Panasonic’s new 24-60mm f/2.8 lens is better than the 24-70mm f/2.8... and $800 cheaper?
Panasonic just released a new 24-60mm f/2.8 lens priced at $900—and it’s causing quite a stir. Why? Because Panasonic already sells a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens for a much steeper $2,000 (currently around $1,700 at the time of writing). That’s a massive price gap. So, the obvious question is: is the older 24-70 worth the extra $800? After testing both lenses, the answer may surprise you.
Build Quality & Handling
At first glance, the 24-60mm feels like a solid mid-tier lens. It’s more compact than your typical 24-70mm, and while it doesn’t scream “premium,” it holds its own—comparable in feel to something like a Tamron lens. It has a smooth zoom, a very usable focus-by-wire manual ring, and even a customizable function button. The 77mm filter threads are a standard plus.
The more expensive 24-70mm, however, looks and feels more premium. It’s bigger, heavier, and denser, with an 82mm front element. Its zoom is smoother and more refined, and the moving manual focus clutch adds a professional touch—though in practice, it’s easy to accidentally bump it into manual focus mode. Surprisingly, it lacks a programmable button, which the cheaper lens includes.
Minimum Focusing Distance
The 24-60mm is the clear winner here with a minimum focusing distance of 7.5" vs the 1.21' (almost double) of the 24-70mm.
Image Quality: Head-to-Head
Color rendering? Nearly identical. Bokeh? Virtually the same. Chromatic aberration or fringing? Neither has issues. Where you will notice a difference between these two lenses is in sharpness. At 400% zoom, the cheaper 24-60mm was consistently sharper—especially at the edges and even at f/2.8. The 24-70mm was noticeably softer at 70mm, especially in the center of the frame. At f/2.8, the 24-60mm does suffer from vignetting more than the more expensive 24-70mm but you can easily brighten your edges with software. You won't be able to fix the soft focus of the 24-70mm.
The 24-70mm at 70mm performed so poorly in this test that I do wonder if there is something wrong with my lens, but my test unit was brand new.
Verdict: Save Your Money
Even if these two lenses performed exactly the same and the only difference was 10mm of additional reach, there’d be no justification for spending $800 more. You can just take a step forward. But the reality is even more dramatic: the cheaper 24-60mm outperforms its pricier sibling in almost every category.
Unless you absolutely need that extra 10mm, the choice is clear. Save your money. Panasonic’s new 24-60mm f/2.8 isn’t just a budget alternative—it's actually the better lens.
Got mine a few days ago. Nice, it feels the same as 20-60, but the pictures have a punch that the cheaper lens does not have- contrast. And the bokeh is nice. A no-brainer.
Now they have to do a 70-150 in the same philosophy...
It's just amazing to me that you would skip one of the most important aspects of Panasonic's very expensive lenses: whether or not they have internal stabilization. Neither of these has it but the cheaper 24-105 does, which would make it the lens I'd choose.
I didn't mention it because they don't have it. I spoke to a bunch of reps at Panasonic about that and they told me that below 70mm IBIS is much more helpful than above it and therefore they aren't putting it in wider lenses.