Showcase Panasonic 14-140mm f/3.5-5.6

[pcnyc]

A member asked for this thread of the new 14-140mm, and since I got a few pics to post, I'll start it.

 

[pcnyc]

I just took a bunch of pics with this in my recent vacation to San Francisco, CA and the island of Oahu, HI ; it's a very good lens and I really dig the compactness.

All SOOC jpg with OM-D and re-sized for upload. The firework shot is cropped.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Zoomed in at 140mm of the above:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Zoomed in at 140mm of the above:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

these three shots are from the same spot, 14mm:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

77mm:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

140mm:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

That's a sea turtle in the middle taking a morning swim near the beach:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Zoomed in to the turtle:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Thanks.

 

[psycho-squirrel]

Thank a bunch, I can't wait to get this lens!

 

[eljay]

Same here. I'm getting one when it hits the local store shelves.

Thanks for sharing the pictures!

 

[db96]

Got my copy yesterday. Took just a few back yard shot. These are jpeg with no editing. Had to use the dogs for test shots...they were not that thrilled!

140mm f5.6 1/320 ISO320

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Arnold by SMcK Photo, on Flickr


14mm f3.5 1/400 ISO160

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

plumeria by SMcK Photo, on Flickr

65mm f5.3 1/125 ISO400

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Treat? by SMcK Photo, on Flickr


61mm f5.2 1/125 ISO200

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Bored by SMcK Photo, on Flickr

 

[DHart]

I've been very impressed with the previous version of this lens. Glad to see the new version is smaller, lighter, and apparently just as good optically. Nice.

 

[RoadTraveler]

I've been very impressed with the previous version of this lens. Glad to see the new version is smaller, lighter, and apparently just as good optically. Nice.

I agree and I'm tempted.

 

[db96]

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Four by SMcK Photo, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Sunset on the marsh by SMcK Photo, on Flickr

View attachment 319964

View attachment 319965

 

[stevenmh]

Anyone else using this lens with a G5?

I've typically used the 14-140 and 100-300 to take pics of our son playing in the yard, and any critters that come along while we're out there. I upgraded to the new 14-140 and have been feeling like a lot of shots are a bit softer and lacking fine detail compared to what I was used to. After seeing the outstanding pics in this thread, I was wondering if I had a soft copy and was considering trying another. However, after some controlled testing, it seems like the glass is fine and I'm getting shutter shock up to 1/320. By 1/400 it's gone. With all the trees and shade in our yard, most of the shots are slower than 1/400 and 400-800 ISO. That explains what's been going on. The 100-300 is a bit sharper than the new 14-140 at 100mm, but only noticeable viewing at 100%. The bigger difference is that the 100-300 isn't suffering from the shutter shock problem at the slower speeds. The 14-140 doesn't exhibit the shutter shock problem at 14mm and at that length the IQ is indistinguishable from my 14-45 at 100%. By the time I hit 45mm, though, the shutter shock is there.

I can post some pics demonstrating my findings this evening if anyone is interested. In the meantime, I'm just wondering if anyone else has experienced this problem with this lens. I already considered the 14-140 an outdoor only lens, I use the 14-45 or 25 inside. But it's a little disappointing that, at least with my G5, it's evidently limited to sunny outdoors when my old 14-140 was decent for shooting a moving target in the shade. Thanks in advance for your input.

 

[cocacola3500d]

great i like it

 

[davidedric]

I was wondering if I had a soft copy and was considering trying another. However, after some controlled testing, it seems like the glass is fine and I'm getting shutter shock up to 1/320.

Interesting. I got my copy last week and went through the same process. Need to do some more testing, getting the tripod out, but strongly suspect the same cause. I've read on other forums that shutter shock "is a myth" caused by "poor technique". I've been shooting for a long time, and camera shake is not a problem that I usually have - and I can't see why I should now. I even wondered if the OIS was working, but I can certainly hear it whirring away.

One obvious option is to use the electronic shutter, even if there are flaws as very well described here:

https://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=36669

Any other comments on this phenomenon?

