I like the 100-300 ii. Are you sure the contrast is not just disappointing because you're imaging far away things?

bobT3218. With the two cameras side by side, the image seen through a 200 mm lens, on a micro four thirds camera, will be axactly the same as a the image viewed through a 400 mm lens on a full frame camera. It doesn't get simpler than that! Forget the word equivalence and just try to understand what I just told you.

Bob are you high?
A 200mm on micro four thirds makes an image circle half the diameter as a 200mm on full frame. The full frame lens sees 4x as much of the world...

The Nikon D5 and Canon 1DX II, the two top sports & wildlife targeted bodies on the market, both have 20MP, just the same the Panasonic G9 and Olympus E-M1 II...

An M4/3-sized crop from a D5 is only 5 megapixels...

M4/3 lens manufacturers seem, very often, fancy of mixing the angle of view with reaching power of a lens. 200mm focal length is always 200mm.

"A 200mm on micro four thirds makes an image circle half the diameter as a 200mm on full frame. The full frame lens sees 4x as much of area...."

Image circle size doesn't matter as long it fills the sensor.
The sensor width and height rules the FOV with the FL when focal length is identical (same lens).

A TWICE larger sensor has FOUR times the surface area.
200mm sees TWICE larger FRAMING than 400mm does WITH SAME SENSOR.

A 400mm requires twice more light than 200mm does with same aperture because 400mm magnifies two times more than 200mm and why 200mm does receive four times more light through same aperture than 400mm does.

When you divide or multiply focal length, resolution etc by two, it is
2 x width or 2 : width
2 x height or 2 : height

If you look a 1x1m size object from 5m distance and then you move to 10m distance, the object is twice smaller so you divide heigh and width by two because you move two times further. You do not divide by four.

Of course image circle matters and of course it doesn't matter if the sensor doesn't fill the image circle. Why are there so many confused people on the internet? Do you redefine math to fit whatever narrative you have?

TBH, it would do a lot of people a lot of good if lenses just told people the aperture area and the field of view of a lens. This tells them the depth of field control, total luminance, and how much of the world they can see. That's all most people need to know. People seem universally confused by f numbers and focal lengths. F numbers are no longer useful with sensors that can adjust sensitivity on the fly. And most of the people with a camera don't even know the real focal length of their lens (cell phones) so that's obviously not useful either

Image circle is only a optical design to limit lens diameter to smaller. Focal length didn't change.

A 200mm is 200mm regardless of the format.
What is the lens diameter is totally another thing based required image circle

Just learn to accept it. Go back to basic and get a pinhole camera and to trough all via it. Or get a technical camera and same thing.

With a pinhole camera you eliminate optics but you have a aperture. The difference you will have is inverted square law about exposure from center of film/paper/sensor to edge because you do not have a lens to "slow down" light to get it evenly on specified area that is called "image circle".

The focal length and paper/film/sensor size controls what is field of view being captured, not the image circle.

Image circle is only about to control camera size (= body + lens/aperture).

It's no more a Leica lens than is a Sony made Carl Zeiss a Carl Zeiss.

It's badge engineering with the lenses supposed to pass some sort of Quality Assurance that allows them to carry the name. Optically they popped out of the same sort lens design software all manufacturers use.

@yxa That is incorrect, the Canon is $200 more.

@Yxa - regional market pricing is confusing. Where you live, you say the Panasonic is more expensive than a Canon 100-400. In North America, the Canon 100-400 is 30% more expensive than the Panasonic.

Who's the blame there, who knows? Consumer market arbitrage rarely makes a lot of sense.

You probably shouldn't buy it. Also your expectations are ridiculous.

sorry my fault about the price but I am standing behind the rest still.

Yes, but the price of the Sigma Sport lens is more, and as you said, it is heavier. The Sigma 100-400mm is 1160 grams, but it doesn't have weather seals. The Canon 100-400mm is 1640 grams, and this Panasonic 50-200mm is just 655 grams, but about the same price as the Canon and more than twice the price of the Sigma 100-400 C lens. Unfortunately, Sigma does not make a long zoom lens for m4/3 cameras. If they did, I bet it would be better than this Panasonic, and it would be about half the price. It seems to me that there is a lot of opportunity out there for lens manufacturers in the m4/3 market. At 370 grams, the Panasonic 45-200mm f4-5.6 II OIS lens sure seems like the better lens for portability, price, etc. It will be interesting to see some comparisons between this new lens and that older, and much cheaper, Panasonic lens. I'm actually surprised Olympus doesn't make a 50-200mm f2.8 or something similar to this new Panasonic lens. I guess they figure their 40-150mm f2.8 is enough.

