Panasonic 14-140 or Oly 75-300

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

  1. Sophia5

    Sophia5 Mu-43 Rookie

    13
    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

    13
    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 Guest

    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
    USA
    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

    391
    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
    USA
    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
    贾一川
    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

    13
    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