Last minute decision on 12-40 and 14-140 II

[londonfire]

Great info, again, and I reread every reply. I'm 63 and my brain is stuck in 35mm mode. (film, not lens) When I think of framing scenes I have to think of my 12-50 as a 24-100. That makes it easier for me to visualize scenes.
Turbofrog, your comment re: the temples made me think. I understand the zoom perspective but it also makes me think of capturing close up detail. That's where I know my 'L' lenses would really make a difference if I was carrying my Canon stuff and made me wonder if the 12-40 would show a difference in IQ over the 12-50? I think most of the shots will be in good light so the 2.8 wouldn't be a factor. I would imagine most shots to be around f/4 to 5.6. I was also thinking, as mentioned above, that if I'm ever going to try the 12-40 now is the time, not when I get back and shoot pics of local waterfalls. The 14-140 II is definitely going with the 20/1.7 and maybe the 12-40 if I see the right deal. A month ago I was taking this trip with a Pentax Q and Q7 and a lens on each. Great little cameras but when I did a lot of test shots around our wooded area I realized they can't compete with MFT or APS-C.

 

[ashburtononline]

The 14-140 II is smaller and lighter than the 12-40, so you must really dislike the size and weight of your 12-40!

The 12-40 is not considered a super zoom!

 

[Turbofrog]

The 12-40 is not considered a super zoom!

The person he responded to called out super-zooms in particular for weight and size. Args was saying that the 14-140 II is both smaller and lighter than any of the f2.8 standard zooms. Why would weight and size be more tolerable in a 12-40/2.8 than a 14-140mm?

 

[ashburtononline]

The person he responded to called out super-zooms in particular for weight and size. Args was saying that the 14-140 II is both smaller and lighter than any of the f2.8 standard zooms. Why would weight and size be more tolerable in a 12-40/2.8 than a 14-140mm?

Because it's 2.8 and not 5.6

 

[Turbofrog]

Because it's 2.8 and not 5.6

Buts its only 3.5x zoom instead of 10x. That's worth at least as much to many. And it's only a half-stop slower at the wide end.

 

[ijm5012]

Buts its only 3.5x zoom instead of 10x. That's worth at least as much to many. And it's only a half-stop slower at the wide end.

not at 12mm it isn't... 12mm vs 14mm is a HUGE difference IMO

 

[Turbofrog]

not at 12mm it isn't... 12mm vs 14mm is a HUGE difference IMO

And you could say that 40mm is such a short telephoto reach as to be entirely pointless, no?

Anyway, this really isn't about one lens being better than the other. They are both excellent lenses that have different uses and serve different purposes.

 

[Replytoken]

I understand the zoom perspective but it also makes me think of capturing close up detail. That's where I know my 'L' lenses would really make a difference if I was carrying my Canon stuff and made me wonder if the 12-40 would show a difference in IQ over the 12-50? I think most of the shots will be in good light so the 2.8 wouldn't be a factor. I would imagine most shots to be around f/4 to 5.6. I was also thinking, as mentioned above, that if I'm ever going to try the 12-40 now is the time, not when I get back and shoot pics of local waterfalls. The 14-140 II is definitely going with the 20/1.7 and maybe the 12-40 if I see the right deal.

IMHO as the owner of a 12-40, 12-50 and 14-45 among others, the 12-40 primarily offers me f/2.8, weather seals and sharper corners, but not by much in more in a recent comparison to my 14-45. If your technique is spot on and shooting conditions are good, and it should be if you are thinking of large prints, then you might see the difference, but it might not make a big difference depending on the subject matter. The 12-40 is my "normal" lens when I do not select a particular lens for a particular type of shooting or subject matter, but I was really surprised at how well the 14-45 held up to it since it is a lens that I bought but never really used. I cannot say anything about the 14-140 since I have not shot with one, but unless it is a really bad performer, your technique, subject matter and shooting conditions are possibly going to impact your final IQ to a greater degree than you are factoring in this decision.

--Ken

 

[tyrphoto]

To put it simply, the 12-40 will be a bigger jump in IQ over the 12-50 versus the 14-140 II over the original 14-140. The other advantage, which to me is a big deal when using zooms, is the constant and fast aperture that the 12-40 gives you.

 

[ijm5012]

And you could say that 40mm is such a short telephoto reach as to be entirely pointless, no?

Anyway, this really isn't about one lens being better than the other. They are both excellent lenses that have different uses and serve different purposes.

I went to Shanghai for a week last September, and only wanted to bring one lens. The two lenses I was contemplating bringing were the 12-35 f/2.8, and the 14-140 II. I ended up going with the 12-35, and didn't regret it for a second. 12mm was vastly superior to 14mm for a number of shots, and I didn't really have any shots where I thought, "man, I really wish I had more reach than 35mm".

