A Return to the Q.
In Part 1 of this review, I reflect on my return to the Leica Q line and how it compares with the M and SL systems I’ve used. Choosing between them isn’t just about features — it’s about how each camera shapes the way you photograph, whether that means reacting quickly, slowing down to engage, or adapting across situations.
This review has been divided into two parts. Initially, I planned for it to be one post, but as I started writing, I realized there was more I wanted to discuss. Even then, I still didn’t cover everything that could be addressed. I hope you enjoy this first half; part two will follow a few weeks after this post goes live, so please check back!
Welcome
Like many Leica owners, my first Leica was a Q, specifically the Q2. Those in the Leica community often refer to the Q system as the “gateway drug” to the other Leica systems. I was no different; after purchasing a Leica Q2 several years ago, I sold it and moved on to try the Leica M and SL systems. So, in 2025, a few years after my initial switch, where do I currently stand?
In this post, I will share my experience with the Q2, compare it to the Leica M and SL systems, and discuss its performance in 2025. Since many readers might be interested in choosing between a Q and an M, or a Q and an SL, I will also provide some comparisons between them.
My history with the Q2
When I first bought the Q2, I wanted a camera system that would eliminate the need for carrying a bag full of lenses and the indecision of which one to choose. Initially, I tried the D-Lux 7. It was a good, capable camera, but I wanted a little more from it. After exploring some of their other options, I decided to try the Leica Q2. I used the camera happily for a year, mainly for travel, street, and family photos. Eventually, the desire grew — it started small but became stronger.
My main complaint with the Q2 was that I needed a longer reach with my camera. I became interested in photographing wildlife and airplanes at air shows, and that’s when the Q2 started to feel limiting for me. At this point, I was hooked on Leica. Although there are cheaper and equally capable alternatives, I wanted to stick with Leica; specs are not everything.
Holding a Leica gives a feeling that's hard to put into words. They feel sturdy, like reliable tools—not fragile or cheap. A Leica helps you focus more on your subject instead of being distracted by searching for buttons and dials. The controls are minimal, emphasizing the essentials but still allowing some customization. Once you become familiar with the model you're using, you can operate it instinctively, letting you focus on capturing the shot rather than fiddling with the camera.
Over the past three years, I moved from the Q2 to the digital Leica CL, then to the SL, and finally to an M. I reached a point where I felt that an M and SL were sufficient, and I decided this would be the kit I would invest in. I have remained happy with my kit, but occasionally, I find that I miss using the Q2.
For me, there was something about the image that the camera captures and the flexibility it offered that makes it such a unique camera. Despite its 28mm lens (a focal length I find challenging), the 47-megapixel sensor provides extra cropping flexibility. The option to do basic macro shots without changing lenses was a convenient bonus I appreciated. Compared to an SL, and depending on the M and lens used, the Q is relatively lightweight. I managed to hold off the urge to reacquire a Q for a while, but the itch grew too much…
What brought me back to the Q2?
A few things drew me back to the Q2. First, I found a podcast by Iain Farrel, Prime Lenses, which covers gear and various photography topics. In several episodes, the Q pops up in his conversations with guests. Each time, Iain consistently praises the lens as unique and special and admits it sometimes tempts him to break his one-camera rule. Along with several positive comments from some of his guests about the Q, I kept thinking more and more about the Q2 I had sold off and how I missed the images I got from it. If you haven’t listened to his podcast, I highly recommend it; it’s worth a listen. Check out his webpage, Prime Lenses, for more information!
Then came the second push: a friend I go on photo walks with got an original Q, the Q typ 116. Seeing his photos and hearing how much he loved the camera really made me miss it more. But it wasn’t just envy; during our photo walks, I saw how easily he could switch from wide-angle shots to macro without the hassle of changing lenses or switching cameras. When the sunset or we stopped into a dim coffee shop, his camera handled low light like a pro. Best of all, he didn't carry a camera bag full of gear. Sometimes, yes, he would bring a second camera for specific purposes, like video, but his Q spent most of the time being used. Later, he also sent me some portrait work he'd done with his Q. Between these two influences, I was pretty much sold on the idea of the Q again.
