Panasonic Lumix S 24-105mm F4 Macro OIS sample gallery

I would prefer a 21-85mm f/3.5-4.5 with VR.

2 weeks agopermalink

Thematic

Why? size? Weight? the 21mm?

2 weeks agopermalink

@Thematic I don't need wider than 21mm and stitch photos when necessary. I have found I rarely need longer than 85mm for a walk around lens but find that 70mm is not long enough. Ideally it would be nice if the lens weighed more than the original all purpose lens the 1978 RMC Tokina 28-85mm f/4 580g.

2 weeks agopermalink

JJ1983

I would prefer a beer.

2 weeks agopermalink

The Minolta AF Zoom 70–210mm f/4 Beer-can lens was excellent.

2 weeks agopermalink

milkod2001

One of the best 24-105 lenses out there. Looks slightly better that Sony and on pair with Canon RF.

2 weeks ago*permalink

How do you arrive at your slightly better? Just based on sample galleries?
That wouldn't be really apple to apple since the lens galleries on DPreview are shot with varying degrees of lens corrections. For such a statement we probably have to wait on some real tests

2 weeks agopermalink

stevevelvia50

Slightly better means nothing these days, they’re all “good enough”.....but how refined is you’re technique? The more important question.

2 weeks ago*permalink

When 8K projectors with great lenses are sold at prices normal first world people could afford this might make sense?

2 weeks agopermalink

User7146803616

Agree with Panther Fan - slightly better than what.

Like for like with the overall quality of SLRs and mirrorless, it's splitting hairs. Love the reviews, and being involved with biological plant photography am a bit of as sucker when it comes to that extra bit of definition. But in reality, it's the technique that counts. I use a D810 with a mixture of old Nikon lenses, a pocket with RAW and have stooped to a mobile on odd occasions.

Colleges use an equal diverse mix and makes, but when it comes to the meat it is what the client wants that counts and does it meet the my own criterion to produce a quality image within the constraints at the time it was taken.

Nevertheless, would love to have a nice, to quote DPReview, 'budget-friendly M-system rangefinder' to play with, but in the real world would it make my photography better - very questionable.

2 weeks ago*permalink

milkod2001

@panther fan
I own Sony 24-105 and don't feel like im getting as sharp results as presented here by new Panasonic lens. That's all. If someone did proper tests, difference might not be that great hence words slightly better.

2 weeks agopermalink

Jobe64

- How many enemies are coming?
- Two thousand one, my colonel!
- How do you know that?
- One is in front and about two thousand behind, my colonel!

1 week agopermalink

User7146803616

Out of balance

Good lens but what a handful. Tried it out against Nikon's mirror-less and it's one big chunk of metal. While it produces stunning results makes an excellent studio camera, as a camera to carry about all day it's just not on. My area is technical and plant photography, currently working on a project that involves extensive studio and outside work. I use a Nikon 810 (bought as used) that has a good balance with a mid size lens which in my case is a 105 macro. It's great in my biggish hands, but the Lumix with the 24-105 just feels like a brick. The Zs may not be quite as robust, and there is the stripping issue (although I found it hard to detect) but they have a weight/balance that makes them very satisfying piece of equipment.

I am not prejudice against Panasonic. Currently also use a TZ60. Its got a nifty macro setting and in RAW mode can give excellent results for book work.

3 weeks ago*permalink

Panasonic S1 -1020g
Nikon D810 -980g

Yes the S1 is a big and heavy camera. But I am not sure you can feel a 4% weight difference

2 weeks agopermalink

mxx

I think OP's referring to the combinations, not the bodies on their own.

2 weeks agopermalink

@mxx

Well the Nikon 105mm macro is 750g
The Panasonic 24-105 F4 is 680g

So in combination the S1 is even lighter

2 weeks agopermalink

User7146803616

Take on board the comments, and frankly never thought about the weight of the 810 or the 105. The differences is in the ergonomics and that is where I think the Nikon has an advantage.

By the way the weight of the lens is 515g: it's a 105mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor so a good quarter (165g) lighter than the Panasonic. It's the VR that comes in at 750g,

2 weeks agopermalink

Both S1 and D810 with grip are about the same weight as GFX100.

2 weeks agopermalink

Leonp

The F4 corners seem quite dark to me, especially #17. I know it's not a prime, but even then.

3 weeks agopermalink

If I could own just one lens it would be a 24-105 F4. Tremendously versatile, and while the old 24-105 lenses were full of compromises all three mirrorless options seem fantastic.

Sony, Panasonic, Canon all have put great effort in their new optical design and made sure that their system has this lens early on.

