Panasonic camera lenses, a ten year user review 8 September 2019

I was a dedicated Canon user until I wasn't which was about ten years ago when two things caused me to look elsewhere.

The first was chronically unreliable autofocus in Canon’s DSLRs of the time.  By the way Canon appears to have fixed this problem with the dual pixel AF system which now operates on many models.

The second was the arrival on the scene of the Panasonic Lumix G1, the first mirrorless interchangeable lens camera with autofocus. I realised this was the way forward and  the DSLR was nearing the end of its evolutionary voyage.

So I stared using Panasonic cameras and lenses and continue to do so.

Along the way I have bought and used many Panasonic Lumix and Panasonic/Leica branded lenses in Micro Four Thirds and fixed lens models.

So here are my impressions of the lenses which I have used over the years. If I do not refer to a lens it is because I have not used it.  I have indicated where my experience is of just one copy or several.

Please bear in mind that lenses from all makers at all price points are subject to sample variation.

Note that Panasonic has progressively updated many of its lens models over the years to include compatibility with dual IS, weather dealing and other refinements such as speed of operation. There may be no marking on the  lens itself to indicate that it is a Mk2 or otherwise upgraded version. This can be an issue when buying used.

These usually come as a kit with a body at the time of purchase.

* 14-45mm f3.5-5.6  IS.  (several copies) This was the original kit lens for M43 cameras and is no longer available. This is the lens which opened my eyes to the potential of the new (in 2009) M43 system.    It is optically excellent. If you find one in very good condition used, grab it. It does not support dual IS.

* 14-42mm f3.5-5.6 IS. (original version, one copy) This somewhat inferior model replaced the 14-45. Maybe it was less expensive to manufacture.

* 14-42mm f3.5-5.6 IS (second version, several copies). This is a standard kit lens on many current Panasonic M43 cameras. It is not identified as a Mk2 version on the lens. It is excellent optically, is compatible with dual IS and comes almost free if purchased with a body. I rate this one of the best value lenses on the market today from any maker in any system.

It seems to me this lens represents the best of the original idea of the M43 system: small, light, inexpensive, optically and mechanically excellent.

* 12-32mm f3.5-5.6 IS (collapsing, one copy) This lens generally comes in a kit with one of the flat top (GX) style Panasonic bodies. My copy was very sharp close up but less so at longer distances from the camera. The collapsing design makes it very compact when not in use.

* 12-60mm f3.5-5.6 IS.  (two copies) This lens comes in a kit with one of the mid range bodies like the G85/95. It is an excellent all rounder, very good optically and mechanically. It is compatible with dual IS and will tolerate getting a bit wet with a rubber gasket around the mount. This lens delivers consistently high resolution at all focal lengths right across the frame. This is one of the best but least appreciated (by reviewers anyway) standard lenses in the Lumix M43 lineup. It delivers very good value for money. This is another lens which I think exemplifies the best of the original idea of the M43 system.

These are often found bundled with one of the higher end M43 bodies. When purchased this way they are often less expensive than when bought separately.

* 12-35mm f2.8 IS (several copies) This has been in the Lumix lineup since the early days of M43. It represents the M43 answer to the standard full frame 24-70mm f2.8 workhorse zoom but in a much smaller, lighter, less expensive package. The current (Mk2) version is weather sealed and dual IS compatible but optically the same as the original.

My experience of several of these is that they have been overall very good and very useful as intended. But I have also found variable quality control over the years with some copies being not as good as others.  Sharpness also drops a bit at the long end. So I have some reservations but if you get a good copy this lens is a keeper.

* Pana/Leica 12-60mm f2.8-4 IS. (several copies) This lens has a degree of weather sealing, is compatible with dual IS and on the specifications should be a star of the Lumix/leica firmament. My experience of several copies is that the lens is rather less than stellar.  There appear to be two problems:

First the edges and corners are prone to softness even on a good copy.

Second there appears to be a problem with quality control with decentering and variable double line type unsharpness in some parts of the frame at some focal lengths. Also there is considerable barrel distortion at the wide end.

* 14-140mm f3.5-5.6 IS.  Note there was several years ago a different 14-140mm lens with f4-5.8 aperture.  The current one has been updated somewhere along the way to make it compatible with dual IS. Just watch out for this if you are buying used.

This is a very useful travel lens with 10x zoom, good optical characteristics and very compact dimensions. Another lens which I think exemplifies the advantages of the M43 system.

* 7-14mm f4 (one copy, unstabilised)  This lens appeared early in the M43 programme and is still available new. It was initially very expensive but now sells at a lower price point than the P/L 8-18mm f2.8-4. The 7-14 has a large dome type front element with fixed lens hood. Normal screw in filters cannot be fitted. Some users have described various ways of fitting a filter holder over the lens hood. Optically it is very good making it suitable for architecture and similar subjects.

* 45-200mm f4-5.6 IS (one copy). The original version of this was introduced early in the M43 programme. Mine was good at the wide end but got quite soft at the long end.

A Mk2 version was introduced in 2017. I have not tested this.

* 45-150mm f4-5.6 IS.  (one copy)  This is a more convincing short tele lens. It is small, light and inexpensive.   My copy was very sharp at all focal lengths.  The problem for this lens is that the 14-140mm has a more versatile focal length and is still pretty good optically.

I suspect that for most users the 14-140mm will make more sense than a 14-42 + a 45-150.

* 45-175 f4-5.6 PZ IS. (one copy) The power zoom suggests this might have been intended mainly for video. It was the lens which first alerted me to the issue of shutter shock in mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras. I don’t know if current versions of this lens are still prone to shutter shock.  This is certainly not the only lens to suffer from shutter shock but in my experience it was the worst.

