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

Which telezoom?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by scotttnz, Mar 10, 2012.

  1. scotttnz

    scotttnz Mu-43 Regular

    70
    Jan 16, 2012
    OK folks, please help me decide on a telezoom for my GX1.

    I've narrowed it down to the Panasonic 45-200, 45-175PZ, and 14-140.

    I'd like to stick with Panasonic as for this kind of focal length, I really want the IS, especially with the slow aperture of these lenses.

    I have the GX1 with 14-42PZ and 20 prime. After the telezoom I'll be looking for a longer prime, probably the Oly 45.
    My aims for moving to m4/3 were reducing the amount of $$ invested in camera gear, simplicity and portability, but that being said, my telezoom on my Canon 5D was a Sigma 120-300 f2.8, I could buy all 3 Panasonics and still have less $$, size and weight. I don't expect the same image quality that the 120-300 was capable of (It was magic! Fast, sharp, and really nice bokeh.) But image quality is one of my main concerns, particularly at the long end.

    I do like the idea of a superzoom, and the 14-140 by all accounts does not suffer the compromises of such a large range to the extent that superzooms for larger sensors do, but that is about twice the price of the 45-175 here in kiwiland, so I (and my CFO) would take some convincing. If the price was comparable that would be my prefered option. There is a used one for sale locally right now that I am quite tempted by.

    Enough rambling from me. I'd be really keen to hear the thoughts and opinions of people who have used these lenses. :smile:
     
  2. If you specifically want a telephoto lens and a telephoto lens only, it's hard to recommend the 14-140 over the 45-200 (I don't know about the 45-175). My 45-200 is no sharper than the 14-140, but it does offer the extra 60mm reach, and at 45mm the 45-200 can shoot at f/4 whereas the 14-140 is at f/5.3. Minimum focusing distance goes to the 14-140mm at 0.5m vs 1m. Build quality and operation of the two lenses is very similar.

    The 45-200mm is a better telephoto lens, but for versatility it can't touch the 14-140mm.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    I agree. If you want a telephoto, get a telephoto. You already have the standard range covered with both a zoom and a prime lens.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. robertro

    robertro Mu-43 Veteran

    223
    Apr 22, 2010
    I'd leaned the other way. The 14-140 is stunning in it's versatility, and is no larger than the 45-200. My experience is that if I'm willing to carry the 14-140, I no longer bother with the short zoom. In addition, the 14-140 is an excellent video lens and, with the 20 makes a super travel kit. The only reason I'd select the 45-200 is if the extra speed at 40mm made a difference to what I shot or if you shot primarily extreme telephoto.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. scotttnz

    scotttnz Mu-43 Regular

    70
    Jan 16, 2012
    Thanks for the comments guys. If I got the 14-140 i'd keep the 14-42 as my go anywhere pocketable general purpose lens I think, but maybe the 20 could do that job?
     
  6. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    Yup, the 20mm is a great general-purpose lens. I wouldn't bother with the kit zoom. You're not gaining enough in focal range with the 14-42mm, which couldn't be achieved by just a few steps forward or backwards using the 20mm prime... so why sacrifice your lens speed, portability, and sharpness for that? The super-zoom at least will offer you a significant zoom range which couldn't be achieved with just your feet.
     
  7. shnitz

    shnitz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    989
    Aug 25, 2011
    Austin, TX
    The 14-140 is a superzoom and does not compare favorably to a dedicated telephoto lens. This is true for nearly every superzoom, no matter the system. More often than not, the less the zoom range, the greater the performance.

    As to whether a particular lens can function as one's only lens for general shooting, only you can answer that question. Some photographers could survive with nothing more than a 12mm or 14mm on their camera 99% of the time. You need to zoom your 14-42mm to 20mm and walk around for half an hour shooting some scenes, seeing if you can live with it. I can say however, that historically since the beginning of photography, a very large proportion of photographers were able to get by with nothing more than the normal lens that originally came with their camera.
     
  8. zpierce

    zpierce Super Moderator

    661
    Sep 26, 2010
    Minneapolis, MN
    Zach
    I loved my 14-140, but after I got my primes (14, 25, 45), I rarely use it anymore. It was good quality, but it doesn't come close to the primes. I use the 25 most of the time, and the 45 for portraits and such. I rarely pull out the 14, so yes, I think I could pretty easily live with my 25 (or the 20) for most stuff.

    I have a 100-300 as well. When I want to go telephoto, I pull that out. I previously had a 45-200, it was mediocre, but good value for the $$s. It was quite soft at 200, but pretty good from 45-100. I think my 14-140 is quite a bit sharper across the range. I didn't like having the 14-45 and 45-200 combo, I was always swapping. If you want to carry 1 lens, the 14-140 is great. 140-200 was pretty crummy on my 45-200 so I didn't miss it. I may have had a bad copy of the 45-200, others seem to have had better luck on the forum with that lens than I did.
     