Unfortunately those photos don't show what that lens is capable of at the long end. There isn't a single shot of a distant building wall or anything like that.

That's sort of my point. The 70-300mm images are using Nikon's top-end $1900 crop body, filling the frame with their subjects (cooperative humans, tame animals, and still life), at close distances so there is no haze or atmosphere between the lens and the subject.

And yet when you compare them directly, you certainly can't say that the images are sharper or have more detail than the best examples in the Panasonic gallery above. If anything, it makes you appreciate just how little chromatic aberration the Panasonic-Leica lens has compared to the significant fringing that appears in many of the Nikon samples.

And this is, of course, with the DX 70-300 AF-P lens, a significantly improved lens compared to the older 55-300mm the OP mentions...

Obviously, you'd expect that a $1700 lens would be better than a $400 consumer lens, even when mounted on a $1900 body.

So it should be a surprise to no one that the PL50-200 is, in fact, noticeably better.

isnt it 5.6-8 ?

@Paul What are you shooting at dusk/dawn? Must be fairly motionless. To freeze motion usually that bumps up the shutter speed and drives the ISO into ugly territory. I assume you are not using that lens for Instagram lol.

I won't have the chance to visit Yellowstone under snowfall, but so far all the samples that I've seen for this lens are quite unsatisfactory. The ones over at IR are meh, eCrapzine didn't post a single one at 200mm, and these are iffy. I have much better bird photos from my RX10M3 (not at hand, unfortunately, as I'm away from home).
It's not an extraordinary claim, BTW. Anyone who has used an RX10M3/4 knows that the zoom on those things is stupid sharp even at 220mm and f/4. Add the overperforming 1" sensor to the mix, and the MFT solution looks very weak in comparison. Sure, the Oly 300mm is great, but it costs an arm and leg.

Kharan is of course wrong.

I have experience with the RX10/4 and the zooming is painfully slow. At 400mm it is basically F4 on a 1 inch sensor which means it has a 1 stop disadvantage. And while the lens is good for a super zoom, it can't compete with a sharp telephoto zoom. Then there is the problem that the lens is fixed, so there is no option for wider aperture primes.

Honestly if all one wants is 400mm and a 1 inch sensor, but an old Fz1000 for 1/4th the price of the RX10/4.

If you want a weathersealed ILC for wildlife and hiking get this lens or the 100-400 with a G9.

From the reviews I have seen it is not far off the 200 mm F2.8 Leica. It is an exceptional lens. Claims need evidence. It is highly unlikely a lens on a superzoom can do anything like this, but I did not make the claim so may be you can point us to some articles with a comparison to support your views.

@Kharan...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7BcLyYbYsY
The reviewer has zero complaints about the lens because it is excellent in every way. Not saying this therefor is a fact, but here is someone who used the exceptional 200 mm f2.8 and the 100-400 mm PL lenses so he can compare...

I don't really understand this conceptual blackhole that's associated with M4/3.

A lot people seem happy to suggest that 1" sensor cameras - with sensors half the size of M4/3 - can easily produce superior images. But the idea that M4/3 could ever produce superior images to APS-C is laughed at.

This, despite there being a smaller difference in sensor size between M4/3 and APS-C (2/3 stops) than between M4/3 and 1" (1 stop).

Do you really believe that there is this huge technological capability gap that only happens to exist in the M4/3 world? Even though the sensors are being produced by the same company (Sony), and the lenses are being developed by companies (like Olympus) that have world class reputations for optical design.

@kharan
You continue to spread misinformation and lie about others posted.

I never said the RX100/4 only went to 400mm. You know that I picked that focal length because it is the topic of this article.

It is also very true that the RX100/4 zoom is painfully slow. If the lens is at 30mm it takes a while to get to 400mm. If time is short, you will miss that shot.

