1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Super zooms.

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by boatman37210, Mar 7, 2015.

  1. boatman37210

    boatman37210 Mu-43 Regular

    103
    Jun 28, 2012
    Thailand
    Presently I'm using a Pan 14-45 and a Oly 40-150 to cover that focal range. Thinking about switching to one lens either the 14-140 or the 14-150. If their equally as good, fine, but do not want to take a step back.

    Any thoughts? Thanks.
     
  2. usayit

    usayit Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Of course this is a generalization but I generally find the longer the focal range in a single package the quality is often the compromise.
     
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  3. mistermark

    mistermark Mu-43 Regular

    105
    Oct 16, 2012
    The original Panasonic 14-140 was pretty good up to 70mm, with performance falling away fairly quickly above that level. By 140mm I would describe it as unacceptable - I would rather zoom out then crop in PP.

    The new Panasonic 14-140 is in my view astonishingly good by superzoom standards. Yes, there's some distortion, chromatic aberration and vignetting at some focal lengths, but these are fixed automatically in most PP packages. That aside, I've been very impressed by the performance - excellent resolution of details.

    Unfortunately I have no experience of the first and most recent versions of the Zuiko 14-150. Some people have said that the original was slightly better than the first Panasonic but nowhere near as good as the second. Early indications are that if the mk2's performance is improved, it's only marginally so: the optical construction is the same but the coatings are improved, so there may be less flare and chromatic aberration, but resolution and contrast are unlikely to be much different.
     
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  4. listers_nz

    listers_nz Mu-43 Veteran

    256
    Nov 22, 2013
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    Simon
    I did something similar, changing my original kit lens, the Panasonic 14-42mm PZ (I was never comfortable with the location of the power zoom switch) and the Panasonic 45-150mm for the Panasonic 14-140mm f3.5-5.6, i.e. the new version, and I haven't regretted it. The showcase thread https://www.mu-43.com/threads/52029/ has some pretty good examples.
     
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  5. arch stanton

    arch stanton Mu-43 Veteran

    414
    Feb 25, 2012
    London
    Malc
    If you don't already own a "fast" lens like the 45's/25's/20/17 primes I'd recommend getting one to get you something that expands the range of shots you can take.
    I did the same a few years back (superzoom lens to avoid changes), and it's useful - but adding something really sharp and fast will let you do more than swapping around what you already have :)
    The joy of this format is you can fit 2 lenses in one hand! Or 2 bodies in one bag ;)

    Quality is broadly similar between superzoom vs what you have...though the 14-45 is a great lens!
     
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  6. alex66

    alex66 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    715
    Jul 23, 2010
    I have the original Panasonic14-140, as a lens its good especially good in its class but I prefer to use the 12-32 to walk around with. If you want a good convenient lens you can not go wrong with it as long as you do not expect pro level IQ, it is better in my view than the Nikon 18-200 and the Tamron Sigma 18-200 ones by a fair margin. Buy a used one if you fancy trying and see if it works for you, if it does not it should be sellable for more or less the same money.
     
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  7. LarryL

    LarryL Mu-43 Regular

    34
    Feb 6, 2014
    I'm in the same dilema. I want a wide range walk around. I already have the 12-40 2.8 and love it but would like more range when just hiking around or site seeing. I will probably go with the new Oly 14-150 because it is weather sealed as is my M1. I have a very early version of the 14-140 and frankly it sucks but works for snaps.
     
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  8. boatman37210

    boatman37210 Mu-43 Regular

    103
    Jun 28, 2012
    Thailand
    That is how I am thinking now. I have the Pan 14 and the Oly 25 and 45, but prefer the 25. I may give the Oly 17 a try. If I can get a decent super zoom and carry the 25 along for low light situations that would pretty much do it for me.

    I really like the Pan 14-45. If I could get a super zoom that could give me the same IQ, I would be happy.
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2015
    • Like Like x 1
  9. arch stanton

    arch stanton Mu-43 Veteran

    414
    Feb 25, 2012
    London
    Malc
    *Very* similar situation to me! I really did like the convenience of the Oly 14-150, think the Pan 14-140 has a better reputation though.
    For quick travel shooting or beach/outdoor activities they're great (no risky changes!)

    I think adding the 9-18 and samyang 7.5mm is what made me give up on the superzoom - it's just not possible to cover wide and tele 'properly', and I love both!

    I had the Pan 20mm and traded it for the Oly 17/1.8 - which is never leaving my kit, great lens!

    Last year I bought the Pan 35-100/2.8, paired with the 14-45 I really enjoyed this combo...then added the 9-18.

    My small kit is now the 17mmm and 45mm.

    My one big tip - buy used if you can! It takes ages to find the combination of lenses that fits you...but you don't loose much reselling a used lens.
     
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  10. MadMarco

    MadMarco Mu-43 Veteran

    298
    Oct 30, 2014
    Guildford, England
    I have the original Olympus 14-150 which lived on my E-PL2 for 18 months before I sold the E-PL2 for a Canon DSLR setup (with hindsight this was a big mistake).

    I rate the image quality to be better that the standard kit lenses (especially the EZ) although it's clearly not going to be as good at the 12-40 Pro or any of the primes. If you have reasonable expectations of what the output is going to be like, then you are unlikely to be disappointed. Add to this that the AF with the E-M10 is both quick and quiet, there isn't really much of a negative except for the price.
     
