1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Anyone swapped the 12-32 and 35-100 f4s for the 14-140 II?

Discussion in 'This or That? (MFT only)' started by BigTam, Oct 30, 2015.

  1. BigTam

    BigTam Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Mar 19, 2012
    Dortmund, Germany
    I saw a 14-140 II on offer as an ex-demo, with guarantee, for a very good price. On an impulse, I ordered it. This morning I did some test shots, tripod, f5.6, ISO 200, compared to my 12-32 and 35-100 f4. At 100% there was little in it (though I must confess I'm not a pixel-peeper). At 70mm and above, the 35-100 was a little sharper, but apart from that, I didn't see much difference.

    I've been very happy with the f4 pair, but I'm sorely tempted to sell them, which would recoup the cost of the 14-140. Most of my photos are taken with my 15mm f1.7, head shots with the 42.5 f1.7, but the superzoom would be great for travel and those occasions where you don't want to be swapping lenses.

    Any input from the mu-43 hive mind?
  2. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Legend

    Mar 21, 2014
    I haven't tried the 12-32 and 35-100 pair (though the 12-32 regularly tempts me), but I am huge proponent of the 14-140s as an ideal walkaround and travel partner. I have the older, slower, heavier, bulkier, and (maybe) softer version and I still think it's great. It would certainly replace the 35-100 for me entirely, since it's not dramatically larger but is certainly far more versatile.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Losing 12mm at the wide end is probably the only difference that matters. If you're happy with that then it makes sense.
  4. oldracer

    oldracer Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Oct 1, 2010
    Yup. You're right. Maybe 4 years ago I sold my 14-45 and my 45-200, then bought a 14-140 Mk I with money left over. Travel and the difficulty of lens changing were the exact reasons. My change point, 45mm, was right in the middle of the range of pictures that I wanted to take outdoors. Kind of anti-Goldilocks. 14-45mm was too short for some, 45-200mm was too long for others. So it seemed that I never had the right lens on the camera.

    I now have the Mk II which, due primarily to its light weight, is a huge improvement for me over the MK I.

    Re 12mm, for me that (and shorter) is important. My second travel lens is the wonderfully tiny 9-18mm. I also carried a 12/2 for a while, thinking I would use it in lower-light situations, but finally sold it due to lack of use. Same story on my 20mm and 45mm primes. Almost never used, now gone.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Replytoken

    Replytoken Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 7, 2012
    Puget Sound
    I realize that both 14-140's are not huge as lenses go in general, but I am not sure that I would say that their size differential to the 35-100 is not somewhat dramatic, especially if you are using them on a small body like one of the GM or GF series. The 35-100 may not be as versatile, but it is quite amazingly small by m4/3rd's standards.

  6. listers_nz

    listers_nz Mu-43 Veteran

    Nov 22, 2013
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    I's agree that the 14-140 is not as small as the 35-100 f4. Camerasize doesn't have the 14-140 II, however, it is virtually identical in size to the 12-35 f2.8, so here is a comparison of the 35-100, 14-140 II (i.e. 12-35 stand in) and the old 14-140:
    I swapped my 14-42 PZ and 45-150 (that I got with my GX1) for the 14-140 II and loved it, it is a great lens. I've only recently sold it for the 12-35 & 35-100 F2.8 pair, mainly because I wanted the 35-100 F2.8 for photos/videos of my daughter's figure skating (the lighting isn't always the best and the f2.8 is just about a must). But then I'm using a GX7 - not sure what I'd do if I had a GM5 (I'd like one, but can't really justify having one)
  7. PakkyT

    PakkyT Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jun 20, 2015
    New England
    I know with me I have been using 12mm on the wide end for a long time (for years with the 12-60mm on 4/3rds and now the Pany 12-35mm) and tend to be more of a wide angle shooter, especially when traveling, so while the 14-140mm sounds great, I know I would sorely miss that extra 2mm. That said, you may want to survey your old travel shots and make a list of your typical focal lengths. If you find you rarely shoot all the way wide with your Pany, then sell them. But if you find a significant number of shoot at that 12mm extreme you may miss your 12-35mm.
  8. BigTam

    BigTam Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Mar 19, 2012
    Dortmund, Germany
    I used to have a 9-18, and often shot wide. I now tend to do panoramas, either in camera or stitching in post. Since the things I shoot don't usually move (churches, landscapes), I find I don't miss the wide as much as I thought I would. However, if someone makes an autofocus prime at 8-10, I'm in
  9. tkbslc

    tkbslc Super Moderator

    Sure wish someone made a 12-90 or something with more range that is still wide and relatively compact.
  10. alan1972

    alan1972 Mu-43 Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    Jun 23, 2012
    Malaga, Spain
    Alan Grant
    That's exactly what I have been thinking reading this thread. In many ways the superzooms appeal to me, but having got used to the 12-32 I would miss 12mm. It wouldn't have to be a 10 times zoom, 12-80 or so would be fine for me.
  11. oldracer

    oldracer Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Oct 1, 2010
    Yes. That extra 2mm doesn't sound like a lot to someone who has been limited to 14mm but it is the difference (to me) between an interior shot that gives a sense of space and one that doesn't. I'm voting for a 12-140mm!
  12. PakkyT

    PakkyT Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jun 20, 2015
    New England
    To your point, a picture I made some years ago showing the actual difference between the 12mm of my 12-60mm lens vs. the 14mm end of my 14-54mm lenses (4/3rds)...
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
    12mm vs 14mm by Patrick, on Flickr
    • Informative Informative x 1
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.