14-140mm to sell or to keep?

[g_r_w]

Don't get me wrong, for a 10x zoom, it is about as good as it gets, but I never use it.

It is supposed to be great for video, funnily enough I have been taking way more videos with my PL45?!

When I walk around, I'm inclined to go with primes than carry this thing. I am often worried about speed and to carry this around seems like dead weight.

So to sell or to keep?

I have to give it one last chance, maybe take it out for a day, but...

Am I missing out on a great lens, am I not giving it it's dues?

(I'm also looking towards fast zooms - please Pany don't let me down...)

 

[Jeremy_T]

Sounds as if you made up your mind. This lens sells used pretty well, get back some of that investment

I got it mainly for video, because I wanted a lens with IS. It makes a massive difference when shooting handheld versus non-IS lenses, and I'm really happy with that. I also wanted the superzoom so I would have one IS lens that covered most focal lengths; I didn't want to invest in multiple, stabilized lenses just for video.

You on the other hand already have IS on the kit zoom, and If you don't use the extra reach... then there's not much going for the superzoom. It's a great lens for what it is, but it's so dim that its uses are somewhat limited.

 

[jalywol]

Don't get me wrong, for a 10x zoom, it is about as good as it gets, but I never use it.

It is supposed to be great for video, funnily enough I have been taking way more videos with my PL45?!

When I walk around, I'm inclined to go with primes than carry this thing. I am often worried about speed and to carry this around seems like dead weight.

So to sell or to keep?

If you haven't used it and can't see needing it, then sell it. I bought the 20mm on advice from EVERYONE when I got my first M43 camera a year ago. I think I used it about three times; it was just simply not a focal length that I did anything at. Six months later I sold it, and have no regrets about so doing.

On the other hand, for me, the 14-140mm turned out to be my surprise lens...I bought the GH2 kit with it for a great price and planned to sell the lens. However, I decided to try it, and even though it is heavy, it became my go-to lens for nature and hiking photography. It does what I need it to and is very convenient for the types of shooting situations I find myself in. So, I kept it, and it is one of my favorite lenses.

Moral of the story: If you haven't used this lens and prefer to shoot with primes, then sell it and don't worry about it. You won't miss it if it doesn't match your style of shooting. Use the funds to buy other primes or equipment that suits your technique better.

-J

 

[jeffharris]

Don't get me wrong, for a 10x zoom, it is about as good as it gets, but I never use it.

It is supposed to be great for video, funnily enough I have been taking way more videos with my PL45?!

When I walk around, I'm inclined to go with primes than carry this thing. I am often worried about speed and to carry this around seems like dead weight.

So to sell or to keep?

I have to give it one last chance, maybe take it out for a day, but...

Am I missing out on a great lens, am I not giving it it's dues?

(I'm also looking towards fast zooms - please Pany don't let me down...)

The 14-140mm really is an excellent , flexible and versatile all-around lens. I got one with my GH2 kit. The focus is very fast , silent and accurate, so it's great for video, too.

Like you, I prefer fast primes, but the 14-140mm is a near-perfect general purpose travel lens... wide to telephoto and even some macro (with a close-up lens added) and especially for situations where I don't want to be swapping lenses a lot (OR annoying the hell out of my girlfriend. ;-)).

The thing is, travel or social situations are about the only time I use it, or my 20mm, the rest of the time they keep each other company and wait ... But I really DO count on it being there when I want it.

But really, if you're not using it, why not sell it and get something you WILL use. I've been teetering on the edge of ditching my 20mm for about the same reason. It sits most of the time and I don't really like to use it, especially compared to my Voigtländer 25mm. (it just ain't nowheres near the same) Besides, it would mostly cover the cost of a 100-300mm.

If you're STILL unsure, keep it on your camera for a week and see how you like using it and the results.

 

[tedolf]

Don't get me wrong, for a 10x zoom, it is about as good as it gets, but I never use it.

A super zoom on a large sensor camera really doesn't make much sense for most stills photopgraphers.

It is supposed to be great for video, funnily enough I have been taking way more videos with my PL45?!

Don't do much video except for skiing, and the 40-150 is cheaper, faster, lighter and has better IQ.

When I walk around, I'm inclined to go with primes than carry this thing. I am often worried about speed and to carry this around seems like dead weight.

It is dead weight.

There are some photographers who legitimately can't change lenses easily-very dusty/sandy environments, in a canoe (sp?), etc. where changing lenses would be risky, etc.

Other than that, it really doesn't make much sense, and is very expensive.