Also, the difference between m43 and Canon APSC is 2x vs. 1.6x. The RX100 is 2.7x Your claim the RX100/m43 difference is big and the apsc/m43 difference is small, is misleading (as usual).

"When a 1" superzoom or an APS-C DSLR with a bog-standard 70-300mm lens do better, there's cause to worry."

Again, I don't see any evidence of either of those scenarios being true.

http://www.photobyrichard.com/reviewbyrichard/panasonic-leica-dg-vario-elmarit-50-200mm-f-2-8-4-0-asph-lens-review/

When you look at the 100% crops in a more controlled testing environment, it looks like the lens is basically tack sharp - center and corner - wide open at 200mm.

With the 1.4x TC you need to stop it down 1 stop to f/8 before it can be considered tack sharp, but once at f/8 it's again excellent both center and corner.

And you know it's an excellent performer because it's next to the 200mm/f2.8, which is the lens that holds the resolution record for the system...

A quick check of Amazon shows Kharan is misleading AGAIN with the claim that the Canon 70-300L is "substantially " cheaper than the Panasonic. $1699 vs $1349.
We must also consider that any Canon camera with close to the FPS specs of an EM1/2 will cost a few thousand more.
Also, 70-300 lenses like the Sony FE are notorious for being soft at the long end. Cropping to match 400mm makes that even worse.

And the Canon weighs 1050g and is 5.6 inches long, while the Panasonic is 655g and only 5.2 inches. Adding a body will only give the Panny an even greater size/weight advantage!

The fact is, if you want a weather sealed camera and lens for hiking and outdoor photography, nothing can compete with these for the price and size. That really bothers certain people.

It might be close with the Leica 50-200, but the Olympus 40-150 2.8 pro will literally smoke both the Sony and the Canon, not to mention the Nikon 70-300. Put that baby on an OMD EM 1 Mark II and you can easily surpass any full frame or Apsc 20 mp camera at a reasonable iso.

The things that Rishi photographs are totally different.

It's much, much, much easier to get clean technical quality and creative compositions with your own human family on an impromptu, opportunistic basis than it is to get compelling, technically flawless photos of wild animals on a very short work trip to a snow-blown national park.

The comparison is kind of absurd.

If you outlawed absurd comparisons on DPReview our comments sections would be empty ;)

@Nick8

Mine is the long running argument with the reviewer in that article, who seems hell bent on seeing this as a 1-400 f2.8-4 equivalent lens and those are the comparisons he makes [talking of absurd ones]. I do like that site generally, but they have a blind spot so far as equivalence goes [although they're happy of course to use it when it comes to effective focal lengths].

When you make the correct comparisons in terms of the entirety of equivalence [so this is either a 50-200 f2.8-4 or a 100-400 f4-8] you can't escape the fact it's an expensive bit of glass. Not so ridiculous as what they want for a 200mm f2.8 prime, but still very much on the pricey side - and both the big MfT OEMs are doing this with any new fast lens [and some of them aren't even that fast].

I like the weight balance of the format, but I can't help but think they're starting to take the p*ss with their lens pricing.

When you make the correct comparisons in terms of the entirety of equivalence - i.e. this is literally a 50-200/f2.8-4, it costs exactly what you would expect it would.

An OEM 70-200/f4 with IS costs $1100-1500. An OEM 70-200/f2.8 with IS costs $2100-2800. As an f2.8-4, you'd thus expect this lens to cost $1600-2150.

And guess what, the lens costs $1700. Since $1600 < $1700 <$2150 the math checks out.

@Chris,
I don't feel any reason to debate on sensor performance (in ultra low light) with fullframe, obviously a quarter size sensor won't compete on that end. So that's why I was saying whoever pick m43 made a conscious decision to make a compromise on ISO 6400 upward ISO performance, (GH5s is narrowing the gap though, and I think it will keep getting better).

However, I don't know why you can't notice the difference in pricing, following is a comparison:

- Lumix G X 35-100 (2017 version) f/2.8 Dual I.S is under $1000, 7.2" tall 58mm filter thread and 1.41 pounds. vs
- Sony FE 70-200MM F2.8 GM OSS is under $2600, 7.87" tall 77 mm filter thread and 3.26 pounds.

- Lumix G X 12-35 (2017 version) f/2.8 Dual I.S is under $900, 4.8" tall and 1.15 pounds vs
- Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM (not stabilised) is $2200, 136, 5.35" tall, 82mm thread and 1.95 pounds

and you will find similar trend among other lenses.

