1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

The newer 14-140 Lumix OIS Zoom vs the 14-45 kit Zoom and 45-150 Zoom

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Mohun, Jul 26, 2014.

  1. Mohun

    Mohun Mu-43 Regular

    Sep 19, 2012
    I have a relatively new GX7 and, GAS not withstanding, I don't plan "upgrading" any time soon. My very modest kit is the venerable but excellent IQ/operating value 14-45 OIS zoom (and it's functioned very well indeed as my general walk-around lens on two European holidays), and a new 15mm f/1.7 PL Summilux which so far has been splendid and is currently mounted on the GX7 as my default, i.e., "grab and go" lens.

    From time to time on a few outings, particularly to the zoo and other mostly outdoor activities, I'd like a little bit longer (than the 14-45) lens option, definitely an OIS Lumix, but not one of the several costly options.

    I've thought about the Lumix 45-150 which seems so far to be a good value for its IQ and price, but is not sold separately locally. I more and more prefer to buy locally than deal with the possible hassle that might be involved with any returns, shipping, etc even with a solid online retailer like B&H, from which I've purchased in the past and from which I continue to purchase smaller items like spare batteries an, especially, printer ink.

    I'm wondering if a sensible option for me would be to sell or trade in my 14-45 and substitute the newer 14-140 zoom for both my basic zoom and a 45-150 OIS zoom, or would I suffer an overall IQ and/or operational step backward in the 14-45mm range if made such a change?
  2. oldracer

    oldracer Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Oct 1, 2010
    That's what I did, though at the time the 2nd generation 14-140mm had not yet be introduced so I have a 1st gen.

    I had both the 14-45mm and the 45-150mm and what I found (as primarily a tourist photographer) is that the 45mm crossover point is very awkward and necessitated a lot of lens changing. As you have found out, 90mm (35mm equivalent) is not long enough for many outside situations, especially wildlife and birds. It is also, however, too long for the majority of outside shots. So you end up changing lenses frequently and missing shots besides. I sold my pair of lenses for more money than I had to pay for the 14-140mm, so the economics worked too. I have never regretted the decision. Now I often shoot two bodies, one with the 9-18mm and one with the 14-140mm. A pretty good tourist arsenal I think! :) 

    Re the 1st vs. the 2nd generation, my understanding from reviews is that performance is not much difference. So what you are paying for is the lighter weight, something I have not yet considered to be worth the money. I am waiting to see what the Tamron 14-14mm look like. Its weight is similar to the 2nd gen Panny, so if it has noticeably better sharpness I may consider it. With the IBIS in my GX7s I am not too concerned about the missing OIS. YMMV, of course.
  3. listers_nz

    listers_nz Mu-43 Veteran

    Nov 22, 2013
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    I haven't used the 14-45mm so I can't comment on its image quality vs the 14-140mm. However, when I bought my GX1 it came with the 14-42mm PZ and I bought a secondhand 45-150mm. I didn't really like the PZ at all - I found the placement of the zoom switch awkward, so I sold both lenses and bought the 2nd generation 14-140mm. It works for me. The 14-140mm is only slightly bigger than the 45-150mm so its not like I'm carrying any more kit around anyway (unless I take the other lenses I have since added, but that is another story :wink:)
  4. I had the 14-45mm and 14-140mm MkI concurrently and my reason for choosing to use the 14-45mm at any given time was for the size and weight saving, not sharpness. To be precise, the 14-45mm had sharper corners at 14mm only. My take on the 14-140mm MkII from reviews, etc is that it is, at worse, equal to the MkI optically.
  5. rklepper

    rklepper Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Dec 19, 2012
    Iowa, USA
    I have the 14-42 and I bought the 45-175 to go with it. It is a very capable kit under the right conditions.
  6. spdavies

    spdavies Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Apr 9, 2013
    I have both set-ups you are describing. The 14-140 is almost the same size as the 45-150.
    It is larger than the 14-45 but not by a lot.
    I always end up taking the 14-140.
    It is sharp, light, not that large, and the convenience seals the deal.
    I'm going to sell the other two lenses -
    (although I hate to part with the 14-45 - it's a beautiful classic and, I believe, the first m4/3 zoom lens).
  7. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Legend Subscribing Member

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    I owned a 14-42 II and 45-150, but ended up selling both of them to fund a 14-140 II, and I haven't regretted it one bit. The lens isn't much bigger or heavier than the 45-150, but you never have to change lenses and risk missing a shot.

    The 14-140 II is a fantastic lens, and I really can't fault it being a 10x, 3.5-5.6 zoom lens, the performance is quite good.
  8. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Legend

    Mar 21, 2014
    I only have the 14-140 Mk. 1, but for those times when I just want a grab-and-go camera for general shooting, I would never hesitate to pick the 1 lens solution instead of 2 kit zooms. The difference in quality between the 14-140 and the pair of alternative zooms will be trivial compared to the difference you'd get using a good prime lens. M4/3 has very nice superzooms, and it's a perfect opportunity to simplify your kit, in my opinion.
  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.