1. Reminder: Please user our affiliate links to get to your favorite stores for holiday shopping!

'Lens disappointment, Lumix G HD 14-140mm'

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by RT_Panther, Feb 15, 2013.

  1. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
  2. davidzvi

    davidzvi Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    David
    He doesn't have an eBay filter on it does he? :wink:
     
  3. It would be easy to say that this review is a disappointmet, but maybe that is just because the author is confused about the application of superzoom lenses. I'll defer to them on the video properties of the lens since I personally don't shoot any video, but the evaluation and comparison of the optical properties of the lens leave a lot to be desired.

    The expectation that a 10x zoom lens should be both as sharp as a telephoto lens at the long end and as sharp as a prime lens at the wide end is somewhat far-fetched. The longer end of the zoom range IS a weak point of the 14-140mm, where the centre sharpness starts to diminish, and the corner sharpness diminishes noticeably. The comments about the wide end being weak need some clarification. Numerous tests show that the 14-140mm reaches peak sharpness at 14mm and f/4 in the centre of the frame, with edge sharpness trailing at this point due to heavy distortion correction. The comparison linked to in the review acknowledges that the camera moved during the 14mm f/4 test image and so instead writes:

    "On the other hand, it is a well known fact that the 14-140mm zoom is a bit dull in the wide and long ends."

    Well known by whom? And aren't reviews meant to establish facts, not quote them? In reality, the centre sharpness of the 14-140mm starts to drop very slightly after 14mm but edge sharpness becomes very good from around 18-70mm before falling away again approaching 140mm.

    So, in the end we are left with a superzoom lens that is very sharp in the centre from wide-angle to ~70mm, is sharp on the edges from ~18-70mm, and still gives you the option of zooming out all the way to 140mm if required albeit not as sharply as the first 70mm of the zoom range.

    The 14-140mm is not a perfect lens (what lens is?), but a disappointment? I don't think so.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  4. jnewell

    jnewell Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 23, 2011
    Boston, MA
    I agree with LP and would say that the "review" is worth less than the pro-rated bit of your ISP bill that it cost you to access the review. :rolleyes: Take a look at the lenses in my signature....after I bought the 35-100/2.8 I sold some lenses to make my m4/3 lenses make more sense and eliminate overlap, but I kept the 14-140. Is it as sharp as the others? Of course not. Does it make good files, and is it a very convenient one-lens solution when I don't want to carry two cameras or the whole bag? Absolutely. So, not one of these: :2thumbs: but definitely one of these: :thumbup:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
    Interesting responses....looks somewhat similar to the M. Zuiko 17mm ƒ2.8 debates.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. addieleman

    addieleman Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 5, 2010
    The Netherlands
    Ad
    Maybe the 14-140mm is a very good lens considering it's a superzoom. Having said that, I've had it twice and sold it both times. I just couldn't live with the image quality, pics always kind of disappointed me.
     
  7. Vincen77o

    Vincen77o Mu-43 Regular

    123
    Nov 3, 2012
    St. Albans, Herts
    I was ready to up and defend it, but to be honest I use the kit 14-42 more often. On reflection, the 4/3 format is about small size/small lens, otherwise buy a full sized DSLR. I rarely use the 14-140 now and hated the 45-200. In my small bag I keep the 20mm and a 50mm 1.4FD. Time to sell it I think.
     
  8. RevBob

    RevBob Super Moderator

    Jun 4, 2011
    NorthWestern PA
    Bob
    Not a huge surprise - it's a super zoom - what do folks expect? Unless it's a $1500 lens it's not going to perform like a prime.
     
  9. jloden

    jloden Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 15, 2012
    Hunterdon County, NJ
    Jay
    I've gotten plenty of keepers from the 14-140mm and I think it's great, given appropriate expectations.