@Chris, I am not comparing 24-70 with 12-35, I clearly mentioned that I am choosing m43 for different reasons.

Actually that shallower Dof on fullframe doesn't help me much, as most of the photos that I take, don't need that shallowness :)
For those very rare moments I got some primes and Sigma 18-35 which with metabone XL adapter gives me f/1.2 on m43.

Actually I quite like the m43 f/4 or f/5.6 as I can get most of my scene sharp with it, for fullframe I have to close my apperture upto f/8 to f/12, which makes it slower and then your advantage of higher ISO is all of a sudden gone. I would request you to see my photos on lightnodes.com and then suggest me where you think shallower Dof would be of any use, as most of them are landscape photos.

I don't mind 1" setup either, but maybe for the day when their lens lineup and video capabilities will match my need. Until then m43 is my sweet spot too for capability/ portability!

NZ Scott: Not only is your comment rude, it's also false. mgm2's photos look quite good, and certainly orders of magnitude better than the crud that these samples are (in great part because of the terrible weather, but still, there's nothing technically or artistically compelling in them either).

Kharan:

Well, I disagree with your assessment of the respective image samples.

As for rude comments, both yourself and mgm2 have insulted Barney Britton, who reads these threads.

mgm2: Perhaps you could post some samples in your gallery as evidence to support your assertion?

Many, many people jump in to these threads to criticise, but very few offer evidence that they achieve better results.

I'm not conviced by this sample images either...
Fully agree with @BostonC !
Yes some photos are shot at high iso, but thats wildlife shooting, you better have a proper camera which can handle this right!
This images look more like I'm shooting with my cheap 50D and a cheap 55-250mm STM. When I switch to my 5DMKII and the Sigma 150-600 I'm getting razor sharp and detailled images.
OK mft is a bit smaller and lighter but the compromises are visible in the end result IMO.
I still don't get Olympus and Panasonic selling toy cameras at full frame prices...

dpfan32:

The point is that he could have avoided the high-ISO settings by opening the lens to f2.8-4, thereby improving the image quality. With many of the sample photos, he could have gained 1-2 stops by doing this, which is effectively the difference between M43 and a full-frame camera.

@keepreal : Yours is an uninformed comment. Overall system size for m4/3 is much smaller than FF, especially when venturing in to the telephoto arena. On top of it, this lens is not heavy, by any standard, as you imply.

Micro 4/3, APS-C, and FF each have their uses and their niche. Each has its pricing. Each has its value proposition at a different spot than the others. No point criticizing any of them in comparison to the others.

The weight doesn't suck, it's about the same as a FF 70-200 f4 lens (655 vs 705) and they handle pretty well. It is a lot of money for the reach when compared to lenses on high-MP FF cameras though (which give a lot more reach than equivalence suggests). To explain:
Canon 400mm f5.6 L ($1149) = 1250g
On a 5Dsr 100 pixels covers 3.1cm at 30m
Olympus 300mm f/4.0 Pro ($2399) = 1270g (one stop less total light)
On a E-M1 II, GH5, etc 100 pixels covers 3.47cm at 30m (so less reach)

Wow Dr Jon is spreading the BS like a true fanboy.

First, notice how he failed to mention the Canon costs a whopping $2000 more! Hilariously, his camera can only shoot at 5 FPS!!! The Oly can shoot at 60 FPS.

Then he cherry picked a lens different than the article. And of course failed to mention the M43 was almost 2 inches shorter than the giant Canon lens he picked!!! LOL!!!!!

And since the Oly he cherry picked is a bit sharper wide open it will still yield greater resolution despite being 100mm shorter!!!
And again, fanboy Jon is stuck at shooting at a lousy 5 FPF while the Oly is shooting at anywhere from 12 FPS to 18 FPS to 60 FPS!

If you read my post again you'll see the Canon is in fact $1250 less...

The oly is 227mm, the Canon 256.5mm, so 29.5mm (1.16") longer, not 100mm. The Canon is 20g lighter. You get one stop more total light with the Canon.