I always say, if you want a super zoom camera, buy a super zoom!

The smaller sensor will really help with the extra DOF you need at 300-500mm equivalent focal lenghts.

So to sell or to keep?

Sell

I have to give it one last chance, maybe take it out for a day, but...

Sell

Am I missing out on a great lens,

No

am I not giving it it's dues?

No, you shouldn't have bought it in the first place.

(I'm also looking towards fast zooms - please Pany don't let me down...)

Forget fast zooms.

U 4/3 is a prime lens system.

TEdolph

 

[g_r_w]

Ironically, social situations are the situations where I would least like to use it.

Of all the lenses I own it is the second most intimidating behind the 100-300 and let's face it, who would bring that to a party?!

 

[g_r_w]

In you inimitable style, you have made some valid points.

I usually shoot up to 90mm equivalent, the Oly or Pana 45 being the longest lens I generally carry.

As far as buying the lens in the first place, I was an early adopter of the GH2 so there was little choice.

I don't necessarily agree that the m43 is a prime system, it is probably currently best served by its primes, but a lot of users are still happy with the 14-45.

I think I could be happy with the 12-35 as a walkaround, it really depends on the individual. I used to be happy with a 5DMkII and the 24-70, but obviously the weight was in a different league (even the 14-140 is a clear step down in weight class). I also believe that it would double as a better video setup than the 5D2&2470 ever could.

 

[SF Photo Gal]

With my GH1, it's the primary lens I use, with the 20mm in my purse in case. I actually like the lens quite a bit. But if you've already found you're not using it, no point in keeping it.

For any other m4/3 camera tho, it's not a good fit. Never use it on my GF1. Most of the time I'm using the 20mm with the 45 in the purse, or the other way around.

Finding that my 14-45, 45-200, and my 14mm don't get much use.

SF Photo Gal aka Queer Chick
Canon 1DsIII & 5DII/Panasonic GH1-GF1-LX3

 

[forpetessake]

Don't get me wrong, for a 10x zoom, it is about as good as it gets, but I never use it.
Am I missing out on a great lens, am I not giving it it's dues?

Even if it were a great zoom (and it's not, it's actually quite mediocre beyond 40mm) if you don't use it, it only makes sense to sell it.

 

[forpetessake]

Don't get me wrong, for a 10x zoom, it is about as good as it gets, but I never use it.

It is supposed to be great for video, funnily enough I have been taking way more videos with my PL45?!

When I walk around, I'm inclined to go with primes than carry this thing. I am often worried about speed and to carry this around seems like dead weight.

So to sell or to keep?

If you haven't used it and can't see needing it, then sell it. I bought the 20mm on advice from EVERYONE when I got my first M43 camera a year ago. I think I used it about three times; it was just simply not a focal length that I did anything at. Six months later I sold it, and have no regrets about so doing.

That's exactly right. After checking the focal length of many of my pictures I found it might be under 5% of them could have been taken with 20mm lens. So that focal range is pretty much useless for me.

And just like the next guy I hate carrying a bag of lenses and changing them in the process, so I wouldn't want primes even if they covered every possible focal range.

 

[jeffharris]

Ironically, social situations are the situations where I would least like to use it.

Social as in picnics and things outdoors. Or hiking or walking on the beach. Friends and their kids visit and you go to Central Park. Daylight!

Of all the lenses I own it is the second most intimidating behind the 100-300 and let's face it, who would bring that to a party?!

At a party, it's the 20mm or the Voigtländer 25mm... usually not the 20mm.

 

[jtsmith]

Well, if you don't use it then how are you ever going to figure out if you like it?

I think a lot of people don't take the time to get "use to it" and therefore don't use it or end up not liking something based on initial reaction to not being familiar with it.

I love mine but then, that is all I got. LOL

I especially put the lens to the test this past weekend. Shuffling from stills to video, to wide to tele, to walking around shooting not so static video, to having ideal lighting to quickly not having ideal lighting conditions. I ended up liking it a lot because the more I used it the more I liked it and the more I realized I will use it extensively as I progress in building my lens arsenal. I know what I got and its limitations.

As far as the zoom, I started thinking in terms if I had a prime of the same focal length I was using, I stuck with that for the clip or the shot. I knew I had a 14mm and I knew I had a 140 mm and everything in between.

I know what it is like to wonder...my suggestion would be to use it a lot one day in various situations and then if you are not comfortable....uhm, sell it! That simple.

 

[YeoHoon Bae]

In your case, you obviously prefer primes so why keep 14-140?