On paper it sounds like the 12-35/12-40 would be limiting, but in practice it really isn't (at least for the type of shots I was taking in a large city like Shanghai). Also, the f/2.8 lenses allow for much better subject isolation for the given focal lengths, due to how quickly the 14-140 II climbs in aperture.

Like you said, they're both great lenses but the f/2.8 lenses aren't nearly as limiting as they may seem on paper.

 

[Turbofrog]

I went to Shanghai for a week last September, and only wanted to bring one lens. The two lenses I was contemplating bringing were the 12-35 f/2.8, and the 14-140 II. I ended up going with the 12-35, and didn't regret it for a second. 12mm was vastly superior to 14mm for a number of shots, and I didn't really have any shots where I thought, "man, I really wish I had more reach than 35mm".

Probably strongly depends on the location you're going to. On my last trip to the Galapagos, the 14-140 was essentially glued to my GX7 (brought the 20mm/1.7 and 7.5mm fisheye, both of which mostly only saw use at night). Looking at the keepers from said 14-140 that we culling to print in our photobook, only 44% of them were taken below 40mm, and 37% were taken above 100mm.

That isn't counting the panos, which led to another chunk of photos at 14mm. But 12mm is much too narrow to make any difference there, either. Even the 11mm end of my 11-22mm isn't wide enough to avoid the need for panoramas.

 

[oldracer]

Probably strongly depends on the location you're going to. ...

Not probably. For sure.

Location matters. In fact, Turbofrog's relatively low (1/3 of pix) use of the long end of his lens reflects the reality of the Galapagos. Birds and animals there have no fear of humans, so a photographer is closer to wildlife subjects than probably anywhere else in the world except zoos. Had his trip been for African wildlife, IMO his +100mm number would have been closer to 100% and he would have been wishing for a 100-300mm.

Here's what I mean by "close:"

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Turbofrog]

Had his trip been for African wildlife, IMO his +100mm number would have been closer to 100% and he would have been wishing for a 100-300mm.

You are definitely correct about how tame the wildlife is there - it was an amazing experience. Though I think I probably still would have reserved some of the shorter focal length shots for my girlfriend and the beautiful landscapes, so maybe 100% isn't quite correct.

As a case in point though, I recently did buy a 100-300mm, in no small part because I'll be spending a week up in northern Canada soon...and the loons, woodpeckers, hummingbirds, herons, and frogs are a lot less docile than the finches and iguanas down south!

 

[tkbslc]

Isn't this about like arguing what color is the best?

 

[oldracer]

Isn't this about like arguing what color is the best?

Gee, I don't think so. I see it as discussing which tool is the best for various jobs. That's why Turbofrog bought that 100-300mm for Canada, a tool he wouldn't have had much use for in the Galapagos.

 

[tkbslc]

Gee, I don't think so. I see it as discussing which tool is the best for various jobs. That's why Turbofrog bought that 100-300mm for Canada, a tool he wouldn't have had much use for in the Galapagos.

I just meant that focal length preference is largely personal. Saying 12 is better than 140mm is about like saying red is better than blue, IMO. It comes down to your shooting style and subject preferences.

 

[Turbofrog]

I just meant that focal length preference is largely personal. Saying 12 is better than 140mm is about like saying red is better than blue, IMO. It comes down to your shooting style and subject preferences.

Yeah. Mostly I just threw my 2 cents in because I think a lot of people discount the joy of having a long telephoto lens always on hand, because the only time they ever put on their 40-150 kit zoom (or whatever) is when they're intentionally planning on doing specific telephoto-y things. There's a lot of really interesting shots you'll never see without the right focal length conveniently there, already mounted on the camera.

It's more like only taking photos of red things without realizing that blue things can be pretty, too.

Just my personal sense, but many of the shots that you can get with a 12mm you can get an even more expansive view with a simple 2-shot stitch at 14mm. For landscapes in particular, I find 12mm to be no less constrictive than 14mm. In-your-face ultrawide close-focus or action shots are the obvious exceptions to that rule.

 

[zensu]

Yeah. Mostly I just threw my 2 cents in because I think a lot of people discount the joy of having a long telephoto lens always on hand, because the only time they ever put on their 40-150 kit zoom (or whatever) is when they're intentionally planning on doing specific telephoto-y things. There's a lot of really interesting shots you'll never see without the right focal length conveniently there, already mounted on the camera.

It's more like only taking photos of red things without realizing that blue things can be pretty, too.

Just my personal sense, but many of the shots that you can get with a 12mm you can get an even more expansive view with a simple 2-shot stitch at 14mm. For landscapes in particular, I find 12mm to be no less constrictive than 14mm. In-your-face ultrawide close-focus or action shots are the obvious exceptions to that rule.

I agree about exceptions to the rule, I'm an ultra-wide fan (Panny 7-14mm F4.0) and one day I hope to get the Panny 14-140mm ver. II as a perfect match to this great lens.