I'm making a point about the equivalence comparisons people make. I used to have a GH4 and you got about the same detail at 100m (real, not equivalent) as you do with a 100mm lens on a 5Dsr. I now have a GH5 and it's a little ahead of the 5Dsr.

No need to cherry pick, I could do a pile of comparisons, the point is the 50-200mm is in no way comparable with a 100-400 for a bunch of 36/42/45/50MP FF users. If you have a 20MP FF camera it is.

I'm debating buying one (50-200), but the lack of reach for the cost is perhaps going to stop me. (Or I could buy a Metabones adaptor and use a Canon 70-200.)

@Dr Jon - if you crop the Canon from 400mm to 600mm to match the field of view of the Olympus, regardless of pixel pitch, you've now got a 1.5x crop factor with your Canon.

f/5.6*1.5 = f/8.4 vs. f/4*2 = f/8

So in fact, you have less total light. Not 1 stop more. The number of pixels you have resolving that cropped area is important, but slightly tangential to the point you were trying to make.

That argument goes for noise, dynamic range, and depth of field.

Lol!!!

Dr Jon is busted for LYING again.
The Canon camera he cherry picked coats $3700 on Amazon.
The Olymous camera sells for $1800 new on Amazon

That is almost a $2000 difference!!!

Plus the crappy Canon can barely shoot at 5 FPS.

Of course Jon is being dishonest which is why he picked a lens different than the one in the article and being discussed in these comments.

What "better TC" do you mean? The only TC compatible with the 40-150 is the MC-14 and there's a very significant hit in sharpness when shot wide open with the TC mounted.

This is a lens sample gallery - we don't overcook the samples because it would be misleading. That's why we provide the Raw files for download.

Personally I try not to "overcook" either, and I respect DPRs policy of standardisation, but undercooked is less healthy still. My feeling is that ACR's default sharpening/DNR etc settings (ie. with "detail" turned up, very little sharpening, no masking and no DNR) is really quite a poor default. It may well be poor for larger sensors too, but I do think m43 suffers with the default settings, perhaps because of the smaller pixel pitch.

Luminance NR is left at default for lens galleries. Sharpness is dialed back to +25 (where it used to be before the recent updates to ACR) but we're still figuring out our policy in the light of those updates to ACR's default behavior.

@Barney. Although I appreciate the gallery, for some shots the settings seem a bit odd if this is a lens sample gallery as you put it. Take for example the shot of the two birds in the water. You used Aperture-priority at f8 (after analizing the jpeg). With that setting it is hard to judge the quality of the lens with diffraction kicking in. And if this was used to try the stabilization, it wouldn't make sense at 1/500 shutter speed.
Still, nice images in challenging conditions, but hard to judge a lens on.

These are totally fair points, and we will be adding more images in this gallery taken in less challenging conditions very soon. The G9 was having terrible trouble nailing focus in the snowy conditions (it kept front-focusing on falling snow) so a couple of the images I know I stopped down a bit just to ensure decent depth of field. Hopefully you still got something out of the pictures but don't worry - more on the way.

Thanks Barney! It must have been freezing ... Brrr

Yeah it was. Beautiful though...

look at the first shot in the gallery....nothing is actually sharp in it, a similar picture later on has the focus point around the shoulder and does look ok around that area, maybe it's a bit of both

Albert Valentino is clearly right. If nothing in the image looks sharp, the camera was either misfocused, it moved, or there was shutter shock (unlikely these days). It's really as simple as that.

"Misfocused" and "it moved" are both the same as saying photographer or technique error...

The real question is, why are they posting the poor shots to showcase a lens? I may take dozens of shots when i get a new lens to check it out. I only judge the lens by the good shots and ignore the poor ones since only the good, sharp ones reflect what the lens can do. So why post poor shots at all?

I realized it, of course.

When you are close enough or you have a really long FL to frame tight, you can stop down. The photos posted here are nothing like the ones you linked to in terms of the framing. The background ruins most of them except for the ones with the haze/the snow which soften the background and they look rally nice.

J A C S, you appear to be confused and misinformed.

Many of these pics were taken at F8 and F7.1 (on a sharp F4 zoom). The lack of separation was intentional.

But to help you search for NZMacro's gallery. He primarily uses Sony APSC and Olympus M43 cameras and you will see he gets plenty of "separation. And for those who do not know he shoots with manual autofocus- a great skill.

