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

Lumix G Vario 14-140mm f/3.5-5.6 sharpness compared?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by ex machina, May 24, 2015.

  1. ex machina

    ex machina Mu-43 Top Veteran

    801
    Jan 3, 2014
    Northern Virgnia
    Hey all, I'm considering picking up a Lumix G Vario 14-140mm f/3.5-5.6 but want to know how it compares, sharpness-wise, to my p14-45II on the wider end and my p45-150 on the longer. I have too many great shots to part with my p14-45II, and while i like my p45-150, I find too often that it's just not wide enough, and plan to sell it if I'm not losing sharpness with the upgrade to the 14-140. Thanks in advance!
     
  2. ex machina

    ex machina Mu-43 Top Veteran

    801
    Jan 3, 2014
    Northern Virgnia
    Read at least one review that claimed that the 14-140 was sharper at the long end than the 40-150, can anyone here confirm one way or the other? Thx!
     
  3. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    With the old version 1 14-140mm, it seemed like sharpness at the long end was sort of dependent on subject distance. It was noticeably softer (in my experience) for very distant subjects, but it could be tack sharp for subjects within a few meters.
     
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  4. poopstick

    poopstick Mu-43 Regular

    112
    Aug 9, 2013
    Burlington Ontario
    They're both a little soft at the long end (The 45-150 is definitely sharper though).
    Since, you already have the 14-42II, I would get the 45-175. It's an excellent lens, and very sharp at the long end.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2015
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  5. ex machina

    ex machina Mu-43 Top Veteran

    801
    Jan 3, 2014
    Northern Virgnia
    Hmm. I was hoping for a better walk-around lens for when I don't want to carry a full kit, but I'd hate to spend that much money only to have a softer tele than what I already have.

    For a walk-around I find that 45 is just not wide enough, good to know that the 45-175 is a sharper lens, though, thanks.
     
  6. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    ephotozine is the only site I have found that has reviewed both lenses. THeir sharpness tests were done on the same camera (the G3) so they should be directly comparable.

    They actually seem to show that the 14-140 is a bit better than the 45-150, especially at full zoom. And has better CA control with no worse vignetting. Sounds like the only tradeoff is the price and weight? (EDIT: actually only weighs 65g more, so no weight tradeoff really)

    http://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lumix-g-vario-14-140mm-f-3-5-5-6-lens-review-22632
    http://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lumix-g-vario-45-150mm-f-4-0-5-6-lens-review-20221
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2015
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  7. ex machina

    ex machina Mu-43 Top Veteran

    801
    Jan 3, 2014
    Northern Virgnia
    Awesome, thanks! I've been looking for such a direct comparison and had no luck up till now.
     
  8. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    No problem. Unfortunately now I am trying to do the math on the 14-42/45-150 vs the 14-140! :)

    The only downside I've heard from that lens are early owner reports of OIS jitter during video. The 35-100 had the same issue and got a firware update to fix it just this January, so I don't know if A) it is a real issue and B) if firmware is coming to fix it.
     
  9. DaveEP

    DaveEP Mu-43 Top Veteran

    683
    Sep 20, 2014
    York, UK
    I must admit to taking a rather philosophical view of things like sharpness for walkabout lenses, especially for vacations etc.

    It's very easy to get carried away with pixel peeping, but in reality a walkabout lens is usually more for memories than for producing tack sharp shots I can sell. I have a couple of large (A3) prints made from m43 + 14-140 and no one has ever said that they thought they were soft, yet to listen to some people nothing less than a prime will do.

    As a super zoom you accept the mild shortcoming as a worthwhile trade off for size and convenience. I'd rather have a shot that is 95% as good as it could be than no shot at all because I didn't have the right lens with me.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    100% agree here. I used my 14-140mm for probably 90% of my shooting in the Galapagos. Do I sometimes wish I had a prime or an f2.8 zoom? Sure. Am I glad I didn't need to worry about changing lenses, missing shots, and carrying extra gear? Yes. Am I most glad that I could focus on being present, knowing that I could record what I saw during my trip rather than obsessing over ultimate quality? Definitely.

    Let's face it, there are millions of beautiful shots of Blue Footed Boobies out there, but I'm only probably only going to get to see them in person once in my life, so it was nice to really see them in person while I had the chance.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    With that sentiment in mind, I sometimes wonder if getting a Panasonic FZ1000 wouldn't be a more versatile choice than a 14-140mm lens. Then you get a second "body" and 4K video capability. You also get a better zoom range (25-400 equiv vs 28-280), 20MP, and DFD AF tracking. In terms of sensor comparison, the lens is a stop faster to make up for the stop or so of lost high ISO headroom.

    Just a thought. I guess it is $200 more, though, and the FZ1000 is not very small.
     
  12. ex machina

    ex machina Mu-43 Top Veteran

    801
    Jan 3, 2014
    Northern Virgnia
    Thanks, all, I generally carry my p20 for when I'm shooting for sharpest, and it's small enough to come along in a pocket. The FZ1000 idea is interesting, I had completely ignored that camera up to now, but was surprised to see how big it was. I think the 14-140 is going to be a good fit for me, now off to find a good deal!
     
  13. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    I did consider that myself...

    But the FZ1000 is shockingly bigger than my GX7 (not to mention 50% more expensive than I paid!), and there's no way I am going to bring both with me on a trip! And while I mostly used the 14-140mm, I enjoyed using my 7.5mm/3.5 for star photography, and my 20mm/1.7 for low-light, neither of which I could get out of the FZ1000. I stitched for the landscapes anyway, so the 25mm isn't really any big deal compared to the 28mm. I probably would have really enjoyed the extra reach on the long end, though, there's no denying that. But we can't get everything we want...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. ex machina

    ex machina Mu-43 Top Veteran

    801
    Jan 3, 2014
    Northern Virgnia
    I don't really care too much about video, and apparently the jitter is only really noticeable on static shots. There are reports of shutter shock, which I can get around on my GX7 by using the electronic shutter, though on my GX1 I'd have to potentially avoid some speeds.