For someone like me, I'm more inclined to carry a zoom (plus a small bright prime in case I need low-light shots and a Raynox) instead of multiple primes hence 14-140 would have been a nice choice. I use 14-150 now since I have an Oly body but you get the point.

90% of the shots I take are done on trail walks during the day and dusk. I really want that zoom flexibility without needing to change lenses a lot. 14-42 was too limiting.

 

[g_r_w]

If only I had a purse, life would be that much simpler...

Men don't seem to have portable accessories without appearing uncool.

My standard travel pack is a Crumpler, but that carries lenses and a laptop - need something smaller that isn't a typical camera bag.

Manbags and fanny packs are so... they just never were, put it that way.

 

[Blue Orca]

I on the other hand have used mine almost 90% of the time on my 2 year old GF-1. The remaning 10% has been with the 7-14.

Last summer I only had my GF-1 and the 14-140 with me on a 3 weeks vacation on the US/Canada east coast and that was all I need. I never missed my other lenses, well, may be the 7-14. This is going to change though. I just bought a 14-42X and expect it will steal a lot of time from the 14-140.

I tried to love my 20mm/1.7, but have found limited use with that lens. On the other hand, my 7-14 is just fun to shoot with, although I do have to be a tad more careful on distortion.

Blue

 

[papillon_65]

Don't get me wrong, for a 10x zoom, it is about as good as it gets, but I never use it.

A super zoom on a large sensor camera really doesn't make much sense for most stills photopgraphers.

If that was the case it wouldn't exist because no-one would buy it. It makes a lot of sense to me for certain types of shooting.

It is supposed to be great for video, funnily enough I have been taking way more videos with my PL45?!

Don't do much video except for skiing, and the 40-150 is cheaper, faster, lighter and has better IQ.

Not at 14-39mm it hasn't and you'd struggle to see any differences above that.

When I walk around, I'm inclined to go with primes than carry this thing. I am often worried about speed and to carry this around seems like dead weight.

It is dead weight.

It is if you don't use it but is carrying a selection of lenses as an alternative any more convenient?

There are some photographers who legitimately can't change lenses easily-very dusty/sandy environments, in a canoe (sp?), etc. where changing lenses would be risky, etc.

Other than that, it really doesn't make much sense, and is very expensive.

How about when you don't have time to change lenses, you want stepless aperture for video and when you are in the environments described above? It's also the fastest focusing m4/3's lens I've ever used and I've used a few.
What you meant to say was that it doesn't make sense for you .

I always say, if you want a super zoom camera, buy a super zoom!

I don't want another camera, especially one with a smaller sensor.

The smaller sensor will really help with the extra DOF you need at 300-500mm equivalent focal lenghts.

The 14-140mm doesn't cover those focal lengths (unless you use ETC mode if you have it).

So to sell or to keep?

Sell

I have to give it one last chance, maybe take it out for a day, but...

Sell

Am I missing out on a great lens,

No

You're only missing out if you need it. Is it a great lens? for what it is then yes, you won't find better for what it can do.

am I not giving it it's dues?

No you're not, but then if you don't use it for it's intended purpose then you won't know what it can do.

No, you shouldn't have bought it in the first place.

(I'm also looking towards fast zooms - please Pany don't let me down...)

Forget fast zooms.

U 4/3 is a prime lens system.

For you . It's different things for different people, it covers both normal zooms and primes for me and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

TEdolph

You're entitled to your opinion but this lens is vastly underestimated. What it gives you is fantastic flexibility for both video and stills, it's extremely sharp at certain focal lengths and sharp enough at its very worst. It has nice bokeh and the contrast, though variable, can be very nice. It is extremely well built and the af is blisteringly fast for an m4/3's lens. In ETC mode on the GH2 it can give you an effective range of 560mm with reduced resolution. On the GH2 it can also go wider than 14mm (28mm) in 16:9 aspect ratio, it's more like 25mm. It also has OIS with a switch on the lens itself, these are disappearing fast on the newer lenses. If I had to shoot with only one lens I would be happy with this one. In terms of the OP, if you don't use it then there is not much point keeping it. Personally I'll be keeping mine because when you want a one lens solution then this one can't be beat. Some examples so you see how versatile this lens is. Oh I forgot, even Kirk Tuck likes it and he's had a few lenses in his time .

140mm



114mm



14mm



118mm in ETC mode



108mm



32mm



--
It's a known fact that where there's tea there's hope.
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

 

[Jeremy_T]

Don't do much video except for skiing, and the 40-150 is cheaper, faster, lighter and has better IQ.

