G1Shooter
Leading Member
LOL - let me see if I have this correct. Your 14-45 is a solid performer but you don't use your solid performer most of the time?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Panny 14-45 + 45-200 OR 14-140 ?
- Thread starter Lillefot
- Start date
He says he carries the lx3. If the LX3 covers the same focal lengths, so carrying that around sort of covers the 14-45's tasks, and only sacrifices subject isolation. A compact way to work two bodies.
--
'I have no responsibilities here whatsoever'
G1Shooter
Leading Member
Yes, that was understood. In fact, the LX3's range is greater - 12-60, and at F2.0-2.8, no less! I want exactly those same specs in a m4/3 OIS Lumix lens!
What I was referirng to was what I saw as the irony of rarely using his "strong performer" 14-45, but yet not willing to sell it.
Mingjai
Senior Member
I know exactly what he's saying. My everyday kit comprises of 20mm/1.7, 9-18mm, ZD 50mm/2, and, recently, the ZD 25mm/2.8. My 14-45mm stays at home, but I'm holding on to it because it offers great image quality in a lens that's stabilized and compact. I also have the 45-200mm which only gets used on the rare occasion that I need something longer than 50mm.
Back to the OP's question, my recommendation would depend on the amount he/she plans to use 45mm or longer focal lengths compared to 45mm or less. If the longer than 45mm is about as frequent as 45mm or less, then I'd recommend the 14-140mm for the convenience. If the 45mm or less range is expected to get more use, then I'd recommend the two lens solution, because the normal kit lens is very compact, while the other two lenses are pretty big.
G1Shooter
Leading Member
I guess I don't get it. Why hold on to it if you don't use it? And yes, the 14-45 is a geeat little lens, one which I use most of the time.
Well, I for one would be holding on to it bcs there's only so much an lx3 would do for you. It's a great lil' landscape cam, and an awesome pocket street cam. But when you want better subject isolation at those focal lengths...out pops the 14-45 f/2.8-3.5
--
'I have no responsibilities here whatsoever'
Mingjai
Senior Member
It's a kit lens, so its resale value used is probably about $150. At that price I'm willing to hang on to it for the instances that I want to take wide image stabilized shots. It also focuses faster than any of my other lenses, so when focus speed is a consideration, then I'll go with the kit lens. Finally, the lens is also good for travel because it's small and compact.
For $150, I'll keep it even though it sees limited daily use.
G1Shooter
Leading Member
I just sold one fo $250 and I only sold it because I had 2 of them. I use my 14-45 a lot for all the reasons many of you have stated.
G1Houston
Senior Member
So why don't you? The more lenses you have, for a given shoot, you have more choices. You need to ask when you must prioritize.Hello all,
Thanks for your interesting replies. It makes it even harder to choose -- I want them all AND the 9-18!
To me, if you must choose, the 14-45 + 45-200 combo and the single 14-140 is an either or kind of thing. The major question to you is: do you like to change lenses? In terms of reach, the difference between 200mm and 140mm is too small to justify the purchase of a second lens. Getting the 45-200 or the 14-140 is not just about "reach." The longer fl is very useful in blurring out background, which the 14-45 has more difficulty in achieving, in the absence o cheap fast lens that cover the 50-70mm range. Furthermore if you shoot videos, you will really appreciate the 14-140.
Thanks to all for your replies, really helpful. Your descriptions on how you use your micro4/3-gear is fun to read, it inspires me to go out shooting even more with my 20mm.
I decided to go for the split solution with 14-45 and 45-200. Since the quality seems pretty much equal, the solution that gives better pictures in low light "won".
Another advantage is I can split the expense, so my plan now is a 9-18 and the 45-200 first, and then I'll save up for a 14-45. I may even find out I don't miss those FL.
PS! One last question, as I prefer 14-45 to 14-42, does anybody know if Panny will stop selling the 14-45 and just go for the 14-42 due to cheaper production costs in the future?
I decided to go for the split solution with 14-45 and 45-200. Since the quality seems pretty much equal, the solution that gives better pictures in low light "won".
Another advantage is I can split the expense, so my plan now is a 9-18 and the 45-200 first, and then I'll save up for a 14-45. I may even find out I don't miss those FL.
PS! One last question, as I prefer 14-45 to 14-42, does anybody know if Panny will stop selling the 14-45 and just go for the 14-42 due to cheaper production costs in the future?
lester11
Leading Member
I may be a little late to the party (smile), but my experience might be helpful. My wife runs a G1 with both 14-45 and 45-200, I run a GH1 with 14-140. We photograph landscapes and flowers, and cheerfully hand over each other's camera as we see a shot we want to take and our camera doesn't seem to frame it well enough. Somehow, by the end of the day the GH1 with the 14-140 has taken 90% of the shots...
--
Lester
--
Lester
nilescrane
Active member
Can't help observing how in every post referring to a partner, the wife always has the cheaper option! Ok, same in my case, but I wonder why.....
Angular Mo
Senior Member
I agree 1005... I own the 45-200
Well, I would hypothesize that everyone dislikes changing lens.
To me, the critical secondary choice, beyond speed, which is shown in this post.... is that having the 14-140 single lens solution involves committing yorusefl to always having that weight, when the 20/1,7 is either not wide, nor long enough in the wide-to-short-tele range.
This is why I have the short tele, 20, and 45-200
--
'Photos are what remain when the memories are forgotten' - Angular Mo.
sean000
Veteran Member
I think that's a good approach. If I could have afforded to, I would have bought the 9-18mm before the 14-45mm. I already have ultrawide lenses (fisheye and 12-24mm) for my APS-C DSLR, and can't afford to duplicate that range right now. But when I shoot with my DSLR I often take the 12-24mm and the 80-200mm and a 35mm f/2. I usually don't miss not having a mid-range zoom. Well...I do have one for my DSLR, but I save it for event photography since it is a very heavy f/2.8 zoom. My ideal m4/3 kit would probably be the 9-18mm, 20mm f/1.7, and 45-200mm. Eventually I will get the 9-18mm and after that I might end up selling the 14-45mm. On the other hand the 14-45mm is extremely versatile when you want to take just one or two lenses with you. For me that is usually the 20mm and 14-45mm.
I don't know. I bought the 14-45mm not too long ago, after the 14-42 came out. The 14-45mm is still listed on Panasonic's website. There is no "discontinued" in the description, so perhaps they are going to produce both versions for awhile?
Sean
G1Shooter
Leading Member
It does, however, say backordered. B&H says out of stock. Amazon has them for sale from DependableResources but at $400! Better to buy a G1 kit if you can and sell off the body.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum