traveling in Puerto Rico, it never weighed me down when worn around my neck; when I didn’t want a camera hanging from my neck, I used an 8-liter sling bag, leaving plenty of space for other items. So, as far as size goes, you can put this in the Pros category.
I never had an issue with the battery life on this camera, at least for my use. Since this was a new camera, I didn’t want to purchase several batteries immediately. While in Puerto Rico, I managed with a single battery. I made it a point to top it off as a precaution whenever possible, and I ended each day with a charge left in the battery. The nice thing about this camera is that the battery size is relatively small, so if you want to carry a couple of extra batteries, it will not take up much space.
The lens offers flexibility with its 24-75 focal length, and when fully extended, it doesn’t protrude enough to worry about bumping into anything while walking around. I tend to get caught up worrying about whether I need something with greater reach when I travel. I’ve learned that if something is too far away, the best option is to get closer. That’s the whole point of traveling, and if you can’t get closer, take a moment to appreciate what would have been your shot and keep it for yourself.
These shots were from roughly the same spot, providing an example of the reach the D-Lux can achieve.
Low Light Performance
Here is where I have difficulty providing advice on this camera. Returning to my trip to Puerto Rico and the D-Lux 7, after the first few days there, I learned that when the sunset, it was time to put the camera away. This could be chalked up to being new to the camera and new to street photography, but in low light, the focus hunted a lot and often missed, and the noise was too much.
Remembering this, I made it a point to test the D-Lux 8 in low light. This time, I had better luck. The camera still had focus issues, but I could capture some decent pictures at night that were not overly noisy and sharp. Today, I have more experience with street photography and a better understanding of how to set up a digital Leica for nighttime street shooting. So, my advice to you, if you decide to get this camera, is to take your time with it, learn to set limits on the ISO and shutter, and practice with manual focusing. However, you should take that advice and apply it to any camera.
Lowlight test shots with the D-Lux 8, hover over each image for notes.
Conclusion
So, what happened to the D-Lux 7, and will I buy a D-Lux 8? I’ll begin with when I returned home from Puerto Rico. I quickly packed up the camera and returned it to the company from which I purchased it. But hang on; I didn’t return it because it was a bad camera or had problems working correctly. I realized it reignited my passion for photography. I knew I wanted to pursue more street, travel, and portrait photography; this camera couldn’t be my only device. I discovered I loved owning a Leica; using the camera was enjoyable, and the menu system was user-friendly; I didn’t have to sift through a complicated menu to find what I needed. I wanted to explore Leica cameras and their lenses further. This camera led me to the Leica Q2…
So, will I buy a D-Lux 8, and do I recommend buying one? First question: no, I will pass on the D-Lux 8 for now. I have learned that compact cameras are not for me. If I use one, I want it to fit easily inside my pants pocket and be accurate with autofocus. If a camera can’t offer me that, then I would prefer to take my Leica M. As much as I would like a new camera to play with, I think I will put my money towards another lens instead.
Who should get this camera:
Someone who wants to dip their toes in the Leica ecosystem but doesn’t want to jump into it.
Anyone who wants something better than their phone for travel or daily life but doesn’t want a bigger camera.
Beginner or intermediate photographers that want a Leica.
Who should not get this camera:
Experienced photographers who pixel peep or want to shoot as quickly as they would with a full-sized zoom lens might not be too happy.
People who shoot lowlight often may be disappointed.
Leica Q series users may not enjoy this camera over a CL, SL, or M.
For Leica D-Lux 7 owners, I don’t recommend upgrading unless you specifically want the cleaner exterior design and in-camera charging.
In the end, I found that this camera wasn’t for me, but I don’t necessarily want to dissuade anyone from buying it. Yes, there are cheaper compact cameras out there, and there will always be that one person who says this is a re-bodied Panasonic LX-100, which may be, but there are differences between the two, and the price difference might be worth it to some. This camera can be a great companion for those with larger cameras. It has limitations, and it is up to the user to decide if they are a deal breaker.
Leica D-Lux 7 Sample Images
Lens Review: Panasonic Lumix S 28-200mm f/4-7.1 MACRO O.I.S. Lens.
Is this jack of all trades lens worth your money?
Hello, and welcome to my very first review. I'm excited to share my thoughts with you and hope you find this informative. In this review, we'll dive into the ultra-portable Panasonic LUMIX 28-200mm L-mount lens. I'll be exploring its real-world usage and comparing it with other L-mount options—some of which you might expect, and others that may surprise you. I'm ready to share my honest, personal insights after nearly ten months with this lens on both a Leica SL2-s and an SL3 for travels, street photography, and events.
Panasonic Lumix S 28-200mm f/4-7.1 Macro O.I.S. Lens with box and lens hood.
I purchased this lens myself, and there are no sponsorships involved, so you can trust that these are my genuine thoughts and feelings.
When the LUMIX 28-200mm was announced in late winter, I was excited to try this lens and had high expectations based on what I had read. I found a copy available in Japan before the U.S. release, so I ordered it and crossed my fingers.
I intended to use it as my primary lens on a trip to Greece. I wanted to keep my lens kit light, and the camera I used for this trip was my Leica SL2-S (known for being heavier), so the larger the lens, the bigger the burden. The 28-200 seemed ideal for travel: long reach, macro capable, lightweight, and excellent image quality.
Like most photographers, this wasn’t the only lens I took with me. So, how did this lens perform during the trip? Did I use it frequently or keep it in my camera bag? Now that I’m back home, how much have I used it? Finally, and more importantly, do I think it is worth buying?
Specs and Build Quality
I won’t delve deeply into this lens's specifications; most sites you can purchase it from will have this covered. However, if you have just started reaching it, the key points are that it’s lightweight, compact, offers both wide and long reach, and can even handle macro photography at half size.
The LUMIX has two switches: one for toggling between manual and autofocus, and the other for turning the image stabilization on or off. I rarely use either switch; it stays in autofocus, and stabilization remains on since I usually shoot handheld.
This lens shares a design approach with other Lumix lenses in the S series, resulting in a lightweight, compact body with some weatherproofing. However, it tends to feel more plastic-like. Users accustomed to the sturdier build of Leica or Sigma glass might notice a lack of that solid feel in this lens. I appreciate that this lens doesn’t have as many switches and buttons as some Sigma lenses; I would say it falls somewhere between Leica and Sigma. I dislike having too many buttons and switches on a lens. I forget about most of them, never use them, and they create failure points for weatherproofing. More importantly, I don’t want to miss a shot because I forgot to flip a switch or accidentally pressed a button.
One concern I have with this lens is its multiple sections when extending. This design increases the likelihood of dust entering compared to other zoom lenses featuring a solid, extending barrel. But to be fair, I have used it at the beach and other dusty environments and haven’t had anything get inside…so far.
Focus Speed and Accuracy
As with many LUMIX lenses, the autofocus is quick and shows minimal focus breathing. Whatever the subject, it quickly locks focus. In short, I was not disappointed with this lens.
Shot on a Leica SL2-S at 38mm f/10, 1/1000, ISO 800
The most demanding shots I have taken with this lens were at the 2024 Jackalope Festival in Virginia Beach, VA. A skateboarding festival on the beach with motocross and BMX performances. For this event, I took with me the LUMIX 28-200 and my Sigma 100-400mm. Until this event, the Sigma 100-400 was my go-to lens for events that needed reach, and I have always been impressed with its sharpness. On this day, I began shooting with the Sigma 100-400mm, but it became cumbersome to use, it was harder to move between crowds of people, it was hunting for focus more than I preferred, and on a hot summer day started to feel heavy.
During one of the skateboarding competitions, I decided to swap out the Sigma for the LUMIX, and immediately felt like this was the right choice. Compared to the longer Sigma lens, I could focus on the skateboarders moving towards and away from me. I felt more nimbler with the LUMIX; I could move around and turn much quicker as the skateboarders passed. Another advantage over the Sigma was that the LUMIX allowed me to access a much wider focal length; I could get closer and grab more dynamic shots when the skaters passed. Regardless of the focal length, wide or narrow, it performed well. Rarely did I get a shot where the subject was out of focus.
Now for the important part, how was the lens's image quality? Sure, it performed excellently with focusing, but was it sharp, did it give good colors, and did it require any significant post-processing? I’m happy to say that this lens is sharp; I didn’t find distortion or chromatic aberrations that were distracting or problematic. Compared to some of my other lenses, such as those from Leica, the colors are decent; they seem pretty neutral, like the Sigma 100-400. You can quickly boost the colors or add a preset in Lightroom and end up with a great image.
Going back to build quality, this aspect made me a little nervous. I was shooting this at the beach with some decent wind. Unlike the Sigma 100-400 I often use, the lens barrel extends out in two sections instead of just one longer piece. My concern was that this provides more spots for sand to enter the lens. Thankfully, I had no issues, but I recommend limiting its usage at the beach or dusty environments just to be safe.
For Travel
For travel, this lens lived up to my expectations. While on my trip to Greece, I took this as my only lens for an all-day walking around Athens, another day in Nafplion, and a day-long boat tour of some islands. It offered me many options for capturing images, both near and far. On those days, I didn’t wish for a wider lens or more reach; I felt like it was more than enough. It allowed me to take pictures of the family and shots of buildings and landscapes very well. Because of its size, I could quickly remove it from my bag, take a photo, and put it back or walk around with it by my side and not feel burdened.
But now for the bigger question: did I use this lens most of the time on this trip or just some of the time?
Shot on Leica SL2-S at 55mm, f8, 1/4000, ISO 125
After returning home and looking at the stats, the two lenses that I used more than the Lumix 28-200 were my 35mm Leica Summarit-M and 50mm Summicron-M prime lenses. Both lenses are manual-focus and smaller than the LUMIX, but the tradeoff is switching lenses for different focal lengths and losing reach past 50mm. For me, these were acceptable sacrifices; I prefer to shoot by manually focusing. I get annoyed easily when the camera tries to focus on something other than what I want. The LUMIX can be focused manually, but I have a terrible time focusing with most autofocus lenses. This is my hang-up, so you probably shouldn’t judge the lens harshly for this.
Another reason I chose the primes is that I generally like the image straight out of the camera, with very little post-processing. With the Lumix, I find myself spending more time in Lightroom adjusting the color, contrast, sharpness, etc.
Aperture
I saved this for last because this is where most people might have reservations about this lens. I made it a point to test this lens out by doing some nighttime street photography, I wanted to see how well it would perform with its relatively high apertures. I found that it worked pretty well. With newer cameras, ISO performance has improved significantly, allowing for work in darker settings. If you can use Lightroom's noise reduction, you might find that the aperture isn’t as limiting in low-light conditions.
For portrait work, you won’t get the separation of much faster glass, but you can play with the distance between your subject and get suitable separation from the background.
Would I choose this lens over other lenses for nighttime street photography or portrait work? No. It’s a jack of all trades but a master of none. While it can serve these purposes, using a dedicated lens will yield better results.
Comparisons
Below is a comparison between the Lumix 28-200mm, Leica Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-70, Leica Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-90 using the same settings. Unfortunately, I did not have all three lenses at the same time; the images for the Lumix 28-200mm and the Leica 24-70 were taken simultaneously, while I tried to recreate the setup with the Leica 24-90. So this does create a bit of an issue, but this should still give a good idea of how the Lumix compares to other lenses. Click each image below for a closer look. Below the gallery are some close-up comparisons; click each image for notes on the comparison.
Between the three images you will notice that both Leica lenses are sharper and have more detail. When viewing at 100%, the colors between the Lumix and the Leica 24-70 are close, but the Leica seems to be a bit brighter in the shadows, allowing for more detail to be shown. Because I could not recreate the setup exactly with the Leica 24-90, I will avoid directly comparing the images, but I will say that in my experience, the Leica 24-90 tends to have more detail in the shadows and a bit better pop in color.
I think the takeaway from this comparison is that while the Lumix 28-200 isn’t as sharp as the Leica lenses when pixel peeping and its colors may not be as vibrant, you must ask yourself whether that difference is significant enough to avoid this lens. If you're a shooter who focuses on getting your framing right the first time and avoids cropping, then this lens is a pretty good value. However, if you often crop your images, you might notice more of this lens’s flaws.
Another competitor for this lens would be the Panasonic Lumix S 24-105mm F4 Macro O.I.S. This lens is a bit wider but 100mm less in reach, faster in aperture but not significantly faster. From my limited use with it, I found it to be bigger and heavier than I wanted to carry around then. The image quality was good but not great (to me), so I traded it in after a few weeks with it.
The image below compares similar shots taken a year apart. For me, the additional reach of the Lumix 28-200mm was more significant than a faster aperture or a slight improvement in sharpness. Due to its compact size, I also felt more at ease navigating through crowds and getting closer to the action with the 28-200mm lens. I didn’t have to worry about bumping into people or obstructing someone’s view.
Left image: Lumix 28-200mm | Right image: Lumix 24-105mm
Conclusion
So, where am I with this lens, is it a keeper? Should you buy it? The answer depends more on what you are looking for in a lens, I know that might feel unsatisfying as an answer, so let me try to do a little better. This is a lens you should try. Because it offers so much functionality, it’s lightweight, has stabilization, does macro, and covers a wide range of focal lengths in one lens, you can’t go wrong with this lens as an addition to your kit.
Who should get this lens:
Someone who travels and wants a minimal kit that does a lot.
Those starting in photography who are trying to figure out what they want to shoot and what to shoot with.
Who should not get this lens:
Photographers that pixel peep and want the sharpest quality zoom lens.
Low light shooters with cameras that don’t have good ISO range.
Photographers who wish to limit the amount of post processing to their images.
Thank you for taking the time to read my first review. I hope this helped you decide whether to buy this lens. I plan to release more gear reviews, so please check back. If you like what you read, have a question, or suggest something, please leave a comment below.
This website is a personal hobby of mine, and I enjoy experimenting with new gear. I aim to keep sharing my insights on the equipment I try out. If you feel inspired, please think about supporting me by leaving a tip below to help sustain this site.
Additional Sample Images