Unless you're using some form of physical stabilization, the 40-150mm will be problematic for video. And if the 40-150mm has "better IQ" than the 14-140mm, it's not in a meaningful enough way.

Of course it sounds as if the OP doesn't need 45-140+ stabilized, so the either the 40-150mm or the Panasonic X telephoto might make more sense for occasional use.

Personally, I'd rather carry the 14-140mm as the only zoom in my bag and use primes otherwise. It's kind of heavy, but it's not as big as people make it sound; it's still smaller than (e.g.) the 45-200mm. Carrying both the 14-45mm as well as a longer zoom seems like it would take up a needless amount of space for a very marginal benefit in brightness.

 

[tedolf]

I dont think we really disagree much on these specific points:

Don't get me wrong, for a 10x zoom, it is about as good as it gets, but I never use it.

A super zoom on a large sensor camera really doesn't make much sense for most stills photopgraphers.

If that was the case it wouldn't exist because no-one would buy it. It makes a lot of sense to me for certain types of shooting.

Actually, I don't think it sells that well.

I don't have the data but that is what I glean by reading these forums-it is very expensive.

It is supposed to be great for video, funnily enough I have been taking way more videos with my PL45?!

Don't do much video except for skiing, and the 40-150 is cheaper, faster, lighter and has better IQ.

Not at 14-39mm it hasn't and you'd struggle to see any differences above that.

Agreed. But the 40-150 only costs $99.00!

When I walk around, I'm inclined to go with primes than carry this thing. I am often worried about speed and to carry this around seems like dead weight.

It is dead weight.

It is if you don't use it but is carrying a selection of lenses as an alternative any more convenient?

There are some photographers who legitimately can't change lenses easily-very dusty/sandy environments, in a canoe (sp?), etc. where changing lenses would be risky, etc.

Other than that, it really doesn't make much sense, and is very expensive.

How about when you don't have time to change lenses, you want stepless aperture for video and when you are in the environments described above? It's also the fastest focusing m4/3's lens I've ever used and I've used a few.
What you meant to say was that it doesn't make sense for you .

I always say, if you want a super zoom camera, buy a super zoom!

I don't want another camera, especially one with a smaller sensor.

The smaller sensor will really help with the extra DOF you need at 300-500mm equivalent focal lenghts.

The 14-140mm doesn't cover those focal lengths (unless you use ETC mode if you have it).

So to sell or to keep?

Sell

I have to give it one last chance, maybe take it out for a day, but...

Sell

Am I missing out on a great lens,

No

You're only missing out if you need it. Is it a great lens? for what it is then yes, you won't find better for what it can do.

am I not giving it it's dues?

No you're not, but then if you don't use it for it's intended purpose then you won't know what it can do.

No, you shouldn't have bought it in the first place.

(I'm also looking towards fast zooms - please Pany don't let me down...)

Forget fast zooms.

U 4/3 is a prime lens system.

For you . It's different things for different people, it covers both normal zooms and primes for me and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

TEdolph

You're entitled to your opinion but this lens is vastly underestimated. What it gives you is fantastic flexibility for both video and stills, it's extremely sharp at certain focal lengths and sharp enough at its very worst.

I agree for video it is excellent.

It has nice bokeh and the contrast, though variable, can be very nice. It is extremely well built and the af is blisteringly fast for an m4/3's lens. In ETC mode on the GH2 it can give you an effective range of 560mm with reduced resolution. On the GH2 it can also go wider than 14mm (28mm) in 16:9 aspect ratio, it's more like 25mm. It also has OIS with a switch on the lens itself, these are disappearing fast on the newer lenses. If I had to shoot with only one lens I would be happy with this one. In terms of the OP, if you don't use it then there is not much point keeping it. Personally I'll be keeping mine because when you want a one lens solution then this one can't be beat. Some examples so you see how versatile this lens is. Oh I forgot, even Kirk Tuck likes it and he's had a few lenses in his time .

OK, no disagreement here.

140mm



114mm



14mm



118mm in ETC mode



108mm



32mm



--

super photo's !

It's a known fact that where there's tea there's hope.
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

tEdolph

 

[tedolf]

Don't do much video except for skiing, and the 40-150 is cheaper, faster, lighter and has better IQ.

Unless you're using some form of physical stabilization, the 40-150mm will be problematic for video. And if the 40-150mm has "better IQ" than the 14-140mm, it's not in a meaningful enough way.

Agreed, we use ski pole or hiking stick as makeshift monopod.