It was back in July 2025 that I decided to get a Q again, but I wondered what this meant for my kit. Should I add it to my current kit or sell a camera to fund it? And which Q should I buy? The next part of the review aims to provide helpful insights for those trying to decide which Q model to purchase or which Leica cameras to compare.
Q vs. M vs. SL Or:
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Them All.
Before choosing a model, I wanted to determine if it would replace any of my existing kit (Leica M and SL). This decision would impact my budget and the models to consider. In short, am I selling anything to buy a Q?
As I mentioned in my previous posts, I will focus more on my personal experience rather than technical specifications. These days, a Google search can provide an AI-generated list of specs and comparisons, so my discussion of specs will primarily focus on what mattered to me and influenced my decision-making process.
Let’s first start with, could a Q replace my SL3?
This could be any mirrorless interchangeable lens camera, really. So, if you don’t have one, I will still try to make some relevant points. My Leica SL3 allows me to switch seamlessly between ultra-wide-angle lenses and telephoto lenses, covering every focal length I might need. So, the simple answer seems to be no, it can’t replace it, right?
This is where you need to consider your actual use and the type of photography you do. If I were traveling or mainly doing street photography and wanted a smaller, lighter camera, the Q has the SL beat.
If you rarely crop and tend to shoot in the range of 28-35mm focal lengths, the Q (Typ 116) could be a good replacement. However, if you're looking for something weather-sealed and you're okay with cropping your photos, consider the Q2 or Q3. The higher megapixels will allow for more cropping and framing options.
The higher megapixels of the Q2 and Q3 could potentially eliminate the need for multiple lenses. The Q2, with a 47MP sensor, covers a focal length range of roughly 28-75mm, while the Q3, with a 60MP sensor, ranges from approximately 28-90mm. However, cropping an image from a 28mm lens to resemble a 90mm lens isn’t going to provide the same results as a dedicated 90mm prime lens. Portrait photographers might find it important, while street or travel photographers could consider it a reasonable tradeoff to avoid carrying multiple lenses. Consider whether that difference is significant to you.
For me, my SL kit consists of the 50mm APO Summicron-SL, the 24-90mm Vario-Elmarit-SL, and a Sigma 100-400mm lens. In theory, if I stuck with a Q3 28mm, I would be covered from 28 to 90mm, and I would save a significant amount of weight. However, I would lose the capability to shoot wildlife and aircraft at a distance. I prefer shooting at 50mm, so I could even opt for the Q3 43 and still crop to approximately 150mm, allowing for some extra reach.
If I were trying to downsize my kit, the Q3 43 would cover my preferred focal lengths, it is weather-sealed, and has a flip screen. But ultimately, one of the main reasons it's hard for me to replace my SL3 with a Q is that I scored great deals on both the 50mm APO and the 24-90mm lens. If I sold them and wanted to buy them back later, I probably wouldn’t find such good deals again. But if this hadn’t happened, then I would seriously consider the Q3 43 as a replacement.
One last point I want to make is that a Q perfectly complements an SL kit. One is a larger camera suitable for almost all types of photography, while the other offers a lot of flexibility in a compact size. Additionally, the Q2 and Q3 models share the same battery as the SL cameras, eliminating the need to purchase multiple types of batteries and chargers.
Could a Q replace my M?
If I'm being honest and practical, the quick answer is...yes, absolutely. But again, it’s not that simple. When budgets are tight, the Q tends to be cheaper and gets you most of the way there. You get a Leica body and a Leica lens for one price. But again, it’s not that straightforward, and I can’t easily say one is better than the other.
If you skipped the SL section where I explain how a Q can cover multiple focal lengths—perhaps because you don’t have one or are only choosing between a Q and an M—I recommend revisiting it. To keep this post from getting too long, I won’t repeat my earlier explanations about the Q and focal lengths, please review my points on those and apply them to the M as well.
