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
    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

    May 25, 2010
    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

    Sep 3, 2011
    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

    Nov 15, 2012
    Richmond, BC, Canada
    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
    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

    Nov 15, 2012
    Richmond, BC, Canada
    I can see where you're coming from. I am so used to the 70-200 on a 1.6 crop 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
    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.