Panasonic 14-140 or Oly 75-300

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Sophia5, Jul 11, 2012.

  1. Sophia5

    Sophia5 Mu-43 Rookie

    Apr 17, 2012
    Would like to hear opinions about swapping 14-140 for Oly 75-300 as a zoom. Already have the 12-35 and a E-M5 body so IS and lower end of the zoom range are not important
  2. Sophia5

    Sophia5 Mu-43 Rookie

    Apr 17, 2012
    Would like to add that I do not do bird photography. From all the research that I have done, I was expecting to get sharper images at 140 FL from Olympus vs Panasonic since Panasonic is known to be soft at the ends.
    Any thoughts?
  3. CUB

    CUB Mu-43 Veteran

    Apr 19, 2012
    Have you considered the Panasonic 100-300mm?

    The 3X zoom ratio (300/100) means it has much better optical performance than the 10X 14-140mm. It is highly regarded by those who own it (I have only ever borrowed one).
  4. oldracer

    oldracer Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Oct 1, 2010
    Well, my experience is with the 14-140 and the 100-300. Those are two completely different tools. One, general purpose and one, special purpose. It's like you are asking whether to swap a hammer for a wrench. Not one kind of hammer for a different kind of hammer.

    For me, too, the gap between the 12-35 and 75-300 would not work. There's too much photography that happens in the short/medium telephoto range. If I were in your situation it would be the 12-35 that would go.

    What do you like to take pictures of?
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Ig7

    Ig7 Mu-43 Veteran Subscribing Member

    Aug 24, 2011
    I really like the 12-35 as a general zoom. Only wish the FL was a little longer. Hopefully they will come out in the near future with a zoom of similar quality but not as pricey as the expected 35-100
  6. oldracer

    oldracer Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Oct 1, 2010
    I think I would, too. 12mm on the short end makes it more useful for interiors of buildings (I am a now mostly a tourist photographer.) than 14mm. When I was shooting film Nikons, my "go to" lenses were the 24mm 2.8 and the 105mm 2.5. I hardly shot anything else even though I owned, at one time or another, almost everything in the Nikkor range from 21 to 200 plus the gargantuan 1960s 50-300 f4.5 zoom. I would love to have something like a 12-60 f2.5 or f2.8 in M43. Even better would be a tad wider on the short end and/or a faster aperture.

    35-100 would, for me, be a fairly useless lens. The range for me would translate as being from "too long" to "not long enough." I am completely baffled by the enthusiasm for the new Oly 75mm lens. It's too long for portraits and too short to be a serious telephoto. But then I never understood the popularity of the 135mm lenses that were ubiquitous in 35mm kits. So maybe it is me that is the problem.
  7. jyc860923

    jyc860923 Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Feb 28, 2012
    Shenyang, China
    forgive me if it's off the topic, but are we saying that no one's considering the 45-200? I know it's a cheaper one and softer in the long end.
  8. Sophia5

    Sophia5 Mu-43 Rookie

    Apr 17, 2012
    I was trying to kill two birds with one stone so to speak by getting a lighter lens and also trying to get a longer FL considering I don't need the wide side which is covered by my 12-35. I am also now considering just getting the Oly 40-150 for now since it is so reasonable and wait and see what comes out in the future. Considering taking photos is just a hobby, I think the image IQ will be more the enough from all the sample shots I see here. I believe 45-200 is about twice as heavy as the 40-150.
    Would be interesting to see if anyone compared the two in terms if IQ