  9. zpierce

    zpierce Super Moderator

    661
    Sep 26, 2010
    Minneapolis, MN
    Zach
    In general I agree, but in this case, I found the 14-140 to be better than the 45-200 where they overlap. I also looked at a lot of superzooms for various systems, and most had some pretty serious flaws. However, I agree with the OP, the 14-140 did seem to rise above many of the others in its class.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. sprinke

    sprinke Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 5, 2011
    Pasadena, CA
    Debi
    The 14-140mm was the first lens I got, and the only one I had for quite some time. Since then, I've added the 20mm and the 45mm, both excellent primes that I love for their own qualities. But if I'm going somewhere outdoors and I know I won't need the wide apertures of the 20mm and the 45mm, and I don't know what shooting opportunities might present themselves, I always bring the 14-140mm. Its versatility has served me well.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. sin77

    sin77 Mu-43 Veteran

    243
    Dec 9, 2011
    Singapore
    Too bad 35-100 f2.8 and 75 f1.8 are not out yet. Otherwise I would say go for any of them.

    For you info, I bought a 45-175x because of the price, small size and lightweight.

    But nowadays, I rather use 2x ex tele conv on my 45 f2.8 than to use the 45-175x. Hence my 45-175x becomes a waste of money!

    Right now I am just waiting for 12-35x, 35-100x and 75 f1.8 to launch.
     
  12. sin77

    sin77 Mu-43 Veteran

    243
    Dec 9, 2011
    Singapore
    I bought a second body instead of a 14-140 lens for versatility. But this is provided that the 2nd body can be easily/rapidly accessible from the bag or being slung on your body.
     
  13. scotttnz

    scotttnz Mu-43 Regular

    70
    Jan 16, 2012
    I had a 70-200 f2.8 on my 5D, but I always found it a little bit short, which is why I got the 120-300 f2.8. I also had a 1.4TC but didn't use that often. Fast zooms is definately what is missing from the m4/3 line up currently, though, and I guess thats why I'm having a hard time making this decision. There just isn't a telezoom that I really like the look of. I think my ideal lens would be something like a high quality 45-150 with constant f4. Fastish, but should still be a reasonable size at weight.

    A second body isnt on the cards for me at the moment. My reasoning for m4/3 was that I will take it with me, where I wouldn't take the 5D. I wouldn't take 2 bodies very often. I may get a second body at some stage, but I'm concentrating of getting a good basic set of lenses currently. (The CFO wouldn't approve either!)
     
  14. oldracer

    oldracer Mu-43 All-Pro

    Oct 1, 2010
    USA
    I'll add a vote for the 14-140mm. I had the 14-45 and the 45-200, sold 'em both and got the 14-140mm. I have never looked back.

    Yes, it is bigger and heavier than either, but not bigger and heavier than both. It also costs about the same as the two together. I actually turned a small profit when I sold the two to buy the one.

    I am off in a few minutes to shoot a nephew's gymnastics meet with a single body and the 14-140mm. I expect to use the entire range. I'll be using a flash for fill and I have only one flash so in this case two bodies would not be much of a help.

    If money's the issue, sell the 14-42. Yes, it's a nice compact lens but maybe you don't want to tie up the money in "nice," especially when you have the 20.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    You'd be surprised how small a crevice the E-PM1 can be fit into as a second body. ;) That's not easy on the budget though...
     
  16. acercanto

    acercanto Mu-43 Regular

    107
    Apr 15, 2011
    SW VA, USA
    I currently have the 45-200, and a Vivitar 28mm f2.5 (to be replaced tomorrow with a 20 1.7 :whoo:), and I don't find myself wishing I had something to fill the gap. The only thing I don't like about the 45-200 is that it's not very bright, and the vignetting can be a bit much.

    I would go for the 45-200.

    Acer
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. scotttnz

    scotttnz Mu-43 Regular

    70
    Jan 16, 2012
    Thank you all for your comments. Opinions seem pretty evenly split between the 45-200 and 14-140. Anyone tried the 45-175? Does it still have the "doubling" issue I have read about? or has this been fixed in firmware?
     
  18. scotttnz

    scotttnz Mu-43 Regular

    70
    Jan 16, 2012
    Decision made. I picked up a 45-200 this morning. Basically it came down to the fact that I can could get a 45-200 and a Oly 45 for less than the cost of the a 14-140. And its cheap enough that if I don't like it, or something else comes out that I like more, I can sell it and not take much of a loss.

    Thanks everyone for your input!
     
  19. Danny_SWE

    Danny_SWE Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 30, 2013
    Sweden (Gothenburg)