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

one zoom kit or two?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Yves D., Jan 8, 2010.

  1. Yves D.

    Yves D. Mu-43 Regular

    42
    Jan 8, 2010
    Montréal, Canada
    Hi everybody,

    I'm a 48 years old french canadian photo enthousiast and a newbie in the m43 world.

    I bought the Gf1/20 1.7 on the first available week. I really like this combo.
    I sold all my Nikon gear except a 50 1.8 for the Gf1 so it will be easy to carry my camera almost every day with me.
    My dilemma right now is: should i buy the 14-45 and the 45-200 for $750 approx. (can $) or buy the 14-140 for $1000? What do i gain or lose by going for the superzoom in iq?
    Anybody here with the same dilemma?

    Thanks
     
  2. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    I'm at work now, but will post a response later today...

    Just wanted to say hi and welcome to mu-43!
     
  3. Brian Mosley

    Brian Mosley Administrator Emeritus

    Dec 15, 2009
    Hi Yves,

    First of all, welcome to the forum! please post some images and impressions as you get going with your GF1 + 20mm f1.7

    I'd stick with the 20mm f1.7 and add the Lumix 7-14 before adding the 14-45 and 45-200... the 14-140 is a bit bulky for the GF1.

    Cheers

    Brian
     
  4. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    You give up very little in image quality by using the superzoom instead of the 14-45 and 45-200. The 14-140 very nicely matches the other two zooms in their respective ranges. What you give up are the following:

    • Ability to use a very small and light zoom (14-45 is much smaller and lighter than 14-140
    • 140-200mm range, which makes a difference in certain applications
    • Quality of image stabilization, which I find is somewhat better with the 45-200 than with the 14-150 (for still applications, not for video)
    The 14-140 is a great all-around lens and fantastic for video. If you don't shoot ultrawide, the 14-140 and 20/1.7 could be all you need.

    For me, the 7-14 and 20/1.7 - as Brian said - are the go to combo.
     
  5. Yves D.

    Yves D. Mu-43 Regular

    42
    Jan 8, 2010
    Montréal, Canada
    Thanks

    Thank you for those quick replies.
    I was indeed afraid that the 14-140 might be bulky.
    Since i wish to travel as light as i can, i might go for the 45-200. Mostly to take picture of my sons playing soccer or other outdoor activities.
    The 14-140 also appeal to me because of the possibility to have one good lens
    to do both stills and video without having to change lens. I dont want to carry both a camcorder and a dslr. I think i'm becoming lazy with age ;-)
    The 7-14 is a lens i wish i can buy but is so expensive ($1500). Maybe i'll wait a little until i find one on the used market.
    Next step: i bring my gf1 to the store to try both lens on it.
    I will post some image soon.

    Cheers
     
  6. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    The 45-200 is similarly bulky, but at least with the two lens kit you have the option of the light zoom.

    That's the main reason I keep the 14-140 around. I would have sold it if not for video.

    It's tough on the used market now, because the new market is limited. In time, they will come down for sure, and the Oly 9-18 will be another option.
     
  7. cosinaphile

    cosinaphile Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 26, 2009
    new york city
    in ny the panny 7-14 is $1099 the oly is regular4\3 and $1500


    both are grossly overpriced
     
  8. huai

    huai Mu-43 Regular

    77
    May 24, 2013
    You can replace the 45-200 with P45-150 or P45-175 to save quite a bit of bulk.