1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Another telephoto question - for the Panasonic G3

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by peaceridge, Jun 5, 2011.

  1. peaceridge

    peaceridge Mu-43 Regular

    37
    Jun 2, 2011
    I'm coming over to the small side from the Nikon D90 - have just ordered the P G3 - with a 14-42mm lens. I'm a landscape and occasional wildlife photographer, but wanted something smaller to take hiking.

    My main lens on the D90 is the Nikon 18-200mm (35mm equivalent of 27-300). I understand the panny 14-42 is a 28-84 equivalent). (It didn't cost that much more to add it on which is why I got it - that may have been a mistake). On my current kit I just zoom in and out to get to the focus I want - and I do shoot the entire range.

    So, what lens (I assume panny to get VR in the lens) would work best for what I'm used to shooting? Panny 14-140 or the 45-200 or ?. BTW, I don't expect it to be as sharp as my D90, but maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised.

    Thanks for any help.

    Lynn
     
  2. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    You will be pleasantly surprised.

    45-200 will be a lot cheaper and more range (35 mm equiv 90-400)

    14-140 will keep you from having to switch lenses.
     
  3. peaceridge

    peaceridge Mu-43 Regular

    37
    Jun 2, 2011

    Thanks for your comments, and I still have questions:

    Why is the 14-140 so much more expensive than the 45-200? F stop seems about the same and focus seems quicker on the 45-200. Is the IQ that much better in the 14-140 to make it cost so much more?

    What about the 100-300?


    Right now I'm leaning towards the 45-200 with the 100-300 to come later.

    Lynn
     
  4. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs Super Moderator

    Apr 17, 2010
    Near Philadephila
    Another option, given the small size of the G3, is the Olympus 14-150 - substantially smaller and lighter than the Panasonic 14-140 and probably a better match for the small G3. The only downside (and it may be a big one or a small one depending on intended use) is the lack of in lens stabilization. Its designed to work with Olympus bodies, which have in body stabilization so there's nothing in the lens and there's no stabilization built into the body of the Panasonics. So, maybe not great for low light, but these superzooms aren't great low light lenses anyway. I use the Olympus 14-150 with my GH2 because of the size and weight and this would be even more of a factor with the G3. I don't use it in low light, though. I always carry the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 in my bag and it gets put on for indoor or evening shooting. So the lack of stabilization isn't a problem for the way I use this lens and I really found the Panasonic 14-140 obnoxiously heavy. Your mileage, your intended uses, your needs, may vary!

    -Ray
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Glenn S

    Glenn S Mu-43 Top Veteran

    788
    Feb 1, 2010
    The 14-140 is optimised for video and has a rapid and almost silent focussing system, which accounts for some of the cost. Can't comment on its IQ but I do have both the 45-200 and the 100-300. Both perform well in good light but getting the best out of either of them does require some learning.

    100-300 at 300
    IOM15.

    45-200 at 200
    IOM3.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. peaceridge

    peaceridge Mu-43 Regular

    37
    Jun 2, 2011
    Quite a lot of $$ difference. Image stabilization would be my concern. Are you using a tripod with the Olympus 14-150? How do you compensate for it?

    Lynn
     
  7. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs Super Moderator

    Apr 17, 2010
    Near Philadephila
    No tripod. I just tend to shoot with it in good light. If you can use a shutter speed about twice the focal length (ie, 1/600 of a second for a 300mm equivalent lens), stabilization doesn't really add anything and can actually be counter-productive. So I shoot with the lens a lot but I tend to only use the longer end in good light where I have no problem shooting fast enough for the lack of stabilization not to matter. I can use the wider end of the lens in lower light without a problem, but for the telephoto stuff, I just don't. If using the telephoto in low light is a priority, then for sure get something that is stabilized...

    -Ray
     
  8. peaceridge

    peaceridge Mu-43 Regular

    37
    Jun 2, 2011
    Wow, great pics. Thanks. I do like the extra detail at 300. It was simpler with my Nikon 18-200 - one lens for everything (although I did want a longer one - but didn't want the weight and price).

    I guess I'm looking for just a couple of lens that will get me the whole gamut. How naive is that! I do plan on the 20 f/1.7 for low light. I have the 14-42 kit lens. If I get the 45-200, I'm covered from 14 to 200. It does seem a waste to also get the 100-300 as I already would have it covered. If I get the Oly 14-150 (and figure out how to keep it steady), then the 14-42 is a waste. Ugggg! Am I looking at this the wrong way?

    For sure, I'm unwilling to pay the extra for the Panny 14-140 or 14-150. However, the Olympus 14-150 is now in the running.

    Thanks for all the help.
     
  9. peaceridge

    peaceridge Mu-43 Regular

    37
    Jun 2, 2011
    Thank you so much. That really does help my understanding. Is it your walking around lens?

    Lynn
     
  10. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs Super Moderator

    Apr 17, 2010
    Near Philadephila
    Yeah, when I travel with one body, I tend to keep the 14-150 on most of the time, with the 9-18 and the 20mm in the bag (pretty remarkably small and light travel kit for the range it gives you. Switch to the 9-18 for really wide stuff and the 20 for low light, but the 14-150 is the main lens and gets most of the action. Sometimes I'll take two bodies and walk around with the 14-150 on a camera around my neck and the 9-18 on another very readily available in my bag. So when I see something I want to shoot with wide angle, I just grab the second camera for a few shots. And then switch one out for the 20 for low light. Most of the time, though, I just shoot with a prime lens like the 14 or 20 on m43, the 16 on the Nex, or the 23 that's rather integrated with my X100. I like primes the vast majority of the time, but when I'm walking around on a trip, I'm generally more interested in versatility than creativity so I appreciate what the zoom gets me....