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  11. boatman37210

    boatman37210 Mu-43 Regular

    103
    Jun 28, 2012
    Thailand
    In another thread I referenced a review by ePhotozine that gave the original 14-150 a 4 star recommend rating. The MTF numbers they were showing were extremely good at 14, 45, and 150mm. The 14 and 45 numbers were off the chart. The 150 numbers while not off the chart were in the excellent category. Yet in most other reviews it's not held in very high regard.

    I purchased a used EM5 about 6 months ago and the seller ask me what lenses I had. I have 3 primes and 3 zooms. Of those lenses he only commented on one and that was my Pan 14-45. His comment was “Now there's a lens.” He comes from many years of shooting full format and switching to m43 when it came along. He was selling his EM5 in order to buy the new EM1and the 12-40. He later sent me a comparison shot between the 14-45 and the 12-40. The 12-40 had a clear edge. For me though the 14-45 is “good enough”.

    A few days ago I had the chance to buy a refurb off of eBay at $339. There were two and yesterday they were gone. Should have pulled the trigger at that price.

    Most web sites are saying that the new 14-150 changes are cosmetic. But one site is saying there are element changes. I may wait and see how the reviews are before buying. Not that I relish paying $600. Most likely if I get another chance at a refurb original I will pull the trigger this time.
     
  12. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    I just got home from the Galapagos, and my 14-140 was almost glued to my GX7 for the 10 days I was there. My girlfriend almost exclusively used her 55-200mm (on APS-C), and just didn't bother with the wide angles. Having the flexibility is a huge advantage. With wildlife, being able to jump out to 140mm in a second means that I actually get the shot, even if it's not optical perfection.

    It's noticeably softer at 140mm, but I find that that is mainly true for distant objects, and it's hard to tell how much of that is simply challenging shooting conditions as well. The bird-in-flight photos I took of frigate birds are always going to be harder to get good results from compared to the tack-sharp results I have of finches and iguanas at close range (but still 140mm).

    I haven't had much chance to fully triage my photos. While I'm sure I could get better results (especially at 100%) with a higher-end lens, I think I would really have to step up to the f2.8 zooms (or the 100-300) in order to get appreciably better results. Given that my version 1 14-140 cost me $350 CDN used (and just $260 after selling my 14-42), I'd say it's hard to beat the value for a versatile walk-around lens.
     
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  13. uberzone

    uberzone Mu-43 Rookie

    21
    Jan 27, 2014
    I must have been super lucky because my copy of the first gen 14-140 is really nice throughout the whole zoom range. If I were to buy again today I would definitely pick up the second version though. It is smaller, slightly brighter and I've heard nothing but good things about it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  14. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    Yes, the version 2 appeals to me, if only because it weighs 200g less. That's really tempting when carrying a camera on your shoulder all day long...
     
  15. oldracer

    oldracer Mu-43 All-Pro

    Oct 1, 2010
    USA
    For me, the primary issue is not sharpness. It is, when shooting one body, the fact that the 45mm changeover point is awkward for the tourist type photography I normally do. In my case it was the Panny 14-45 and 45-150. Particularly outdoors, 45 is often not long enough and it is also often too long. After a trip to the Galapagos that entailed way too much lens changing and many missed shots I sold the pair and bought an original 14-140mm. The transactions left me with money to spare.

    That 14-140mm served me well but last fall I sold it and bought the Version 2. I am in love all over again. The lighter weight is a huge improvement and it seems to be a little sharper as well. On traveling days where I am serious about taking pictures, one GX7 body carries either the 9-18mm or the 100-300m while, like Turbofrog, my 14-140mm remains glued to the other GX7. Other (1 body) days I carry the 14-140mm, occasionally with the tiny 9-18mm in my pocket.

    Regarding sharpness and pixel peeping, my belief is that a shot I got because I could zoom close enough is far superior to a shot that I couldn't get because I had the wrong lens on the camera. Being able to go the "super" distance with one lens is invaluable when traveling.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  16. Levster

    Levster Mu-43 Top Veteran

    I own the Tamron 14-150mm and I like this lens a lot. I like the quality of my primes but I can't beat having a super zoom for those tourist moments!
     
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  17. twokatmew

    twokatmew Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 1, 2012
    Lansing, MI, US
    Margaret
    I've ended up with the P14, O17/1.8, O25 and O45. For convenience, I got myself a P14-42 II that I *really* like for outdoor work. I also have a P45-150 that I tested but have never used. So I just got myself a P14-140 II, and I'm going to try that out. I was just thinking that this and the O25 would make a really nice, small kit.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  18. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    Yes, between the 14-140, 20mm/1.7, and 7.5mm fisheye, there's almost nothing that I can't do from a general photography point of view. My Vivitar 55mm/2.8 Macro is the next lens that tags along.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. oldracer

    oldracer Mu-43 All-Pro

    Oct 1, 2010
    USA
    That's very interesting. I really wanted to consider that lens before I committed to upgrading from my Mk. 1 to a Mk. 2 last fall, but there didn't seem to be any published tests and despite having been announced a year or more before there didn't seem to be any actually for sale here in the US.

    So, how did you decide on it vs the Mk. 2? IIRC weight, price, size, etc. are all close to identical to the Mk. 2 except that it is missing stabilization. Are you shooting it on an Oly body?
     
  20. gr6825

    gr6825 Mu-43 Veteran

    277
    Oct 10, 2012
    I have never used the 14-140mm but I think this is a tall order. It sounds like the 14-140 is reasonably well regarded, but it is not a high-end lens. The 14-45mm is great, as you should know already. It is hard to believe you can go from a good 3x lens to a 10x lens without sacrificing optical quality. The reason to get a "superzoom" should be the focal range - as several commenters have touched upon.