Panasonic 14-140 vs. 45-150

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by SojiOkita, Apr 13, 2014.

  1. SojiOkita

    SojiOkita Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 23, 2014
    France
    Hi everyone.

    I'm on the edge of buying a Panasonic 45-150 because I need (want) a telephoto lens on my E-M10 (+ my GM1 even I won't probably use this lens very often on it, due to the small size of the GM1).

    I already have more than enough normal-wide angle lenses (I have the 12-32 + the 14-42 EZ, I'll probably sell one of them eventually, and I just bough an inexpensive used 14 mm).
    So the 45-150 seems like a "normal" addition, it's a correct lens and not so expensive.

    I'm wondering how the 45-150 performs vs. the new 14-140 (3.5-5.6), on the overlapping range (45-140).
    I just thought that as the 14-140 is nearly the same size & weight that the 45-150, it would be nice sometimes not to have to switch lenses.

    I'm not considering price as an issue here (the 14-140 is 3 times more expensive than the 45-150... so it would be a highly unreasonable choice economically speaking. In fact I'll probably buy the 45-150 anyway, because of the price)

    However, I'm curious to know which lens has the best telephoto IQ between the 2.
    I found no website that tested both lenses.
     
  2. gcogger

    gcogger Mu-43 Veteran

    391
    May 25, 2010
    UK
    Graeme
    I briefly had both, and found the 45-150mm to be a small but definite improvement over the 14-140mm, both for sharpness and for colour/contrast.
     
  3. Canonista

    Canonista Mu-43 Top Veteran

    563
    Sep 3, 2011
    L.A.
    For about the same price as the 14-140, have you considered the 100-300. It would seem to be a better alternative to the 45-150 with greater reach and presumably comparable or better IQ over the overlapping range. I have the O 14-150 and P 35-100, and will likely add the 100-300 once they go on sale again.
     
  4. DL Photo

    DL Photo Mu-43 Veteran

    216
    Nov 15, 2012
    Richmond, BC, Canada
    Dave
    I highly recommend the 45-150 for the price as well as the focal length. You already have up to 42mm. the 45-150 covers quite a wide range.

    I have heard that the 100-300 is a great lens and nice to have that extra reach to 300, however, don't think I could live without having the 42 to 100 range covered.
     
  5. DynaSport

    DynaSport Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 5, 2013
    Dan
    Perhaps you shoot quite differently than I do, but it seems I tend to shoot my zooms at their extremes. So, I shoot my 40-150 mostly at 40 and 150, with many of the shots at 150 wishing for more range. If you shoot similarly, you coul easily do without 43-99mm and never miss them, as you will likely shoot the 45-150 mostly at 45 and 150. You can cover the 45 with your 14-42 and 150 with the 100-300. It really is not necessary to cover ever single focal range in my experience. But then I have begun to shoot primes an awful lot and don't find them nearly as limiting as I thought I would.
     
  6. DL Photo

    DL Photo Mu-43 Veteran

    216
    Nov 15, 2012
    Richmond, BC, Canada
    Dave
    I can see where you're coming from. I am so used to the 70-200 on a 1.6 crop camera.....so would be strange for me without that range. But the longer focal length would be a plus as well. Guess the OP should get both to be safe? :smile:

     
  7. SojiOkita

    SojiOkita Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 23, 2014
    France
    The 100-300 is nearly the size & weight of my current Canon 70-300 IS...
    I find it too big & heavy.

    I know I will be shorter with the 45-150 on my E-M10 than what I had with the 300 mm on my Canon APS body... I'll see if I miss that.
    For now, that's a compromise I'm ready to make in favor of compacity.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.