Of course it sounds as if the OP doesn't need 45-140+ stabilized, so the either the 40-150mm or the Panasonic X telephoto might make more sense for occasional use.

Personally, I'd rather carry the 14-140mm as the only zoom in my bag and use primes otherwise. It's kind of heavy, but it's not as big as people make it sound; it's still smaller than (e.g.) the 45-200mm. Carrying both the 14-45mm as well as a longer zoom seems like it would take up a needless amount of space for a very marginal benefit in brightness.

 

[papillon_65]

Don't get me wrong, for a 10x zoom, it is about as good as it gets, but I never use it.

A super zoom on a large sensor camera really doesn't make much sense for most stills photopgraphers.

If that was the case it wouldn't exist because no-one would buy it. It makes a lot of sense to me for certain types of shooting.

Actually, I don't think it sells that well.

I have no idea but I'm guessing it must do ok otherwise it would get pulled.

I don't have the data but that is what I glean by reading these forums-it is very expensive.

It isn't cheap but it is cheaper if you buy it as a kit with the GH2. For me the value is always in how much you use it. If you don't then it's expensive, if you use it a lot then it's a bargain. The most expensive lenses I've ever bought have been kit lenses that I never used.

It is supposed to be great for video, funnily enough I have been taking way more videos with my PL45?!

Don't do much video except for skiing, and the 40-150 is cheaper, faster, lighter and has better IQ.

Not at 14-39mm it hasn't and you'd struggle to see any differences above that.

Agreed. But the 40-150 only costs $99.00!

Not here it doesn't and if you need 14-39mm then it's a waste of money. I take your point though.

When I walk around, I'm inclined to go with primes than carry this thing. I am often worried about speed and to carry this around seems like dead weight.

It is dead weight.

It is if you don't use it but is carrying a selection of lenses as an alternative any more convenient?

There are some photographers who legitimately can't change lenses easily-very dusty/sandy environments, in a canoe (sp?), etc. where changing lenses would be risky, etc.

Other than that, it really doesn't make much sense, and is very expensive.

How about when you don't have time to change lenses, you want stepless aperture for video and when you are in the environments described above? It's also the fastest focusing m4/3's lens I've ever used and I've used a few.
What you meant to say was that it doesn't make sense for you .

I always say, if you want a super zoom camera, buy a super zoom!

I don't want another camera, especially one with a smaller sensor.

The smaller sensor will really help with the extra DOF you need at 300-500mm equivalent focal lenghts.

The 14-140mm doesn't cover those focal lengths (unless you use ETC mode if you have it).

So to sell or to keep?

Sell

I have to give it one last chance, maybe take it out for a day, but...

Sell

Am I missing out on a great lens,

No

You're only missing out if you need it. Is it a great lens? for what it is then yes, you won't find better for what it can do.

am I not giving it it's dues?

No you're not, but then if you don't use it for it's intended purpose then you won't know what it can do.

No, you shouldn't have bought it in the first place.

(I'm also looking towards fast zooms - please Pany don't let me down...)

Forget fast zooms.

U 4/3 is a prime lens system.

For you . It's different things for different people, it covers both normal zooms and primes for me and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

TEdolph

You're entitled to your opinion but this lens is vastly underestimated. What it gives you is fantastic flexibility for both video and stills, it's extremely sharp at certain focal lengths and sharp enough at its very worst.

I agree for video it is excellent.

For stills it's great also, especially if you don't want to change lenses. It's probably the most versatile m4/3's lens there is (I'd take it over the Oly 14-150mm because it has OIS so it can be stabilised on all m4/3's cameras).

It has nice bokeh and the contrast, though variable, can be very nice. It is extremely well built and the af is blisteringly fast for an m4/3's lens. In ETC mode on the GH2 it can give you an effective range of 560mm with reduced resolution. On the GH2 it can also go wider than 14mm (28mm) in 16:9 aspect ratio, it's more like 25mm. It also has OIS with a switch on the lens itself, these are disappearing fast on the newer lenses. If I had to shoot with only one lens I would be happy with this one. In terms of the OP, if you don't use it then there is not much point keeping it. Personally I'll be keeping mine because when you want a one lens solution then this one can't be beat. Some examples so you see how versatile this lens is. Oh I forgot, even Kirk Tuck likes it and he's had a few lenses in his time .

OK, no disagreement here.

snip

--

super photo's !

Thanks.

It's a known fact that where there's tea there's hope.
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/snip

tEdolph

--
It's a known fact that where there's tea there's hope.
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/