panasonic 14-140mm f3.5-5.6 who is in?

[microfourthirdsnut]

Anyone planing on buying this lens as a travel lens, this seems to be a good lens from the few reviews that have come up.
I don't shot video I just think that this and a good prime like the panny 20 or 25 or even the Oly 17mm f1.8 would make this a very light travel kit.
Anyone get there hands on this lens yet give us a mini review.

 

[Luckypenguin]

Nice size and weight saving from the original. If sharpness and vignetting at the very long end could be improved at the same time it would be even better.

 

[eljay]

I have to sell some of my DSLR gear to fund it, but, yes, I plan to buy one.

 

[db96]

Hopefully mine will be delivered tomorrow.

 

[ejackso1]

This is something I'll likely pick up once the value drops. It has around the same equivalent focal length as the Canon 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 did on my Canon 60D. I was able to pick up the Canon 18-135 for around $250 used, and it worked great as a video lens.

 

[hoodlum]

I wonder if this thread should be in the Native Lens forum.

The reviews look good so far.

ePhotozine Review

Video Review

SoundImagePlus Review

m43Photo Review

 

[meyerweb]

I'm considering it, for that specific purpose (travel). The old 14-140 is a great travel lens, and the new one looks a bit better as well as lighter.

But I've already got the 12-35 and 45-150, so I don't know if it makes sense to get the 14-140, too. Maybe I'll use the excuse of getting it for my wife's camera.

 

[scotttnz]

I'm considering it, for that specific purpose (travel). The old 14-140 is a great travel lens, and the new one looks a bit better as well as lighter.

But I've already got the 12-35 and 45-150, so I don't know if it makes sense to get the 14-140, too. Maybe I'll use the excuse of getting it for my wife's camera.

Me too. I was seriously considering getting it, but now I have 2 camera bodies I tend to keep the 12-35 on the GX1 and 45-200 on the G6 or 20 on the GX1 and 12-35 on the G6 depending on the conditions. Both fit in a small camera bag with lenses attached, and I can swap between them easily. So my current thinking is to skip this lens, and save my money for a faster telephoto lens, I'm just not sure any of the current lineup fits what I want.

 

[pcnyc]

I have it and took it with me on a recent trip, you can see some samples in the gallery I created for this lens.

it's vastly improved from the previous 14-140mm physically, cutting a lot of weight and size. compared to oly 14-150mm it's about the same weight, a bit fatter, but shorter. what's surprising is how short it is when fully zoomed out to 140mm. build quality is good, the plastic used feels much higher quality than oly 14-150.

I feel that the images it produce is quite sharp, but I can't say it scientifically. I've not used the 14-140mm I so I can't compare, but I did have a 14-150mm a while back and looking the the pics I can't really tell which one is better. I do notice that oly 14-150 are more prone to flare, but that's to be expected since I use the hood almost all the time with the 14-140 and the oly doesn't come with a hood. AF is fast and silent, but the min focusing distance is quite big, I have to be at least an arm's length away to focus on anything, while I don't remember having to step back with the oly 14-150.

another improvement over 14-140mm I and 14-150mm is the aperture, which makes this lens at least equivlent in speed compared to kit lenses throughout the 14-42mm range. while I feel the f/3.5 at the wide end did help a little over the f/4 in the other versions, I think 85% of the time it didn't matter to me, since I am usually outside in the sun during the trip, it's pretty much set at f/6 or 7+, and especially if I need to use the flash to fill the faces in backlit situations.

speaking of flash, the lens barrel at 14mm, with the hood turned back, doesn't interfere with the OMD flash add-on, but with the hood attached and in use, it will create a shadow.

hope that helps. I am not convinced that this is THE everyday walk-around lens, but for being a casual tourist where you will be carrying/juggling many things and going to different places and facing different situations, it can't be beat.

 

[ntblowz]

This is something I'll likely pick up once the value drops. It has around the same equivalent focal length as the Canon 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 did on my Canon 60D. I was able to pick up the Canon 18-135 for around $250 used, and it worked great as a video lens.

No it is not, the 18-135 is 7.5X zoom (29-216mm), the 14-140mm is 10X zoom (28-280mm), it is similar to 18-200mm which is 11.1X (29-320mm)

 

[jnewell]

I'm considering it, for that specific purpose (travel). The old 14-140 is a great travel lens, and the new one looks a bit better as well as lighter.