If one owns an FD 600mm canon lens, he will get far greater detail on distant subjects with an M43 camera like the G9 versus any Canon FF camera. It is that simple.

"If one owns an FD 600mm canon lens, he will get far greater detail on distant subjects with an M43 camera like the G9 versus any Canon FF camera. It is that simple."

Not least because it's impossible to mount that FD lens on a Canon EF body, thanks to the shorter flange distance.

But your point stands anyway. :)

@J A C S: I'll try once again (I've posted on this before). This is a telephoto lens with an aperture range from f/2.8 to f/4.0, not f/5.6-8. That is hardly slow, esp. for a telephoto that gives the same as 400mm on FF.

You are confusing DOF equivalence with exposure. For example: Say you are shooting a scene with film (using digital is just the same) with an of ISO 100, and with a 35mm and an 8x10. The exposure meter says the proper exposure is 1/60th at f/11. Therefore both the 35mm _and_ the 8x10 would use that exposure, or 1/30 at f/16, or 1/125 at f/8, etc.

Format makes no difference - that's why exposure meters don't ask you to input the format you're using.

And we are off.

@Mastering Light: You appear not to be able to read. I did not make comments about specific shots and I even mentioned a faster lens. It is a remark in general about values of such lenses.

@SantaFeBill: You need to understand equivalence (as simple as multiplying by 2). You need help with reading comprehension, as well.

I would say that the bigger problem with telephoto lenses is getting *enough* depth of field -- say, to keep most of an anima or personl in focus -- while also gathering enough light to avoid high ISOs. Blurring the background is rarely a problem. This is an area where the smaller sensor is actually an advantage.

Actually, exactly the opposite. Since the DOF depends on the f-number only (same framing, relatively shallow DOF), telephoto lenses have deeper DOF than normal lenses in general (there is no 400/1.4 lens).

The smaller sensor advantage is a myth.

I agree with amtberg, and not J A C S.

It's a very commonly used aperture, but rarely the best performing one on M4/3. It's common because it's often necessary to get sufficient depth of field when shooting FF.

Unless they need f/16 equivalent depth of field, for sharpness almost every single M4/3 lens - especially wider aperture ones - will perform best between f2.8-f5.6.

What if it is so bright outside that I NEED to use f/8 and i dont want the image compromises that come with neutral density filters?

So bright that you can't shoot at ISO 100, f5.6 and 1/8000s? That's a heckuva problem to have!

The pixel pitch on the 5DSR is 4.14µ compared with 3.34µ on the G9, only 24% larger, which means the maximum extra resolution you would get with a 400mm on the G9 is equivalent to having a 500mm lens on the 5DSR.

We were shooting in very bright conditions, and we try to avoid using ND filters or fully electronic shutter in lens galleries. Some of the small apertures were selected simply to give long enough shutter speeds to (for example) blur falling snow or test the image stabilization system.

It's expensive for people who have no idea what m43 system is

And how much does a Nikon D810 and 100-400 lens cost?

Okay, now that you thought about that, here's my question.

Are you nuts?

Well, to be fair, you can get a D500 and a 70-200/f2.8E VR + 1.4x TC for... $5200.

So...uh. Yeah. Hmm.

(But seriously, even when paired with the 70-300/f4.5-5.6E VR which is not really in the same class, that's still a $2600 kit, so it's not like the price is in a whole different universe).

Panasonic colours are great. I'm a Nikon shooter myself, mainly, but I know a number of fellow landscape photographers in the UK who produce some excellent pics using Panasonic cameras. The quality of the browns and similar shades capture the magic of the UK uplands in way few other cameras do.

Whatever, a good selection of shots.

Yes, but I think the sign is the better of the two. Seriously though, that bird is supposed to highlight the strengths of that lens? Give me a break! Better to have taken photos at a bird feeder.

Dad? Is that you?

It is a sample gallery, not Wildlife photographer of the year. The images are real world examples to allow you to see the sharpness, bokeh and colours of the lens.

Haaa, well played...

All hand-held. One of the things I wanted to test was the effectiveness of the combined I.S. system.

Sometimes I wonder the need of people to comment like Gatoraied.
Did he have a terrible childhood?

it is a lense test!

Keep up the great work Barney!!!!