Which begs the question. Why didn't Nikon make one for their Z cameras? It is not even on the roadmap

3 weeks agopermalink

Spectro

when i got the a7 some time ago, the only lenses sony had was the 24-75 f3.5-5.6 kit and f4, and the expensive 50mm 1.8 or was it 55.

It was all about adapter then and for earlier adapter.

3 weeks ago*permalink

@Spectro

True the early days were rough. But now it's 2019 mirrorless has come a long way

2 weeks agopermalink

s1oth1ovechunk

because Nikon wants to sell mirrorless cameras to people that don't know much about lenses or even possibly aren't going to buy many lenses... They're just protecting dslr in a different way than Canon...
maybe...

2 weeks agopermalink

madecov

Nikon went 24-70 f/4 to keep size and weight down.

2 weeks agopermalink

Nikon went 24-70 f/4 to keep the price down?

2 weeks agopermalink

kobakokh

very good lens! Overpriced, but good lens, also a camera. Nice job by Panasonic, now last question is a prices...
For me, if I will buy camera + lens, old Canon 5D2+24-105/4L IS for 1000 USD will be enough. for Nikon - same story, D700+24-85 (non VR), for about 550 USD.

3 weeks agopermalink

brendon1000

Not really overpriced. In line with the Sony 24-105mm f4 and has a good macro ability to boot.

3 weeks ago*permalink

mxx

Maybe both lenses are overpriced....

2 weeks agopermalink

kobakokh

in fact I also think so, not very overpriced, also, as we see, the system - camera + lens = working very good...

2 weeks agopermalink

caver3d

Only overpriced because you two are so cheap. I own both the Sony and Pany 24-105mm lenses, and they are worth every penny. Not for cheapskates.

2 weeks agopermalink

kobakokh

Good information, after few years they will be cheap and we will have great options for buy and use.

2 weeks agopermalink

zakaria

Love the atmosphere of #5 .but it's the photographer skills not the lens.

3 weeks agopermalink

Jaloohan2

Panasonic has outclassed Nikon in optical formula....great colours and sharpness.

3 weeks agopermalink

Akgbkd

and price too...

3 weeks agopermalink

Alex Hanin

Nice, but frankly, if you had told me these were taken with a G9, or a XT-3, or an em10, I would have believed you.

3 weeks agopermalink

retr01976

Manufacturers are tweaking image quality to "game" the DXO system. Prioritizing dynamic range over highlight headroom scores bigger numbers but at the expense of overall image quality. I think it's why I tend to prefer the Canon look over Sony even though the Sony sensor is technically better.

3 weeks agopermalink

GrapeJam

Canon sensors being inferior to Sony sensors have nothing to do with "Canon prioritizing color over sensor performance".

Just look at the Canon C700 FF vs the Sony Venice (which use the exact same sensor as the A9) and the Arri Alexa LF, the C700 is inferior to both in all metrics including colors and highlight rolloff.

The simple fact is: Canon sensors simply suck, and Canon fans should learn to deal with it instead of trying to rationalize.

3 weeks ago*permalink

Alex Hanin,
I would not have believed DPR in this case because my very first reaction when looking at this gallery was "I do not like the colors and I prefer the colors of my Canon, Fuji, and Olympus cameras..."

Grapejam.
Canon sensors do not suck for an amateur like me... I do not care if the shadows are a little bit too dark when I expose to the right, or see some noise when I try to pull them up. I rarely have to enjoy my picture at 100% magnification.
But color rendition quality is visible at virtually any print/display size, so it matters more for me than some noise in the shadwos...

3 weeks agopermalink

GrapeJam

A trabant might be "good enough" for you doesn't mean that it doesn't suck compared to a ferrari, especially when the trabant in this case actually costs more.

3 weeks agopermalink

Damned shame the many, many thousands of pros shooting with Canons aren't aware that the sensors in the cams suck. Like the last two official White House photographers, for example. But hey, brand warriors need to go somewhere, right?

3 weeks agopermalink

tkbslc

What an absurd analogy. Trabant vs Ferrari? Way to pretend minor differences are massive to excuse your fandom.

3 weeks agopermalink

GrapeJam

The difference isn't just 1 stop DR at base ISO, but also high ISO performance, ISO invariance, sensor readout speed ;)

3 weeks agopermalink

Grapejam,
" especially when the trabant in this case actually costs more."
???????????????
My "trabant" cameras are an EOS 200D, Fujifilm X30 and Olympus OM-D E-M10 II.
And they are as cheap as a trabant compared to the combo used in this gallery.

