Trade out Panny 14-42Mk1 & 45-150 for a Panny 14-140 MkI?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Jason Stamper, Apr 1, 2015.

  1. Jason Stamper

    Jason Stamper Mu-43 Veteran

    Mar 13, 2014
    Hi everyone,
    I have a G5 and I am thinking of trading my kit Panny 14-42 MkI & my Panny 45-150 out for a 14-140 MkI. To be honest I almost exclusively use old Canon FD primes, they just speak to me more. However, on vacation when I just want to shoot snapshots with the family, and even get my wife to take some pictures with me in them, I need auto focus. On a recent trip to a certain HUGE house in Asheville I took only my 14-42 and my Canon 50mm f1.4. Outside the house the 14mm wide angle was great to get the entire house in the shot, but the 42mm end was lacking in isolating architectural details. I did not take the 45-150 because I knew it would be lacking in the wide end to get the entire house in the frame. Inside the house, um since you aren't supposed to take pictures, the Canon was the weapon of choice, it's FAST so no flash needed!

    I am thinking about when I want to travel light just being able to bring the one zoom lens that would cover most situations would be great. Then I could select one of my beloved Canon primes for fun. I am trying to be budget minded here as well so the 14-140 MkII is out, and I'll need to sell both other natives to afford the 14-140 MkI.

    I'd love to hear any thought, experience, sample photos, image quality, etc. you all may have on the situation and the 14-140 MkI lens. Oh and I don't care about the size/weight difference, I carry around mostly old Canon glass! Thanks in advance!
  2. DaveEP

    DaveEP Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Sep 20, 2014
    I have lots of different glass, some long, some wide, some fast, some not so fast. When I need to travel light on a walkabout with friends / family, especially on vacations I typically have either the 12-35 or the 14-140 mounted.

    Obviously the 14-140 is not as good for dark inside shots as a fast prime, but for walkabouts outside or for snap shots inside at higher ISO I really don't have a problem with it.

    If you're a pixel peeper then clearly there are better lenses at any focal length you choose but I gave up pixel peeping in favour of seeing the bigger picture a long time ago.

    If you're taking the photos for memories, for general viewing, for personal prints etc then I wouldn't worry about it at all, the 14-140 is a great lens. Image quality is good enough for the vast majority of shots unless you're looking for absolute fine detail.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    My 14-140mm Mk. 1 was basically glued to my camera for the 10 days I was in the Galapagos, except for a little bit of fun with the 7.5mm fisheye. In the conditions I was shooting, my 20mm/1.7 never even came out of the bag (until sitting in a cute cafe at the airport on the way home). It was a perfect travel lens.

    Is the ultimate image quality perfect? No. But if it's any wrose than from the 14-42mm Mk. 1 (which I'm not convinced it is), it's absolutely trivial. You might find it falls down a bit more at the long-end compared to the 45-150mm (which I've heard is really very good), but I think you'll also find that having that extra range in a convenient lens that's often on the camera means that in reality you'll take a lot more telephoto shots as a result. It's just liberating in its versatility. And if you can keep reasonable technique, the quality can still be very good. I find that even at the long end, the 14-140 can be pretty sharp at closer distances, but it falls off in shooting distant subjects.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. kingduct

    kingduct Mu-43 Veteran

    Oct 12, 2013
    I was in a similar situation, having a G5 with 14-42mm and 45-150mm (got the camera with both when on sale). I really just didn't like the 14-42mm much, because it was bulky and the zoom mechanism was jerky. On the other hand, I've been very happy with the 45-150mm.

    Rather than swap them out for a single zoom, I just replaced the 14-42mm with the Panasonic 14mm and 20mm pancakes (I also have a Sigma 60mm, but if you're happy with your Canon 50mm, I'd see no reason for you to get another portrait length lens). They are both small and both perform a lot better in lower light than the various zooms. Oh, and if your wife really isn't a photographer (mine isn't), a prime autofocus lens is the easiest to use.

    Another option for you in your budget range would be the Panasonic 12-32mm. I've never owned it nor seen it in person, but reports here have been positive and it would give you a slightly wider angle to work with.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. oldracer

    oldracer Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Oct 1, 2010
    I made exactly the decision you're considering after a trip to the Galapagos (with the 14-45 & 45-150) that involved too much lens changing and too many missed shots because the wrong lens was on the camera. I have never regretted the decision. I shot the Mk I for several years, upgrading to a Mk II last fall. Either one produces entirely acceptable images but I do like the lighter weight of the Mk II. My second-place favorite lens is the 9-18mm. After you buy your Mk I, I suggest that you start saving for that one.

    The shot you miss because you do not have the right lens on the camera is far inferior to the shot you get with a good super zoom. And the super zoom is probably lighter than the total of the two or three primes you'd have to carry to replace it.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  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.