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

Disappointed from P14-140mm mk II

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Zuri, May 21, 2016.

  1. Zuri

    Zuri Mu-43 Regular

    155
    Apr 20, 2016
    Just received the lens 2 days ago and I've been playing with it since. First thing is that it's almost unusable indoors. It's just too dark with 3.5+ aperture and setting to High shutter speed is impossible.

    As for outdoors, it's great for videos, but photos lack DOF and the whole handling of the zoom lens is irritating. And the photo quality seems a bit lower than my primes.

    I've been using only primes until now - the 25mm 1.7 and the 42.5 1.7. I feel that when I'm with the 14-140mm I can be confident when filming videos but missing out better photos that would come out of my primes.

    Anyone feels the same?

    Sent from my SM-G935F using Mu-43 app
     
  2. Replytoken

    Replytoken Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 7, 2012
    Puget Sound
    Ken
    If you have not previously owned a zoom, I can understand your disappointment. But, there are tradeoffs to having that much focal length in one lens, and the biggest one is loss of wide apertures. Bur, to be fair, indoor lighting is a challenge to many primes as well, so I think the issue here is really a matter of degree. If flash is not an option, then many folks keep both a fast prime and a zoom in their kit for such occasions. Horses for courses as they like to say on the other side of the "pond". Photography is a hobby of trade offs.

    Good luck,

    --Ken
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. aphasiac

    aphasiac Mu-43 Regular

    162
    Oct 18, 2015
    Taiwan
    It's an outdoors walkabout nature/architecture type of lens. useful when going hiking or on vacation. if you want an "always on your camera indoors and out" type lens, then the fixed 2.8 zooms would be better.

    Also yes it won't have as good image quality as primes, you're trading image quality for convenience. Make sure you stop down a bit for sharpness; it usually set all my zooms to f5.6 or f8, and then never change them again.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Ranter

    Ranter Mu-43 Regular

    94
    Feb 29, 2016
    Randall
    I've gottenever used to what the pana/leica 15mm. Gives me ..
    And so yes compared the 14-140 is lacking .. but in its defense , I can't expect a zoom with such a range to come close to what a prime gives me..that's usually true for all zooms vs primes, be it panasonic , canon, nikon etc... expecially a lower end zoom

    It's a decent walk around lens..for quick and easy shots .. awesome for video.. of course all being in good light..because , yeah 3.5 is not very good for low light .. but thats not why one would buy this lens

    So yes I agree .. not as good as my primes IQ, or in low light but I already knew that before I bought it,, as a matter of fact , I only bought this lens because I already have a lens that's good for low light and gives excellent image quality when I want that
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  5. twokatmew

    twokatmew Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 1, 2012
    Lansing, MI, US
    Margaret
    I really like this lens. But I purchased it so I wouldn't have to change lenses when walking around outdoors, so it replaced the two kits zooms. I use primes in low light, when I need shallower depth of field or when I have the flexibility to change lenses. IMNSHO, the Panny 14-140 II has excellent image quality and a good build. But yes, it's NOT for use in low light (w/o flash) and certainly not for shallow depth of field. I find it's also great for close-ups and semi-macro with achromats such as the Raynox DCR-150/250 or the Marumi adapter lenses.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  6. Mohun

    Mohun Mu-43 Regular

    74
    Sep 19, 2012
    The 14-140 would be a bit pricey for me as a travel lens, so I've been pretty content for several years with a sleeper, the 14-45 kit lens. It's remarkable how much light it effectively gathers in reasonably well-light interiors and I've used it for quite acceptable exposure in museum and church venues in Rome, the Low Countries and the UK. One could easily argue the IQ differences between some of the f/2.8 quality zooms and, say, the Lumix 14-... zooms, but, really, the light-gathering potential between f/2.8 and f/3.5 is only about 2/3 of a stop, and unlikely to make a significant difference in many interior shooting situations. And, if the images are made on vacation travels, rather than professionally ("money shots"), a good zoom with a f/3.5 maximum aperture is likely perfectly adequate and, at typical viewing distances, on line or in prints, the bit of noise difference occasioned by increased ISO requirements between, say, f/2.8 and f/3.5, should be fairly undistracting.

    If it's really dim interiors that offer the challenge, then a "fast" prime is one's best bet. In 2014, I went with just one lens, the PLeica Summicron f/1.7 15mm, mounted on a GX7, for a Paris-Ireland holiday, zooming with my feet where necessary, and was perfectly equipped, indoors and out.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. cptobvious

    cptobvious Mu-43 Veteran

    239
    Jan 8, 2013
    I bought the new one (matte black) last week and returned it immediately. It was disappointing optically (decentering at the wide end, and softer than my kit zooms) and felt cheaply constructed for lens that retails for $700. It felt like a larger version of the matte black 14-42mm II.

    It turns out I didn't miss having a superzoom on vacation. I carried two bodies and mainly used the 20/1.7 and 45/1.8.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. twokatmew

    twokatmew Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 1, 2012
    Lansing, MI, US
    Margaret
    That's too bad. I have the original glossy lens, and I waited till it came down in price. (Don't recall what I paid, but it was quite a bit less than list price. Still not cheap by any means though.) I never checked for decentering, but I've used it a lot and been very pleased with it at all focal lengths. Now Oly lenses I *always* check closely for decentering, as I've had to return several lenses for this optical flaw. IME, Panny lenses tend to be of higher optical quality (especially the consumer zooms) than Oly.
     
  9. NCV

    NCV Mu-43 Regular

    69
    Mar 9, 2016
    Italy
    Nigel
    I like it for when I go out and about in the countryside and want to carry as little as possible. For this sort of stuff it is great.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. aphasiac

    aphasiac Mu-43 Regular

    162
    Oct 18, 2015
    Taiwan
    I
    How do you check for decentering?
     
  11. twokatmew

    twokatmew Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 1, 2012
    Lansing, MI, US
    Margaret
    I put the camera on a tripod, making sure both are level. For shorter focal lengths, I point the camera at the full book case in my computer room. For longer focal lengths, I use the brick house across the street. I connect a remote shutter release, turn off stabilization and use a 2-second delay. I shoot RAW and take photos at various apertures and focal lengths, then load the images up on the computer and look at them. If there's unnaceptable decentering, you'll see one side (or corner) of the image will be significantly softer than the other side or corners.

    I never started doing this till I noticed issues with a couple Oly zooms just while processing photos I'd taken while out shooting. So I checked them more closely using the method above. The lenses I had issues with were the Oly 12-50 and 14-42 II R. The 12-50 was horribly decentered and completely unusable IMO.

    I just purchased a used 45mm f/1.8 on the forum and didn't test it. I just stopped the lens down a bit and took some shots around the house. The photos looked fine, so I didn't think it necessary to test the lens.

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  12. CyVan

    CyVan Mu-43 Veteran

    322
    Mar 9, 2016
    Jamaica
    I think you have unreasonable expectations of the lens. It really is an outdoor walkabout lens. Its the lens I usually leave on my camera unless I have specific needs. Because its both my widest and my longest and gives decent output at everything in between. It's sharpest at f5.6 @14mm and f8@140mm so I keep those in mind and I've been able to get some great shots with nice bokeh once I learnt how to pull it off (max zoom, focus close with far background):
    Ayanna-Gym-1024.
    and with its long reach or wide end I've been able to capture some shots I wouldn't have been able to with my primes no matter how much 'foot-zooming' I could try :D.
    CO_16-05-21_20160327_1020161.
    Just be aware of its strengths and weaknesses and plan accordingly. For what it does its an excellent lens. Other much more capable photographers have done wonders with it.

    Showcase - Panasonic 14-140mm f/3.5-5.6

    As you can see in that thread above.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2016
    • Like Like x 5
    • Agree Agree x 2
  13. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    So your complaints are about the aperture? Isn't that clearly defined in the product name? What were you expecting?

    "Waiter, this beer I ordered tastes nothing like wine"
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2016
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  14. Zuri

    Zuri Mu-43 Regular

    155
    Apr 20, 2016
    I guess my expectation weren't realistic. My biggest concern is IQ and shallower DOF when needed.

    When I shoot stills I rarely stay on 14mm, I usually set it on the 20-40mm range, and within this range the aperture is around 4.2-4.7. I understand that I can get good DOF when on maximum zoom with a distant background - but in this case won't it loss some IQ because of the Zoom?