* 35-100mm f2.8 IS  (one copy) This is intended to be a companion to the 12-35mm making a pair of  fast  high quality zooms. The 35-100mm features internal zooming. My copy of the 35-100 was very good although it was a bit prone to flare around highlights. Otherwise the lens is optically and mechanically very good.

* 100-300mm f4-5.6 IS  (one copy) This was introduced as a budget superzoom. The original version was decent optically but for some reason operated slowly, giving slower frame rates than were available with other lenses.  There has since been an updated version which apparently rectifies the operational speed issues and has other improvements, the nature of which I am not sure.  This lens gives an equivalent 600mm reach at a much lower price point than the P/L 100-400mm which goes out to equivalent 800mm.

* 14mm f2.5 (no IS, two samples) This is the smallest Lumix M43 lens. It uses a pancake style design. Focus is internal and fast. Optical quality is good but not quite up to the standard of the next lens on the list.

* Pana/Leica 15mm f1.7 (no IS, two copies) This is one of the best and most useful primes in the M43 system. It is optically fast, operates fast, is sharp right from f1.7 and makes a very good street/documentary lens. It is also good for landscape due to the high sharpness and low level of flare.  It is a bit longer and more expensive than the 14mm but optically better.

The 15mm has an aperture ring for those who think this is a good idea. Fortunately if used on a Panasonic body the aperture can be set with one of the top dials if desired.

It comes with a metal lens hood with rubber lens cap fitting into the front of the lens hood.

* 20mm f1.7 pancake (no IS, two copies) This was one of the earliest M43 lenses and is still available. One of my copies was soft one side. A good copy without decentering is optically excellent. The focal length is versatile, the size very small. The main downside of this lens is that being of an old design focussing is achieved my moving the entire optical system back and forth which is slow compared to most other M43 lenses which focus internally.

* 25mm f1.7  (several copies, no IS) At one stage Panasonic was handing these out  free if you bought a Lumix body. Presumably it is cheap to make. Quality control is  a bit hit and miss. If you happen to land a good one it can be optically excellent.

In general I have found that lenses fitted to fixed lens models in the Panasonic range, with or without a Leica name, have been less satisfactory overall than those for the M43 system.

The main issues have been inconsistent optical and sometimes mechanical performance with sample variation and a tendency to what I call “nasty surprises” in some models. By this I mean unsharpness varying with focal length and frame position, decentering and sharpness worse when stopped down than wide open, sometimes with double line effect.

* LX5  (one copy)  This camera had a fast, sharp lens delivering good optical quality across the focal length range.

* LX100 (two copies) LX100.2 (two copies, one was the Leica variant) This is one Pana/Leica almost got right. But not quite. I could not find one that was good at all focal lengths. One was soft at the edges at the long end, one was inconsistently soft on one side…..and so on. In addition the autofocus often failed when presented with specular highlights. I find this frustrating as the LX100.2 is otherwise one of the more interesting compacts on the market.

* LX15   The lens on my copy of this camera had some strange and unappealing characteristics. Sharpness varied with focal length and position in the frame. But it also tended to worsen when the lens aperture was closed down from the widest position. I have not seen this reported elsewhere so I don’t know if the issue is generic or sporadic.

* TZ110  (two copies) The lens on both my copies of this camera was unsatisfactory with variably mediocre to poor sharpness, worse at some focal lengths than others. They also had the stop-down-worse-sharpness issue.

* TZ 70/80/90  (one copy of each) These cameras all have the same lens spec so presumably the lens is the same. I found image quality hit-and-miss with these cameras. Sometimes I could get a sharp image at a certain focal length other times not. I found considerable variation in quality between lenses and with the same lens at different focal lengths and locations in the frame. I suspect a sub-optimal IS did not help.

* FZ80  (two copies) I don’t know how Panasonic gets these things onto the market at such a low price point. Presumably by making them cheap and skipping the quality control part.

I never managed to get decent hand held pictures from this camera. The lens tested reasonably well on tripod suggesting a poor IS system might have been part of the problem.

* FZ1000 (several copies) and FZ1000.2 (one copy) When I first saw photos coming off the FZ1000 I was amazed that such resolution could be produced by a bridge camera with a superzoom lens. My first copy was soft at the long end however and I subsequently discovered considerable sample variation with lenses on this model. Best of the batch are superbly sharp at all focal lengths, but others suffer from softness at the long end or elsewhere and variable decentering.

My copy of the FZ1000.2 is excellent in the middle of the focal length range, not quite so good at the wide and long ends.

* FZ2500 (two copies) The first copy had a really soft lens, worst at the long end. I tried again but the second copy was almost as bad. Oops. Panasonic stuffed up this one, at least for still photos. It is quite possible that the lens is OK for video which appears to be the main purpose of the FZ2500.

* FZ200/FZ300 (two copies) The lens on these cameras is better than that on the FZ70/80 but I would still not rate it as very good. I found variable unsharpness across the focal length range on one side or the other of the frame. The lens is not dreadful but could be a lot more consistent. I imagine quality control at the assembly stage may not be as good as it could be, perhaps due to the price point.

My experience of ten years of Panasonic and Pana/Leica camera lenses  is that they vary from excellent, verging on outstanding at one end of the spectrum to unsatisfactory and really disappointing at the other end.

It seems to me that the worst of them are ambitious zooms which try to cram a large focal length range of multi-barrel design into a very small space on a compact camera with a large-ish sensor. My guess would be that the tolerances on lenses of this type must be extremely tight and likely beyond the actual capacity of the manufacturing process.