With a Q, you can enjoy a similar (though not identical) experience. One of my biggest pet peeves with DSLRs and many mirrorless cameras is that when I look through the viewfinder, my nose always touches the LCD screen, leaving oily marks behind. (If this doesn’t happen to you, you're lucky.) This is something I appreciate about both the M and Q: they only cover part of my face, making me feel like I’m not hiding behind a camera.
But they diverge here also. The M has an optical viewfinder, a window that allows you to see the scene as your eyes usually do, while the Q features an LCD screen, which provides a digital representation of the scene. When looking through the viewfinder, you’ll see exactly the image and framing you'll get when you press the shutter. A Leica M, on the other hand, requires a bit of imagination and faith when composing and focusing.
I look at a computer screen all day, so when it comes to photography, that’s the last thing I want to do, if I can. This is a huge plus for the Leica M line for me. When focusing with a rangefinder, you look at the small rectangle in the center of the viewfinder. If your subject is out of focus, you’ll see two images inside that rectangle. As you turn the focusing ring on the lens, one of the images will shift and move away from or towards the other image. When the two images overlap and align perfectly, your subject is in focus.
This sounds difficult, and yes, it does have its challenges, especially in low light and with longer focal lengths, but after some time, it becomes easier for me than focusing with a viewfinder. I also tend to do a lot of low-light or night shooting, so looking through an electronic viewfinder makes it more challenging on my eyes, switching from a bright viewfinder to a dark environment.
When I look at a screen and manually focus, it sometimes takes me longer because I keep second-guessing whether I have the right focus. I zoom in as much as I can to ensure I'm in focus, but with any electronic viewfinder, the more you zoom, the worse it appears, and then I question the focus more. Focus peaking does help, but it can sometimes be inaccurate. This is my hangup, and I wouldn’t blame it as a shortcoming of a Q or SL. With a rangefinder patch, you learn to use it and trust your own judgment. With the range finder patch, you can second-guess yourself, too, but for some reason, I can have faith that I have focus on a range finder.
To sum it up, if you want an actual rangefinder experience, you want a Leica M; if you plan to use autofocus 80 percent of the time but want to dabble in manual focus, you want a Q.
Other considerations: With a Leica M, you can swap lenses and use some very small lenses that make the camera much easier to carry, and depending on the pocket, it’s pocketable. However, you can encounter rangefinder alignment issues. I’ve owned three different M cameras and haven’t experienced this problem, so I wouldn’t stress that as a concern. Finally, you will need to practice and learn how to become comfortable with manual focusing, but when you do, using an M can be very enjoyable.
Conclusion (For now)
Coming back to the Leica Q2 has reminded me why this camera continues to tempt so many Leica shooters, myself included. It doesn’t replace the M or the SL outright, but it brings a mix of portability, flexibility, and that unmistakable Leica feel that’s tough to walk away from. The more I think about it, the more I see the Q not just as an entry point, but as a camera that can stand alongside the others without feeling like a compromise.
In the next part of this post, I’ll share which Q I chose (though you might already have guessed), how it fits into my kit today, and hopefully offer some useful perspective if you’re considering your options with the Q lineup.
In the meantime, below are some images that I have taken over the years with a Leica Q2.
Sample Images
Lens Review: Leica Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-90 f/2.8-4 ASPH.
Learn about the Leica Vario Elmarit-SL 24-90 in 2025, also known as “The Beast.” This review examines the Leica 24-90mm Vario Elmarit SL lens and provides a comparison to other L-mount zoom lenses available.
Welcome to my review of the Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-90 f/2.8-4 ASPH. I should save this for the end of the review, but you’ll likely realize this is more of a love letter to the Leica 24-90mm lens. This lens is fantastic, yet it’s not perfect, and there are sacrifices you'll need to make if you choose to purchase it. In this review, I will provide a real-world perspective on how I’ve used this lens, what has worked for me, and what hasn’t, in hopes of giving you insights that will help inform your decision on whether this lens is right for you.
I initially rented this lens in 2024 for use during the Memorial Day weekend on my Leica SL2-S. I had primarily only used M lenses and I wanted to try one of Leica’s autofocus SL lenses for a model shoots a local venue was hosting to promote their business. In October of that same year, I found an incredible deal on this lens and have used it since on my Leica SL3 for model shoots, street photography, and nature photography.
