Want to replace my 14-45mm G Vario with a longer-range lens

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by sooper, Jun 29, 2013.

  1. sooper

    sooper Mu-43 Regular

    Jun 17, 2012
    I've never really use my 14-45mm that much and when I do I'm not too happy with the results when shooting between 25-45mm. I have the 20mm pancake lens and that suits me just fine in most cases. But there are times when I want to get a considerably closer shot of an object (such as wildlife, kids sitting on the grass from a distance, etc. etc.).

    I've searched for others and have found these panasonic lenses:
    1. 45-200mm, F4.0-5.6
    2. 100-300mm, F4.0-5.6
    3. 45-175mm, F4.0-5.6
    4. 14-140mm, F4.0-5.8
    5. 45-150mm f4.0-5.6

    I'm not too sure about no. 2 as I'd like the widest to start between 14-50mm. I'm looking for a lens that is reasonably fast, works well in low light and produces crisp photos with nice detail and bokeh when fully zoomed in.

    Oh, and I'm using a Pany G3.

  2. DHart

    DHart Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 7, 2010
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    The 14-140, though a fairly bulky lens, is exceptionally capable with very good image quality. The OIS in this lens is remarkable. I've used it at full 140mm extension, hand held, at 1/15th with crispy results - quite amazing. This is a versatile, very capable lens.

    And it has recently been redesigned, with a slightly lower price now... well worth checking out for what you describe.
  3. sooper

    sooper Mu-43 Regular

    Jun 17, 2012
    Any differences in IQ between the old and new one? BTW I just added one more lens (no. 5).
  4. Steven

    Steven Mu-43 All-Pro

    May 25, 2012
    ehh, these are all different lenses. None of them will do well in low light, like your 20mm lens.
    14-140 is a do it all superzoom, 100-300 is a long telephoto zoom, and the others are midrange telephotos. They all get decent reviews, you just need to decide what range you need.
  5. Roger.Cavanagh

    Roger.Cavanagh Mu-43 Rookie

    Jan 31, 2013
    London, UK
    Roger Cavanagh
    I have owned the (1) 45-200 and (4) 14-140, and currently own (2) 100-300. (1) is not a great lens, in my view: slow and lacking in IQ (but cheap). (4) is a very decent lens. I bought it with my first MFT camera (PEN) when not much was around. At the same time, I bought the P7-14. I have recently upgraded my lens collection and added not only the 100-300, but also the 12-35 and 35-100. That's why the 14-140 became redundant, but it was replaced at much greater expense with 3 lenses. I would suggest you go for the 14-140. If that doesn't always give the reach you need, save up to ADD the 100-300.

  6. Replytoken

    Replytoken Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 7, 2012
    Puget Sound
    Just curious, what do you not like about the images from your 14-45? It generally has a reputation as being one of the best kit zoom lenses designed in any format.

  7. In their overlapping range I don't find the 14-45mm to be better than the 14-140mm superzoom, excepting maybe sharper corners at the widest angle focal length. The 14-140mm then has that extra 95mm of zoom to play with although resolution drops off as you approach 140mm. The big drawback of the 14-140mm is size and weight, although this has been reduced in the new version that was just recently announced.
  8. huai

    huai Mu-43 Regular

    May 24, 2013
    The IQ on these is similar. I went for a panny 45-175 for portability reasons.
    45-150 is roughly 200 grams, close in size to your kit lens and expands when zooming. Can be had around $200 on sale.
    45-175 is roughly 200 grams, a tad taller but skinnier than the kit kens, internal zoom. Can be had around $300 on sale.
    45-200 is roughly 400 grams, about twice the size of the other 2 extends when zooms, can be had for low $200s.
    14-140 is roughly 500 grams, bigger yet than the 45-200, can be had around $600. Also extends when zooms.
    100-300 is also a beast of a lens, similar in dimensions, weight, and price to the 14-140.

    After trying all of these in store on an e-m5 without a grp, I found the last 3 to be too long and heavy to handle comfortably for my taste. What's the point of having a compact camera if you strap a lens to it bigger and heavier than the body?

    I paid the premium for the 175 over the 150 for the extra reach, smallest size when zoomed in due to internal zoom, and the nano coating to reduce flare. I pair it with a 20mm prime for a compact light kit.
  9. None of the lenses listed will meet these needs... especially for low light.

    From my point of view, you have three choices

    * Bag full of primes. We are lucky, micro 4/3rds has a lot of them to choose from.

    * 12-35mm, 35-100mm

    * Or any combination of the two. 12-35mm + 75mm seems to be popular (except there is no IS for the 75mm on your body). I surmise that if you find yourself shooting longish, your 20mm plus the 35-100mm is also an option.

    PS> 200-600mm equiv FOV would be a bit long for shooting photos of your children.

    After that, then decide what you want for "wildlife" (whatever that means to you). If you shoot birds, you have pretty much two choices:

    * Adapt a telephoto lens. m42, FD, K, etc mounts plus adapter.

    * 100-300mm

    In general, the longer the zoom range the IQ is compromised. Give and take... single do it all lens has to come with some compromises.