Olympus 14-150 II vs. Panasonic 14-140 3.5-5.6 II (WR)

[Snapshooter]

I am currently debating this purchase of the Olympus 14-150 II vs. Panasonic 14-140 3.5-5.6 II (weather resistant version) for use on my E-M1. At used prices, the Panasonic would be about $150 more than the Olympus. I have read through the previous threads on this comparison ("Which one 14/140 or 14/150 on a EM-5 II ???") and ("14-150 II or 14-140?") as well as some other mentions of each of the lenses in other threads. But given these threads are from 2018 and mid-2019, and the new weather resistant version of the Panasonic lens was just released last year, I thought it might be worth bringing up this topic again.

It seems to me that lots of people love each lens, of course with the understanding that superzooms means a bit of compromise in image quality.

I've read people write generally that the pros of the Panasonic include: better overall image quality; closer minimum focus distance; faster on the wide end; in-lens stabilization (which doesn't matter for my current camera, but could matter if I got a Panasonic down the road)

And that pros of the Olympus are: less expensive, [maybe more reliable weather sealing (Olympus has it IPX rated)?], 10 extra mm of reach

I've also read people say that in a case like this, where they are both great lenses, to default to the lens manufacturer that matches the camera manufacturer.

My intended purpose for this lens would be as a travel lens, pretty much for daytime still photography in varied settings (mostly outdoors + some cities), to replace my 12-32mm and 40-150 R. We have low-light primes for indoor/nighttime (15 and 45mm).

I'd appreciate if anyone has thoughts to share that they didn't already share in one of the previous threads.

 

[ac12]

• 140 vs 150mm on the long end is too small to see the difference, so I would ignore that 10mm difference.
• Another option is the Panasonic-Lumix 12-60/3.5-5.6. This gives you a wider 12 vs 14mm, which on the short end does make a difference. But at the cost of a much shorter long end. This is my personal light/travel lens.
• The value of the short end vs. the long end depends on YOU. Where you go, what and how you shoot.
  • Example, 60mm is too short for wildlife.
• The 14-150 is a single lens where as the 12-60 + 40-150 is two lenses. So if you often need the long end, beyond 60mm, it makes sense.
• Brand does not make much difference.
  • I shoot Olympus, but my GP/travel/light lens is a Panasonic 12-60.

 

[Mike Peters]

I really like my 14-140 II lens. It just works and shows no weaknesses throughout the range. I shoot with the PL lenses for work, but on a trip the 14-140 is a great do it all lens. I combine that with a 20 1.7 and a 42.5 1.7 and I have low light covered. Add a Laowa 7.5 f2 and the wide is also covered and for all of these there's little weight penalty to pay. Here's two at 140 and one at 17. Nice range, very useful.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[threeOh]

Just some thoughts.

I’m considering the 14-140 as well. Use as a travel lens in the US southwest (dusty, prefer not changing lenses). I have the P12-60. Very happy with it though I find the render a bit understated. Works for Europe. Does not work for the US west. I use 12mm a lot.

Though I have yet to buy, in the end it looks like I’ll go back to a 28 equivalent for the ability to avoid lens changing.

I would ask about copy variation. In my reading I keep seeing wildly different opinions from users. This seems consistent with both the old and new version. Naturally the reviews with “buy me” links splattered all over the place are glowing.

 

[Egregius V]

I've researched these lenses to death and remain unsure which is the superior lens. Copy variation is an issue with both lenses. So is proper technique - maybe moreso with the Panasonic. Reviews have scored the Panasonic higher than the Olympus, but I've seen so many soft images from the Pan. Stopped down, the Oly. seems to be sharper in the center but weaker toward the edges. However, it's sharp corner to corner from about 20-70mm. In the long half of its zoom range, it can be sharper toward the center than the Oly. 40-150 R f/4-5.6 and the Pan. However, the 40-150 R is sharp edge to edge and doesn't need so much stopping down. The Pan. is smaller than the Oly. and certainly better at the wide end.