Just checked the SLRgear review, which goes into the issue in some depth. They find it in a different set of speeds and focal lengths. Does seem to be body/lens specific.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1611

Dave

 

[davidedric]

Following on the shutter shot debate, I repeated the tests suggested here:

http://cameraergonomics.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/panasonic-14-140mm-mk2-lens-shutter.html

and got very similar results. Here's a sample taken with the electronic shutter - I don't think there is much softness here (even though it was taken through glass). Focus point was (the bird's) right eye. Taken at 61mm, f5.2, 1/125, ISO 1600

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Sootchucker]

Not exactly what I intended to shoot, but hey, the 14-140 does OK as a pseudo semi Macro lens. Below images shot on the OMD-EM5

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[nang3]

I recently picked up this lens and find it pretty good from about 14-100mm ish but then I cant seem to get anything sharp at 140mm no matter what I do.. even with the camera sitting on a table with @ 1/640 it is never sharp, ive tried full auto and full manual with manual focus and its pretty much the same result..
Does anyone seem to have a noticeabley soft copy at the long end?

this is a crop of the centre of an image I took this morning from around 8m from target, camera (EM-5) resting on a table, Power OIS disabled, IBIS enabled, 1/500, f/5.6, ISO 1250 Manual mode and manually focussed right on the spiky leaf point on the centre of the image
Linky

Changing to auto mode or different settings in M doesn't seem to make any difference really and the rest of the non cropped image is even blurrier away from centre.. is this normal for a 'compromise' telephoto type lens or does it seem too soft and blurry even taking that into account?

Usually I cull all my holiday snaps by viewing all the OOC jpgs in Windows Photo Viewer first, deleting all the ones that look blurry or out of focus maximised on a 27" monitor as I find this generally eliminates the images that cannot really be improved PP ... almost none of the images I have taken at 120-140mm made it through the culling process while about 95% at lower FL's were fine.. I know its not anything approaching a scientific method but the results seem a bit biased to put it mildly

 

[mistermark]

I recently picked up this lens and find it pretty good from about 14-100mm ish but then I cant seem to get anything sharp at 140mm no matter what I do.. even with the camera sitting on a table with @ 1/640 it is never sharp, ive tried full auto and full manual with manual focus and its pretty much the same result..
Does anyone seem to have a noticeabley soft copy at the long end?

this is a crop of the centre of an image I took this morning from around 8m from target, camera (EM-5) resting on a table, Power OIS disabled, IBIS enabled, 1/500, f/5.6, ISO 1250 Manual mode and manually focussed right on the spiky leaf point on the centre of the image
Linky

Changing to auto mode or different settings in M doesn't seem to make any difference really and the rest of the non cropped image is even blurrier away from centre.. is this normal for a 'compromise' telephoto type lens or does it seem too soft and blurry even taking that into account?

Usually I cull all my holiday snaps by viewing all the OOC jpgs in Windows Photo Viewer first, deleting all the ones that look blurry or out of focus maximised on a 27" monitor as I find this generally eliminates the images that cannot really be improved PP ... almost none of the images I have taken at 120-140mm made it through the culling process while about 95% at lower FL's were fine.. I know its not anything approaching a scientific method but the results seem a bit biased to put it mildly

Is yours definitely the Mk2 lens (maximum aperture at the wide end 3.5)? I ask because the ropey 100mm+ performance you mention is widely recognised as a characteristic of the first version of this optic, while the second is much more consistent across the range.

 

[nang3]

yes its defo the shorter lighter mkII with the 3.5 max aperture and not the older one... il try some more testing today, see if I can get something sharp at 140mm

 

[nang3]

Well I figured out the problem I was having with this lens!! the lens is not faulty or soft, it was the friggen CirPol filter i had on it !!! check out the differences below.. on the left is with filter, right is without the filter!!!!

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[RoadTraveler]

Wow

 

[50orsohours]

That is awesome, glad you figured it out.

 

[nang3]

I still cant believe the difference, its a low to mid range Inca/Kenko filter so not total crap but nothing special either, certainly didn't think it would make such a difference!

does anyone know the physics as to why it only seems to happen at longer focal lengths??