    It seems the author's disappointment stems largely from comparing a $500 superzoom to a $500 dedicated telephoto lens (100-300 & 45-200)and the kit zooms. If this were a $1000 premium lens, I might agree with it not living up to its promise. But considering the mid-range pricing and that it's a kit superzoom, I think it's actually pretty much in line with what I'd expect from comparing to other systems.

    Having said all that, I did sell my copy, because I have the 12-35 and 35-100 now and I couldn't see myself bringing the 14-140 rather than the pair of high quality zooms. But, they're still not a direct replacement for the impressive zoom range of the 14-140 and the ability to shoot everything from landscape to a wildlife with one lens. I'm essentially banking that in the long run the compromise of changing lenses ends up being less of an issue than the compromise in optical quality inherent with a $500 superzoom :smile:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
    As a Lumix 45-200 owner myself, I can understand you here....:redface: (And yes, I've got all the latest firmware too)

    Haven't yet come to a conclusion on how I feel about mine...:smile:
     
  11. Luke

    Luke Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jul 30, 2010
    Milwaukee, WI
    Luke
    It's funny, I used the 45-200 a lot when I had it and the images never disappointed me. I just got the 14-140 and am AMAZED by it considering the range. I also love the old Oly 17mm.

    If you use corner to corner sharpness as the only way to judge a lens, maybe we should all just be shooting with the exact same perfect lens (which hasn't been invented yet).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. VasManI

    VasManI Mu-43 Regular

    93
    Jan 21, 2011
    Of all the m43 lenses I have owned (native and non-native) over the past 3 years, the 14-140mm is the last one I have as I'm selling off my m43 gear, because it was the best of the bunch in terms of versatility, so just in case I changed my mind, I'd keep my favorite.
     
  13. mistermark

    mistermark Mu-43 Regular

    105
    Oct 16, 2012
    I used to own a 14-140 when I had a GH-1. I agree with the consensus view on it: pretty good up to about 50-70mm, pretty poor above that compared with primes or premium zooms such as the 35-100. However the performance shortfall is the inevitable compromise that accompanies the convenience of a single lens with such a wide range, and I understand from people who've used super zooms on APS-C and FF that the Lumix is no worse than those, and better than some.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
    No concerns about sharpness with my 45-200 but it:
    -Hunts a lot in low light
    -Lots of purple CA

    Like I said earlier, I'm still on the fence about how I feel about it :smile:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. flash

    flash Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 29, 2010
    1 hour from Sydney Australia.
    Gordon
    I agree with the reviewer. My copy of the 14-140 was a huge dissapointment to me. The softest and most annoying of any of the m4/3 lenses I've owned. I took only a few hundred frames with it and sold it without regret. Even thought it had IS I found the Oly14-140 to be significantly better on a GH2.

    Gordon

    p.s. my copy of the 45-200 was really good. So much so I'm considering another copy.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. frank2

    frank2 Mu-43 Regular

    66
    Jul 29, 2011
    Columbus, Ohio
    Does anyone want to venture a guess on how the as yet unavailable Tamron 14-150 will compare?
     
  17. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
    I think the key factor will be price in comparison to the Lumix & M. Zuiko counter-parts.
     
  18. oldracer

    oldracer Mu-43 All-Pro

    Oct 1, 2010
    USA
    I wonder if the reviewer (does he have a name?) ever actually takes pictures. He doesn't mention it anywhere.

    Somehow I can't imagine Ansel Adams, Dorthea Lange, Yousef Karsh, or Eugene Smith bothering to read this kind of drivel, much less write it. Probably Mr. Nameless would not approve of their equipment either.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
  20. Luke

    Luke Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jul 30, 2010
    Milwaukee, WI
    Luke
    Images speak louder than words....I'm gonna go out shooting with that lens and see what come back. I don't bother reading reviews of lenses that are two years old and I already own, but I presume there are is no collection of sample images that he is unhappy with.

    Seems like if you're going to complain, you should share the miserable images and let the viewer decide for themselves. If I have time, I'll share some images here tomorrow.
     
    • Like Like x 1