The Oly. 14-150 II was my most-used travel lens until I replaced it with the Pan. 12-60 f/3.5-5.6 which is far superior IMO and more than enough for general use. For telephoto, I often found 150mm wasn't enough - so I was swapping lenses anyway.

 

[Snapshooter]

I've researched these lenses to death and remain unsure which is the superior lens. Copy variation is an issue with both lenses. So is proper technique - maybe moreso with the Panasonic. Reviews have scored the Panasonic higher than the Olympus, but I've seen so many soft images from the Pan. Stopped down, the Oly. seems to be sharper in the center but weaker toward the edges. However, it's sharp corner to corner from about 20-70mm. In the long half of its zoom range, it can be sharper toward the center than the Oly. 40-150 R f/4-5.6 and the Pan. However, the 40-150 R is sharp edge to edge and doesn't need so much stopping down. The Pan. is smaller than the Oly. and certainly better at the wide end.

The Oly. 14-150 II was my most-used travel lens until I replaced it with the Pan. 12-60 f/3.5-5.6 which is far superior IMO and more than enough for general use. For telephoto, I often found 150mm wasn't enough - so I was swapping lenses anyway.

Egregious, when you say proper technique is important, what do you mean? Stopping down to improve image quality? Choosing a certain shutter speed to avoid camera shake or shutter shock? Thanks.

 

[threeOh]

The Oly. 14-150 II was my most-used travel lens until I replaced it with the Pan. 12-60 f/3.5-5.6 which is far superior IMO and more than enough for general use. For telephoto, I often found 150mm wasn't enough - so I was swapping lenses anyway.

Thanks for that. At the moment, I've decided to rent (with option to buy) the 14-140 for a month. With that comment I'll bring the P12-60 as well.

 

[Egregius V]

Egregious, when you say proper technique is important, what do you mean? Stopping down to improve image quality? Choosing a certain shutter speed to avoid camera shake or shutter shock? Thanks.

"Egregius" - different meaning.
Good question. What I mean is not relying solely on built-in stabilization, especially when zoomed in. One must still hold the lens steady for sharp results and be aware of optical compromises especially at the wide end of the zoom range. The optical compromises can affect where you focus and how you compose. Some reviews have shown that shutter shock is a concern with the Panasonic lens. Camera shake definitely is with both lenses.

Stopping down to f/8 or even f/11 can help a lot if you want sharper images. See DxOMark and imaging-resource.com test graphs. Depth of field can still be a bit shallow, even at the wide end of the zoom range - though a good copy might give good depth of field when stopping down. (My wide-to-normal lenses all vary in this regard.)

 

[Shortsonfire79]

Copy variation is an issue with both lenses.

The Oly. 14-150 II was my most-used travel lens until I replaced it with the Pan. 12-60 f/3.5-5.6 which is far superior IMO and more than enough for general use. For telephoto, I often found 150mm wasn't enough - so I was swapping lenses anyway.

Man, you're too right about copy variation with these lenses. I had a pretty good 14-150ii which I broke and immediately replaced. The second one has been very unsatisfactory.

I think you're also right that 150mm isn't quite enough. I have the Oly 12-40/2.8 which I replaced with the 14-150ii but I think I might replace the 14-150ii with the PL100400 or Oly nonpro 100400. 12-40/2.8 and 100-400/4-6.3 should be about as good of a two-lens combo as one can get.

 

[Stanga]

When I grab my P14-140mm I am definitely not doing it for picture quality purposes. It's an added bonus that it's so good for its zoom range coverage.

 

[ac12]

Man, you're too right about copy variation with these lenses. I had a pretty good 14-150ii which I broke and immediately replaced. The second one has been very unsatisfactory.

I think you're also right that 150mm isn't quite enough. I have the Oly 12-40/2.8 which I replaced with the 14-150ii but I think I might replace the 14-150ii with the PL100400 or Oly nonpro 100400. 12-40/2.8 and 100-400/4-6.3 should be about as good of a two-lens combo as one can get.