    -Ray
     
  11. drpump

    drpump Mu-43 Regular

    154
    Oct 28, 2010
    Nice to know this Ray. I also have the Olympus 14-150 but on an Olympus body with IBIS, and I also have a Panny 20mm f/1.7. This is my usually-carried kit. I've been thinking about whether to add a G3 to get the Panasonic speed and built-in viewfinder, but was worried about the 14-150.

    I'm very happy with the images from the 14-150, and the size/weight is unbeatable.
     
  12. I don't really like the results from my 14-140mm at the telephoto end. Wide-angle is very good though, and the focus is fast and near silent. However, it is NOT a small lens.
     
  13. shoturtle

    shoturtle  

    823
    Oct 15, 2010
    The down size of the panny 14-140 is the added weight when hiking. It is allot bulky also then the oly options. But with a Panny body, I would go with the larger and more expensive lens. The IS will help out on the long end of the zoom.

    The pro of the oly lens is that it gives you the same FL as your nikon 18-200, both goes out to 300mm with their crop factor. The panny you give up only a little reach for the IS.

     
  14. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs Super Moderator

    Apr 17, 2010
    Near Philadephila
    When I bought the GH2, the 14-140 was the kit lens I bought it with. I already had the 14-150. And before I decided which one to sell I did a lot of back to back shooting over a few days to see if I could find a situation where I missed a shot with the Olympus that I got with the Pany because of the OIS. And I think I found one or two shots that were useable on the Pany but marginal on the Olympus, but I was REALLY pushing the situation, using these lenses in lower light situations at the telephoto end that I would never actually shoot with either in real life. So, I just couldn't find enough situations where I found it made a difference to justify keeping the Pany and its increased bulk and weight. And doing this kind of back to back shooting on the same camera body really accentuated the difference in bulk and weight - they're actually pretty close to the same length, but the impression you get from putting them on the same camera back to back is that the Oly is really small and light and the Pany is a real tank, both in terms of girth and weight.

    Its not like I couldn't find situations where the OIS mattered, but I had to really look for them and I just couldn't see it being a problem in real life. And, so far, it hasn't been.

    -Ray
     
  15. gena_mak

    gena_mak New to Mu-43

    6
    Aug 13, 2010
    In my opinion, it really depends on your style of shooting. I decided for myself to have 2 bodies (Oly EP2 and Panny G1). I do this so, I dont have to change lenses all the time. This keeps me from accidentally damaging camera or lens while changing on-the-go, keeps away dust and, considerably increases my chances to get that needed shoot quickly.

    Usually, in my bag I keep G1 with 14-140 and Oly with 7-14. When I shoot indoors, I put 20mm on Oly EP2, this works out much better with fast lens, less noise + IBIS.

    I think 14-140 is a great lens overall, I wish it were faster but, you cant always get what you want. Coming from Nikon with 18-200, 14-140 will seem much smaller and lighter so, other than it costs more, the bulk would not be such problem. At least for me that was the case.

    Having to pair Panny camera with 14-140 has couple of advantages.
    First, these days you can not discount the role of in-camera processing, especially in Panasonic cameras. I know that, we are not yet fully accepted this notion and tend to underplay it (I use all Panny lenses with my Oly) but, it does help with things like distortion, fringing, moire etc.
    Second, OIS at long range for some photographers may be unnecessary, for others absolutely required. Depends, how steady your hands are.

    If you plan to invest into m43, there are few lenses in my opinion will cover the range: 7-14, 14-140 and 100-300 plus 20mm. I always build my system starting from lenses, selecting what generally accepted as better overall in optical quality and build. Then, I buy a camera. I may pick up cheaper camera with the intention to upgrade later but, staying with one system really means for me swapping bodies as they get older (every 3-5 years) and, not getting new models when they just came out. Usually. I wait for a year until prices come down and issues get resolved.

    When selecting lens only because of the price alone, depending on you character, either you always be questioning your result and will be on lookout of how this or that in that photo can look with better lens or, how this shot would be better if I had OIS, IBIS. This approach will eventually lead to trading in the cheaper lens for better and loss of $$$. Or, you will be content with cheaper lens and concentrate on the art of photography more than on equipment.

    PS. Not that more expensive lens will enable you to get better results but, it will definitely help.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. John M Flores

    John M Flores Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 7, 2011
    Somerville, NJ
    It's funny, when I shoot Pentax I lean towards primes for their great IQ in a small size. When I shoot Panasonic I find myself leaning towards the zooms (14-140 and 100-300) for their tremendous coverage in a small package. To think that I can carry a body and 28-600 (35mm EQ) in a small bag is mind boggling...
     
  17. peaceridge

    peaceridge Mu-43 Regular

    37
    Jun 2, 2011
    Thanks everyone. It seems the best way to go is the Oly 14-150. I've been perusing the internet looking at different statistics and pictures. My conclusion is that I'm going to wait until the G3 comes in and then order the Oly 14-150 and shoot a lot of pics before my return time is up. That way if I have too much shake, I'll return the 14-140 and get one of the Panny telephotos. I wish I could try all of them before purchasing, but I live in NC and no Panny lens stores exist. :frown:

    I do plan on getting the panny 20mm - guess I should get my name on a waiting list somewhere. I'm also wanting the 100-300 - but that will have to wait - and I might end up not needing it.

    Lynn