@ Viking, If mediocrity is your thing go for it, but it's not my thing. Taking sample images of a new lens for a big company like Panasonic and producing images such as these is inexcusable. They in no way showcase this lens's capabilities. The same person and staff that rip apart every feature of the gear they review. I'm reviewing these samples and my conclusion is that they are terrible.

"it doesn't sound like DPReview has that kind of relationship with Panasonic in this context"

Correct. We're working on a video featuring the Panasonic G9, and these images were shot during the shoot. Getting sample images with this lens was not the purpose of the shoot. Some people need to take a deep breath and calm down a little here, I think.

Barney, my contention is that the images should never have been published, period. They serve no purpose to the viewers here, to Panasonic or to you. Either do it right or don't do it at all. Theres enough amateurs in your forums that can't resist to post every photo they take, which are usually very very poor. I can excuse them, however I think you can and should know better. Wether you were paid or not is not important , what is important that you show the best a lens or camera can do and not some willy nilly photos that you say were "not the purpose of the shoot." If not the purpose then why publish them?

"They serve no purpose to the viewers here, to Panasonic or to you."

That is untrue. I'll respectfully debate with you up to a point, but now you're just being silly - and quite rude.

@fft2000
It all depends on you acceptable sharpness level. Of course you can call F8 on MFT ok, but than F16 on FF would also be ok for you. If you look up some tests for MFT cameras, than you can clearly see that you lose resolution above F4:
https://www.lenstip.com/524.4-Lens_review-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_ED_45_mm_f_1.2_PRO_Image_resolution.html

You are also correct, that the sharpest aperture shifted over the past years, thanks to sharper lenses the diffraction limit is more visible at wider apertures. Many FF lenses today are sharpest at F5.6 and lower, while MFT resolution often already peaks at F2.8

That you are ok with sharpness at F13 doesn't mean that this aperture is not severely limited by diffraction.

Edit, to your edit: you can clearly see in your example that the 200mm F2.8 is already diffraction limited at F4, and while it is less noticeable on the zoom you can still see it
Edit2: https://www.lenstip.com/index.html?test=obiektywu&test_ob=521 clearly limited at f4

I covered this in another comment but we were shooting in very bright conditions, and we try to avoid using ND filters or fully electronic shutter in lens galleries. Some of the small apertures were selected simply to give long enough shutter speeds to (for example) blur falling snow or test the stabilization system.

There are plenty of images in here shot at optimal apertures.

I get the artistic effect with the snow, but on all other shots your maximum shutter speed was 1/500. The mechanical shutter goes all the way up to 1/8000, which is four stops higher.

Edit: On some of them, like the wolf you even shot at higher ISO and were still at F8

In every lens review gallery we aim to capture images at a span of apertures. The shot of the running coyote was a grab shot, taken immediately after shooting 60p video (hence the exposure time). I included it because a) it's very detailed and b) it shows the efficiency of the I.S. system when panning at a long focal length.

Nice, but you might have overdone it. There is just a single image in this gallery @200mm wide open and base ISO. And showing the lens at F8 is nice but not if nearly all your images are stopped down to a point beyond the diffraction limit.
Especially since many will use this lens constantly wide open it would have been nice to shoot the sample gallery that way

After reading your comments, panther, I had a closer look, and I completely agree. All the images are mushy, unimpressive, washed out. I am happy that I went for full-frame four years ago. If this is the usual quality of a M43, I am really disappointed. I used to have a Panasonic FZ2000 with a similar Leica-designed lens, and the images were soft either. Eventually I sold the camera, and I am not touching Panasonic again. Can you show at least one clean, details-rich photo with this lens on a Panasonic camera?

"Can you show at least one clean, details-rich photo with this lens on a Panasonic camera?"

Yes. There are several available for download and inspection. Don't be so dramatic.

Szia Miki! I know it is a bold statement, but I think the last m43 Panasonic camera with rich colors and good tones was the Panasonic GF1 (GF2/3). Also, somehow at 12MP they did not suffer from this pixel-level blur as the 16MP or now the 20MP era. Yes, above ISO800 they were noisy, and I know, the DR. But except extreme DR or really low light, they shined. I bet even these pictures looked better with a G2 for instance. But also, checking the Canon M50/M6 samples, it seems that those cams also produces much more lively images.