Captured on a Leica SL3 at 90mm f/9, 1/500 sec, ISO 12500
About this lens (Specs)
Captured on a Leica SL3 at 90mm f/5.6, 1/1000 sec, ISO 640
If you haven’t read any of my previous posts, I don’t enjoy deep dives into technical specifications and prefer to let those who do discuss them. I like to share my thoughts about the lens and how it feels to use it. However, I will provide an overview of the specs. Those who have used this lens often refer to it as “the beast.” Why? Because it’s big and heavy—there’s no sugarcoating it. Think of a college textbook, a bottle of wine, or a large bottle of water. It weighs approximately 1,140 g, which is about the same weight as the Sigma 100-400mm telephoto lens. The diameter of the lens is 88mm until you reach the mount, and the lens hood adds to this. For perspective, the average lens diameter is about 67mm.
The body is weather-sealed and primarily constructed from metal, which significantly adds to its weight. It features a variable aperture that ranges from f/2.8 at 28mm to f/4 at 90mm. The lens does extend as you zoom to 90mm; however, I haven’t encountered any issues with dust getting inside so far. It includes Optical Image Stabilization (O.I.S.) and has a minimum focusing distance of .3 meters, allowing you to get quite close to your subject.
This lens is known for its sharpness from corner to corner throughout its entire focal range. While researching, I’ve encountered numerous reviewers and users claiming that this lens offers prime lens quality in a zoom. From a sharpness perspective, I wouldn’t disagree. While you may not achieve the subject separation that a wide-aperture prime provides, the sharpness is excellent. I find the bokeh pleasing; objects out of focus blend smoothly and rarely, if ever, look nervous to me.
What role did I want this lens to play in my kit?
To provide context for my thought process, I primarily prefer using manual prime lenses, even with an SL camera. However, there are occasions when I opt for autofocus or wish to avoid changing lenses. At times, I felt I wasn’t fully leveraging the SL's capabilities without a lens specifically designed for it. My collection of manual lenses consists of primes with focal lengths of 21mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 100mm. I was looking for a lens that could cover most of these focal lengths, allowing me to use it for landscape photography and portraits. Essentially, it had to be a jack-of-all-trades.
Yeah, but the weight!
Yes, the weight is the price you pay for this flexibility, but first, let’s put things into perspective. A single Sigma Prime Art lens or one of Leica’s primes* weighs about half the weight, so if you plan to carry two or more of either brand’s lenses, you will be holding more weight than the 24-90mm and must switch lenses.
*(Leica ASPH 402g / APO 720g)
Captured on a Leica SL3 at 90mm f/5.6, 1/500 sec, ISO 125
There are ways to mitigate the weight
Camera Straps:
I have used this lens with a wrist strap during studio sessions, but I do not recommend it for extended periods. Instead, I suggest using a wide body strap; you don’t want one that is too thin, as it may dig into your shoulder or neck, causing discomfort. This will also allow your wrists to rest while you walk around and are not actively taking pictures. I’ve gone on some nature hikes, walking anywhere from 2 to 6 miles at a time, and this setup seems to work best for me. I would recommend something like the Peak Design Slide Lite Camera Strap.
L-Bracket:
I have found that adding an L-bracket to the SL3 makes the 24-90mm more comfortable for walking around. I currently use a Really Right Stuff L-bracket and attach a Peak Design anchor to one end. This way, I can attach one end of the camera strap to the camera and the other end to the L-bracket, allowing the camera and lens to hang down more comfortably. The bracket comes off very easily and takes up little space in the camera bag. For me, this bracket provides a little more space to grip the camera, which is a bonus; those with bigger hands may also appreciate this feature.
Really Right Stuff L-bracket and Peak Design Slide Lite strap are recommended accessories to help with the weight.
Captured on a Leica SL3 at 50mm f/3.6, 1/160 sec, ISO 800
Leica 24-90mm vs other L-mount zoom lenses
So, how does the 24-90mm stack up against other lenses with a similar focal length? I’m not going to discuss MFT charts; frankly, I don’t understand them well enough, and I’m not sure I want to. I know they contain valuable information, but the purpose of this review is to focus on real-world usage and my thought process on how I chose this lens over others.