But I've already got the 12-35 and 45-150, so I don't know if it makes sense to get the 14-140, too. Maybe I'll use the excuse of getting it for my wife's camera.

For me (12-35/2.8 and 35-100/2.8 and two m4/3 bodies), the 14-140 no longer made sense. The m4/3 bodies are so easy to carry that the single-lens 10x zoom solution really wasn't persuasive any more, but obviously YMMV.

 

[DHart]

I've been very impressed with the performance of the original version of this lens. This new version looks like an even better one-lens solution for someone wanting mild wide-angle to tele, with excellent IQ.

I just may replace my original version with this one, even though I don't tend to use the 14-140 very much... it's a good one to have available for a one-lens "tourist outing".

As jnewell mentioned, though, if one carries both the 12-35 and the 35-100, the need for the 14-140 is diminished.

 

[ejackso1]

No it is not, the 18-135 is 7.5X zoom (29-216mm), the 14-140mm is 10X zoom (28-280mm), it is similar to 18-200mm which is 11.1X (29-320mm)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 7.5x and 10x...

but yes, the way I figured it was that the 60D was a 1.6x crop and the GF1 is a 2x crop and thus:
18mm-135mm*1.6 = 28.8-216 35mm equiv
14mm-140mm*2.0 = 28-280 35mm equiv

so yeah, you're right, it does have a lot more reach and thus is more comparable to the Canon 18-200, but still has more reach than that as well. Such is usually is the case with :43:.

It's the same on the wide side was my point. I liked the Canon 18-135 for video because it was wide and also had some reach. This Panasonic is just as wide, but with even more reach, so that's even better. I can see it being great for video.

but as I said, it's out of my price range for now. I don't really need autofocus for video, so I'm pretty happy using adapters and old manual lenses for video.

 

[robbie36]

The Oly 14-150 was the first lens I bought for M43 and all I used for a couple of years.

At the end of the day though, I found that there was something rather 'unsatisfying' about the lens that became particularly evident when I tried the primes and better zooms. Somehow it is rather like driving a Camry, efficient, reliable but none too exciting.

 

[DHart]

My biggest quibble with this lens as a 1-lens solution is that 14mm isn't wide enough for me and 140 is generally longer than I need. My ideal 1-lens super zoom would have a focal length range of 12-100... or even a 12-80 would be great. Such a lens with the quality of Pany's 14-140 would definitely be a must buy for me.

 

[jnewell]

I also considered the cost, better option cost wise compared to buying the 12-35 and the 35-100 and you do get a tad longer range with the 14-140mm. Image quality won't match up to the 2.8 lenses ( pixel peeping ) but again cost is a lot less and you have a 1 lens option for traveling.
Just my two cents.

No disagreement with that at all - this is a question of pure personal preference. :smile:

 

[Luckypenguin]

My "two lens solution" for zooms has for a number of years been an UWA and something to compliment it with a bit of telephoto reach thrown in. On my Canons it was the Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 and the Canon 24-105mm f4 (an odd focal length range for APS-C but it worked perfectly well alongside the UWA). A superzoom like the 14-140mm is the only kind of lens in Micro 4/3 that gives a bit of telephoto reach alongside an UWA without leaving a big gap in between.

 

[peterpix]

I use my 14-140 for video As it gives a great range without having to change lenses. Not so good in low light at f4, but otherwise a great lens. Also hav e the Oly 14-150 and find that good travel lens. As others have mentioned, a 12-60 or so, 2.8-4, near quality of the 12-35 would seem to to be a winner. When I was a Canon ******, my fav lens was the 24-105. Don't have the Oly 12-50 but most people don't rate it highly, certainly not in the class of the 12-35.
All this lens talk is making my hear hurt. I'm going to Yellowstone next week and let my camera do the talking! Hope to get a few images to share.

 

[RoadTraveler]

My biggest quibble with this lens as a 1-lens solution is that 14mm isn't wide enough for me and 140 is generally longer than I need. My ideal 1-lens super zoom would have a focal length range of 12-100... or even a 12-80 would be great. Such a lens with the quality of Pany's 14-140 would definitely be a must buy for me.

I like the 12-100 and 12-80 ideas, particularly if they were a little faster than the 14-140.

 

[eljay]

I like the 12-100 and 12-80 ideas, particularly if they were a little faster than the 14-140.

I'd love to see a Panasonic 12-100mm F2.8-4! I think for $100 more than the new 14-140mm would be reasonable.