Panasonic Lumix S 100 mm f/2.8 Macro review

Have you rated your lenses yet?

Panasonic Lumix S 100 mm f/2.8 Macro

20 October 2026

Maciej Latałło

8. Vignetting

In the case of full-frame systems, we used to report vignetting results for both the smaller APS-C sensor and the full-frame sensor. This was because Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony and Sigma systems all had a single mount that allowed full-frame lenses to be attached to both full-frame bodies and those equipped with APS-C/DX sensors. Information about vignetting or distortion on the latter, smaller sensor was therefore very important to some users. Panasonic is also currently developing two systems, namely L-mount and Micro Four Thirds. However, they are not compatible with each other, and lenses designed for one system cannot be attached to bodies belonging to the other. In this situation, we are left with discussing vignetting (as well as distortion) exclusively on the basis of the full-frame sensor.

As could be seen in the previous sections, however, data for the APS-C/DX sensor edge were retained for resolution and chromatic aberration measurements. In these cases, this was important because it provided us with additional information about the distribution of sharpness and chromatic aberration across the entire frame under analysis.

We will first discuss vignetting observed in JPEG files that have not been corrected for this effect. Let us recall that, in this case, we are dealing with an image that is practically free of distortion and has a field of view of 24.4 degrees.

Please Support Us

If you enjoy our reviews and articles, and you want us to continue our work please, support our website by donating through PayPal. The funds are going to be used for paying our editorial team, renting servers, and equipping our testing studio; only that way we will be able to continue providing you interesting content for free.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - advertisement - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

S1R II, FF, JPEG, f/2.8	S1R II, FF, JPEG, f/4.0

S1R II, FF, JPEG, f/5.6	S1R II, FF, JPEG, f/8.0

At the maximum aperture, the brightness fall-off in the very corner of the frame amounts to 41% (-1.52 EV). By comparison, the Sigma performed better here (36%), while the Nikkor did worse (51%). However, the Panasonic's result does not warrant strong criticism, as given its dimensions, we expected even poorer performance. In this category, it is in line with most of its competitors.

As expected, stopping down the aperture effectively reduces the effect in question. At f/4.0, the value is 23% (-0.76 EV), while at f/5.6 and f/8.0 vignetting becomes relatively unobtrusive, with results of 16% (-0.50 EV) and 11% (-0.33 EV), respectively. The problem disappears completely at f/11, where the effect in question reaches 10% (-0.31 EV).

As a bonus to this section, we can also check how vignetting looks in RAW files that have not been corrected for distortion. Let us recall that in this case, we have a slightly wider field of view and moderate pincushion distortion at our disposal.

S1R II, FF, RAW, f/2.8	S1R II, FF, RAW, f/4.0

S1R II, FF, RAW, f/5.6	S1R II, FF, RAW, f/8.0

In this case, at the maximum aperture, the brightness fall-off in the corners of the frame reaches 43% (-1.65 EV) and decreases to 27% (-0.91 EV) when the aperture is stopped down to f/4.0. Stopping down to f/5.6 reduces the effect to a modest 19% (-0.61 EV), while practically all the problems disappear at f/8.0 and f/11, where our results are 13% (-0.41 EV) and 12% (-0.38 EV), respectively.

Panasonic S1R II, JPEG, 100 mm, f/2.8