    I mainly take photos of my family, especially my little daughter. And most of the quality images I took of her is with a very nice DOF and I'd like to keep it that way.

    Shooting video on this lens is God mode and I really love it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. pcovers

    pcovers Mu-43 Regular

    88
    Aug 13, 2015
    You are used to f1.7 and f1.8 DOF and may not have realized what the impact of moving to f4 and beyond would do to you. Not only is it the reduced DOF you will get with the slower aperture, it is also the added likelihood of blur due to having to also use a slower shutter speed. Given that you want shallow depth of field with your kids, you may need to stick to lenses like your primes. You can get workable DOF with almost any lens - even the 14-150mm - but not at any aperture and any distance. For what you want, you may need the 25mm or 41.5mm you currently have. The 14-150mm can get you DOF results in certain circumstances.

    Aside from the DOF question, comparing the Image Quality with your 25mm and 41.5mm is a no win for the zoom. The MTF numbers on those lenses are exceptional. They are really, really, good lenses. The 14-150mm IQ should be taken on its own merits for what it brings as a package. I think it's reasonable to decide if you are not satisfied with the IQ of the 14-150mm on its own merits, but not as a comparison to those other two exceptional lenses.

    All that being said, the 14-150mm is a fine lens if what you want is a general purpose, all in one walkabout lens.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Why did you get this lens exactly? For focal length flexibility during video?

    I like my f/1.4, f/1.7 and f/1.8 primes. I got those primes not for IQ but because an f/3.5 - f/5.6 zoom was way too slow for indoor use, and didn't give enough DoF control for my liking. With baby growing up though, changing primes just doesn't work that well. That's why I got the 12-40mm f/2.8 - it's perfectly usable wide open at all focal lengths, giving enough light gathering and DoF control for most situations (poorly lit indoor scenes are a bit borderline).

    There's a trick for getting more reach with video - I use the digital teleconverter. DTC is pretty pointless for stills but is wonderful for video. If I'm out at 40mm and still don't have enough reach, I turn on the DTC. It's a crop, but because it's video you don't really notice the loss in resolution (and the final output is still 1080p anyway).

    That said, I still have a 45-175mm slow zoom for those situations (zoos, birds, telemacro, distant landscapes, long street scenes).
     
  17. Zuri

    Zuri Mu-43 Regular

    155
    Apr 20, 2016
    I was looking for a good lens for video shooting, and considered 12-35mm f2.8 or 14-140mm. I don't have too much money to spare to buy 35-100mm too, so eventually I chose to buy the 14-140mm mk II.
    I knew DOF won't be the same as my primes, just didn't though it's that's a big of a deal until I started using the lens.

    For video I'm quite happy with the lens, although zooming in and out is not so smooth as I expected, as sometimes I need to pressure hard to start moving the zoom wheel.

    With which lens are you shooting your videos? Do you have image stabilization? Before I got the 14-140mm I used to shoot with my 25mm 1.7, but it's too shaky and sometimes I wished for a wider view.
    Can you recommend a good DTC?
     
  18. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I'm using the 12-40mm Olympus on my E-M1, so IBIS rather than OIS. Not sure what you mean with DTC - it's a built in function of the camera that you turn on, not something extra you add. It's basically a digital crop in, which makes it pointless for stills (as you can just do it in post), but great for video as there the camera is downsizing to 1080p anyway. With the DTC you're just downsizing from a 50% crop rather than approximately the full sensor size.
     
  19. Zuri

    Zuri Mu-43 Regular

    155
    Apr 20, 2016
    Sorry I got confused with digital teleconverter you mentioned, I though you meant for something like the OlympusM.Zuiko Digital MC-14 1.4x Teleconverter, didn't know it's an Olympus feature.

    I got a GX7 so no IS for me unless in on the lens, so it's very difficult for me to shoot videos with my 25mm 1.7 for example. That's why I searched for a different lens for video. Maybe I should look for a different body that gives me IBIS rather than a different lens... don't know
     
  20. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Your GX7 should have that feature too, Panasonic call it Ex Teleconverter or ETC, at least that's what it's called on my GM5.
    FYI the new GX7 successor stabilises video as well as stills, but there's always the 12-35mm f/2.8 with OIS. If you're happy enough with the 14-140 for video though, you could always just stick with the primes for stills.