Depends on how far you need to reach, and how small your subject is.
My GP lens is a Panasonic 12-60.

I have the 75-300, for use at home, where bulk is not a problem.​

For travel I would take the much smaller and lighter 40-150R.​

Actually, the only reason that I have the 75-300 is to shoot baseball/softball, where the 150 is NOT long enough for those deep outfield to home base shots. Other than that, I can cover most everything else with the 150.

​

Since I have the 75-300, I will probably pass on the 100-400, unless I get a DEAL on one, especially if the MSRP is over $1k.

 

[Brownie]

Depends on how far you need to reach, and how small your subject is.
My GP lens is a Panasonic 12-60.

I have the 75-300, for use at home, where bulk is not a problem.​

For travel I would take the much smaller and lighter 40-150R.​

Actually, the only reason that I have the 75-300 is to shoot baseball/softball, where the 150 is NOT long enough for those deep outfield to home base shots. Other than that, I can cover most everything else with the 150.

​

Since I have the 75-300, I will probably pass on the 100-400, unless I get a DEAL on one, especially if the MSRP is over $1k.

This. I took the 100-400 on a woods walk recently. YIKES! I really bought it for air shows and the drag strip where I'm more sationary. I'd like to try some wildlife, but again, sitting still. I also use the 12-60 more than anything else.

 

[Krbo]

I have both versions (Oly 14-150 Mk2 and newest Pan 14-140 Mk2 WR) and made few comparison shoots with GX8 on a balcony today (yes, corona isolation).

It was as I hoped - Panasonic is visibly sharper but more prone to CA (at least at wide end)
At wide and Oly is sharper on nearby objects, Pana on distant ones.
I wouldn't say Oly is bad, made a lot of nice pictures with it but got it as at that time there were no WR Panasonic version.

Focus point is top of those A roof in the center, two pairs at 14mm and 150(140mm) first Oly than Pana

For your own pixel peeping here is a link for 12 full size photos (6 of each lens) from scene down:

Examples (94Mb)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Shortsonfire79]

Depends on how far you need to reach, and how small your subject is.
My GP lens is a Panasonic 12-60.

I have the 75-300, for use at home, where bulk is not a problem.​

For travel I would take the much smaller and lighter 40-150R.​

Actually, the only reason that I have the 75-300 is to shoot baseball/softball, where the 150 is NOT long enough for those deep outfield to home base shots. Other than that, I can cover most everything else with the 150.

​

Since I have the 75-300, I will probably pass on the 100-400, unless I get a DEAL on one, especially if the MSRP is over $1k.

This. I took the 100-400 on a woods walk recently. YIKES! I really bought it for air shows and the drag strip where I'm more sationary. I'd like to try some wildlife, but again, sitting still. I also use the 12-60 more than anything else.

I was in the same boat for a while. I'm into backpacking photography and started with the 12-40/2.8 for its weatherproofing. Realizing it didn't have the reach I wanted I went for the 14-150/4-5.6ii (one lens to rule them all, no need to change lenses in the field). My first copy was great and it went well for several backpacking trip; the new one I'm less than satisfied with.

If the Oly nonpro 100-400/4-6.3 is under 2.5lb then I think the 12-40/2.8 and 100-400/4-6.3 will be my backpacking duo, with the long lens being the primary for trail encounters. I almost went full frame but the 4lb super tele lenses are not quite backpackable.

 

[ChuckG]

I have both versions (Oly 14-150 Mk2 and newest Pan 14-140 Mk2 WR) and made few comparison shoots with GX8 on a balcony today (yes, corona isolation).

It was as I hoped - Panasonic is visibly sharper but more prone to CA (at least at wide end)
At wide and Oly is sharper on nearby objects, Pana on distant ones.
I wouldn't say Oly is bad, made a lot of nice pictures with it but got it as at that time there were no WR Panasonic version.