3 weeks agopermalink

retr01976

Grapejam, look man, I get it you probably were one of those people fooled into buying into Sony. It happens. A wedding photog friend of mine did the same thing, invested into Sony and the overpriced Minolta, sorry Sony glass. A year later she is back to Canon. Sony is the biggest example of marketing hype I have ever seen from a camera manufacturer.

3 weeks agopermalink

ZeBebito

I wouldn't go as far as claiming Canon sensors suck, considering there are a gazillion great images taken with basically all cameras and I still love the look and color of my 5D files.

While the Sony sensors are technically superior in terms of DR, the user's experience is not the best (in my case) that adds a lot to the enjoyment of taking pictures.

3 weeks agopermalink

otto k

There are no trabant cameras anymore. Those were cheap compacts with tiny sensors and slow lenses. They have been killed off by phones. Even the cheapest IOCs today (GX850, D3400 and the like) are more like Golf or Jetta - perfectly fine for most people. Cameras people discuss here are like comparing S600 with BMW 7 or Tesla - you might prefer one or another might be a better choice in other circumstances, but none are bad. Far from it.

3 weeks agopermalink

Revenant

"The simple fact is: Canon sensors simply suck, and Canon fans should learn to deal with it instead of trying to rationalize."

That's not a fact, it's an opinion. Just because Canon sensors are inferior than Sony sensors in some metrics, doesn't mean that they "suck".

The differences that are measured in lab tests are vastly overexaggerated when it comes to actual real world photography, for the majority of users. (Note that I'm not claiming that the differences can't be significant for some users with specific requirements.)

2 weeks agopermalink

Alex Hanin

@Karroly

'I would not have believed DPR in this case because my very first reaction when looking at this gallery was "I do not like the colors and I prefer the colors of my Canon, Fuji, and Olympus cameras..."'

Maybe. But maybe you saw 'Panasonic', and your brain automatically switched in 'I'm not going to like these colors' mode.

2 weeks agopermalink

GiovanniB

@retr01976 Owning both Canon and Sony I can confirm that in the highlights as well as in the shadows Sony is superior by far. Canon has begun gaining ground with the 5D Mk. IV, and the R. But instead of further improving those to finally catch up with the Sony based competitors, they keep churning out lower-cost FF cameras (6D Mk. II, RP) with their lesser and hopefully outdated older sensor tech. I'd like to love Canon. Their UI is good. Their skintones at default settings are pleasant. But for landscapes (if you don't want to use HDR all the time), there is a looong way to go.

2 weeks ago*permalink

Alex Hanin,
"Maybe. But maybe you saw 'Panasonic', and your brain automatically switched in 'I'm not going to like these colors' mode."
Definitely not. I own cameras of many brands (including Nikon, Pentax, Samsung and Panasonic in addition to those I listed above). So my brain does not work as a f@nboy's one, more as a GAS victim's brain endlessly seeking for the "ideal" camera whatever its manufacturer... (compatible with my budget, though) ;-). So, I am opened.

2 weeks ago*permalink

Just a note: I shot an event a few weeks ago, and the photos have been posted. Much to my surprise, not one comment about how much my sensor sucked. I'm stunned. Yes. Stunned.

2 weeks agopermalink

dmanthree,
IMHO, the only thing that really sucks, with today digital cameras, is the price... ;-)

2 weeks agopermalink

ZeBebito

I think the only thing that really sucks with today digital cameras are the people using them lol. they are pretty capable of great results.

2 weeks agopermalink

Karroly, yes, they are more expensive initially. BUT....factor in what you would have spend in film and processing, and the time all that would have taken, and they're an absolute steal. I shot film for decades. I don't miss it.

2 weeks agopermalink

dmanthree,
On the other side, we change our digital cameras much more often than film cameras because digital technologies are improving at a much faster speed...
Currently, I have bought many more digital cameras than film cameras although my digital life is much shorter than my film life...

2 weeks agopermalink

Karroly, even considering that higher rate of turnover, I still save a fortune. And I take a *lot* more pictures than the film days.

2 weeks agopermalink

fPrime

Let’s see, is any 24-105/4 zoom worth $1300? No.

Both Canon and Nikon know that even $1100 is stretching it. Used 24-105/4 lenses typically sell for $500 which is probably reflective of what they are actually worth.

3 weeks agopermalink

An expensive camera must be attached to an expensive lens... ;-)

3 weeks agopermalink

Thematic

Its often $800 when bundled with S1 or S1R bodies.