The closest matches to this lens that comes to mind in the L-mount alliance are the 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses by Leica, Panasonic, and Sigma. Then there is the Sigma 28-105mm f/2.8, the Panasonic LUMIX S 24-105mm f/4, and we could even throw in the LUMIX 28-200mm. Arguments can be made for any of these lenses. If weight alone is a deciding factor, any of these options are viable, or if you feel you need a constant aperture, you could also argue that any of those lenses are better.
However, I would argue that the Leica 24-90mm is the best choice. Every time I've used a 24-70mm lens, I've felt that I wanted a bit more reach than 70mm; 90mm seems to be that sweet spot for me. Yes, I could zoom with my feet to cover that missing 20mm, but you still can’t compensate for that additional compression, and sometimes you can’t move in closer. Now, I have read some feedback on forums and seen a few reviews that claim the Leica 24-70mm can be sharper at specific focal lengths. If it’s true, I am still willing to trade that sharpness for the extra 20mm reach; sharpness isn’t everything.
The next thing most people may have a problem with is the variable aperture. I have found that it hasn’t been a significant issue; in low light, the SL3 handles noise very well, and Lightroom provides additional support if the noise becomes too much. For me, the difference in the background blur between f/2.8 and f/4 isn’t a big deal. Not enough for me to give up that extra 20mm reach. Maybe if it were f/1.4 or even f/2, then I might be tempted...
Among the lenses mentioned earlier, the only other lenses with image stabilization are the LUMIX 24-105mm and the LUMIX 28-200mm. Both are lighter and provide a longer reach, but have drawbacks. In my experience with the LUMIX 24-105mm lens, I found it to be a solid lens that offered the reach I wanted, was pretty sharp, and had some macro capabilities. However, the build quality was lacking, and it didn’t match the sharpness or color detail of the Leica 24-90mm.
The LUMIX 28-200mm was the closest competition to the 24-90mm for me. I owned both lenses for a while until I finally gave up on the LUMIX and sold it. I have a post about this lens, but to summarize its key strengths, it's incredibly compact with great reach. Where it came up short for me was that its variable aperture was f/4-f/7.1; not a deal breaker, but 24mm is more useful on a zoom than 28mm to me. When you zoom into the 200mm range, the barrel has two segments, which creates an extra point of dust entry. Finally, I found that the weight of the lens had some negative aspects for me; it felt somewhat cheap, and while filming video, it was more challenging to keep the camera steady. In contrast, with the 24-90mm, the extra weight helped me maintain stability.
Captured on a Leica SL3 at 85mm f/4, 1/80 sec, ISO 5000
Is it worth the price?
The last factor to consider is the price of the lenses; the Leica 24-90mm is the most expensive, often by a significant margin. Initially, I only rented the lens as a birthday gift for myself. Its price, when new, was out of my range, and I wasn’t sure I would enjoy it enough to spend the money on buying it used. But I got lucky and came across a heavily discounted listing. The listing claimed that the lens had significant barrel play, the rubber grips were loose, and there was some dust in the front element. I took a chance and figured that, worst-case scenario, I could wait and save up some money to send it to Leica for repair. The universe was kind to me. It turns out the company had a duplicate listing for that lens, and it had already been sold. They offered me a mint-condition used version for the same price, essentially, this made the cost equivalent to getting a used Leica 24-70mm.
So, do I love the lens enough to recommend paying full price? It's an incredible lens, but should you go into debt for it? No, my recommendation would be to look for it used. However, if you insist on buying it brand new and have the money for it, you won’t be disappointed.
Conclusion
At this point in the review, it is clear that this is a lens I would recommend. As I mentioned earlier, the other lenses mentioned are also good options. However, what sets the 24-90mm apart from the other lenses is its build quality and fantastic image quality. Don’t let the weight scare you off from trying it. Initially, I thought the LUMIX 28-200mm would be the only zoom lens I would ever want for the SL3, but in the end, the beast won.
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