Focus point is top of those A roof in the center, two pairs at 14mm and 150(140mm) first Oly than Pana

For your own pixel peeping here is a link for 12 full size photos (6 of each lens) from scene down:

Examples (94Mb)

View attachment 815478 View attachment 815479
View attachment 815483
View attachment 815484

I have been contemplating buying a travel lens for my G85. I like the Olympus in the 1st set and the Panasonic in the 2nd. I own the Panasonic 12-60 kit lens and the 45-150. It seems many users prefer to just use the 12-60. Do you prefer the Olympus or the Panasonic?

 

[Brownie]

I have been contemplating buying a travel lens for my G85. I like the Olympus in the 1st set and the Panasonic in the 2nd. I own the Panasonic 12-60 kit lens and the 45-150. It seems many users prefer to just use the 12-60. Do you prefer the Olympus or the Panasonic?

Seems like if you swapped out the 45-150 for an Oly 75-300 you'd have a really nice two lens kit.

 

[ChuckG]

Seems like if you swapped out the 45-150 for an Oly 75-300 you'd have a really nice two lens kit.

I have been looking at the Panasonic 100-300 as well. How does that compare to the Oly 75-300?

 

[Brownie]

I've never had the 75-300, but if I were to buy another of the lower priced long zooms that would be the one. I have had the 100-300 first version and wasn't fond of it, although others have had good luck. No idea if the second version would be any better. Coulda' been me I suppose.

I love the 12-60 3.5, it's one of my first grabs. It would be a great paired with the 75-300 to cover everything from 12-300. Add a fast prime for low light and you'd be all set.

 

[L0n3Gr3yW0lf]

Can I drop my experience nugget? I have used and owned the Olympus 14-150mm Mark II when I switched from Panasonic GX7 to Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II. I wanted the weather sealing because I have learned that UK is rainy enough to make their own ancient flood.
I used the Olympus lens for a year and I tried really really hard to love that lens, I tried it into the Little Oly and on Panny GX7 but I could never like the rendition of the images. The issues I found with the lens are as fallows:
*Chromatic Aberrations, especially at the wide angle and against even the smallest amount of backlight would give me such deep purple chromatic aberration that Lightroom’a dropper couldn’t correct for them. Using a brush with 100% Chromatic Aberrations Correction did fix it, well most of it, but it gave me a gap of 5 to 25 pixel wide grey scale gap that was visible even without zooming in. And I got slightly worse results with Panny GX7
*Sharpness rendition. Not sure how to explain it best or even properly but I really hated how the sharpness of the lens was rendered. The sharp areas (within DoF) was so harsh and muddied it make the picture look “dirty”. The lens was sharp in itself but not very pretty, especially at the wider angles where there’s little to no separation between the in focus and out of focus region (unless you shoot at minimum focus distance).
*Colours, overall I wasn’t a big fan of the colour renditions too. Olympus does make images a touch warmer compared to Panasonic (which seems more bluish with a touch of magenta) but this lens seems to like turning things to a orangey-brown, especially in landscapes and vegetation.

Everything else looked awesome on the lens, great range, compact and pretty light weight, good build quality (but it’s not IPX rated, that’s advertised only recently for cameras like E-M1 X and Mark III and lenses like Olympus 100-400mm f 5-6.3 and 150-400mm f 4.5 Pro).

But I traded in the lens to get the E-M1 Mark I 3 years ago and I got the Olympus ZD 14-54mm f 2.8-3.5 Mark I and that lens felt a huge improvement in rendition and image quality. Since then (and very recently) I moved to Olympus 12-100mm f 4 Pro and I am very happy with the lens, more then I hoped I would.

From personal experience I recommend sticking to OEM lenses but mostly for E-M5 Mark III, E-M1 Mark II and III and E-M1 X because the AF is faster and more reliable and you don’t lose features like Pro Capture Low (if that’s important for you). Similar for Panasonic, DFD and Dual IS makes it worth to stick with OEM. But this applies if these features are of interest for you and if AF is paramount (if you are shooting landscapes and street photography and portraits then that would be a no).

 

[Mike Wingate]

The P14-140 is my favorite travel/all round lens..