It has superior stabilization to that of Canon and Nikon.
It has AF/MF Switch and a Zoom Lock Switch
It is weather sealed and has a freezeproof design benefits working in inclement weather conditions down to -14°F
Macro design provides half life-size 1:2 magnification ratio and a minimum focusing distance of 11.8" for working with close-up subjects.

To me and thousands of other people thats worth the price.

To each their own.

2 weeks agopermalink

fPrime

I’d might agree with you if you substituted “dozens” for “thousands” above. Truth be told, hardly anyone is buying the S1 or S1R because of their absurd prices and substandard AF.

2 weeks agopermalink

Getting an S1 is like buying a Boxster/Cayman ... you can't afford a 911? Dig deep get a Leica.

2 weeks agopermalink

Photomonkey

What is the location of #23?
I recognize the other locations but that one looks like the Mesabi range or some other location not in Washington.
I don't live in WA so I am just guessing.

3 weeks agopermalink

tinternaut

One of these days, I'm going to be first to post a comment to one of these galleries. Being first to complain strikes me as an important right of passage for any dpreview forum member.

3 weeks agopermalink

Nah, I've been here for years and still haven't achieved that honor. But someday...

3 weeks agopermalink

UllerellU

The word "macro" should be forbidden for all lenses that do not reach the 1: 1 ratio. It is deceptive advertising

3 weeks agopermalink

NowHearThis

I know, right? Especially since macro means replacing repetitive series of keyboard and mouse actions...

3 weeks agopermalink

fft2000

@NowHearThis yes! But isn't the replacement one-by-one? xD
IMO it really doesn't matter how you call a lens that allows to focus much closer than a typical lens of the same kind.

3 weeks agopermalink

timbazi

It really messes up the used lens market searches. I got really frustrated when searching a macro lens, because most of the lenses that popped up weren't macro lenses. So have wade through all those...

3 weeks agopermalink

Photomonkey

Language is malleable in that way. Medium format used to mean 6cmx6cm with 6x45 getting side eye from the larger format users. Today the small MF sensor in the X-1D and GFX spark outrage in the word police corps by calling it MF.

Macro is used loosely and thus for many is grudgingly accepted as a lens that focuses closer than usual. As there is no licensing standard that regulates nomenclature of most things in life, your complaint is duly noted and ignored.

3 weeks agopermalink

pkvman13

Not everyone needs 1:1 and it is helpful to know that this is better for macro than a typical kit lens.

3 weeks agopermalink

jnd

Photomonkey "for many is grudgingly accepted as a lens that focuses closer than usual"
There you have it. The problem is that many modern lenses have regular focusing capabilities of 0.3x or so, all kit lenses and even the tele zooms. So closer than usual should be at least 1:2 if not 1:1. To be fair, this one can do 1:2. True macro lenses for a long time meant 1:1 reproduction and now you can get one or two third party options focusing down to 2:1 while keeping infinity focus in the range.

3 weeks ago*permalink

mxx

In ye olden days, when more honest terms were used, "close focusing" was the accepted term for lenses like these. Of course, these days, when 50mm is proudly proclaimed as telephoto, you can just lie your way to stardom.

2 weeks ago*permalink

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_photographic_lens_design

In 1974, the Ponder & Best (Opcon/Kino) Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm f/3.5 Macro Focusing Zoom (USA/Japan) was widely hailed as the first professional-level quality very close focusing "macro" zoom lens for 35mm SLRs.

So the term macro has been used for at least 45 years to describe lenses that don't achieve 1:1.

2 weeks agopermalink

Photomonkey

@David610 Are you saying we are old? ;)

2 weeks agopermalink

@Photomonkey Getting old is better than the alternative?

2 weeks agopermalink

Eric Hensel

You had to use an extension tube to get to 1:1 on the old 50mm 1:2 Micro-Nikkor back in film days, and it was far from alone. That was *the* macro lens for 35mm in 1966.

2 weeks ago*permalink

Eric I think you meant Micro-NIKKOR Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm? The f/2.8 Ais was even better. One of the sharpest lenses for film.

2 weeks agopermalink

jonby

What would be ideal would be a term other than 'macro', which denominates closer than normal minimum focus distance but which does not reach 1:1. It is slightly confusing when the term 'macro' is used for both types, though this has been the norm since the early days of zoom lenses. Any suggestions for the term?

2 weeks agopermalink

tkbslc

Early macro lenses didn't reach 1:1 without extension tubes, so this is a modern insistence.

2 weeks agopermalink

Eric Hensel

David610 -I was referring to the f3.5 -I assumed people would understand that 1:2 referred to the focusing ratio, not f-stop.

2 weeks agopermalink