14-42 + 40-150 + $$ for 14-140 or 14-150

I have the 14-42 and 40-150 coupled with my G5.

Wondering if anyone has sold off these two and moved to the Panny 14-140 or the Oly 14-150. My main motivation would be convenience of the 10x as an everyday walkaround lens, one lens left on vs two and having to change.

Any perspectives on image quality would be appreciated. Also is the $680/$600 simply the price of convenience or is a better lens too?

Thanks

brad

bradevans said:

bradevans wrote:

I have the 14-42 and 40-150 coupled with my G5.

Wondering if anyone has sold off these two and moved to the Panny 14-140 or the Oly 14-150. My main motivation would be convenience of the 10x as an everyday walkaround lens, one lens left on vs two and having to change.

Any perspectives on image quality would be appreciated.

Click to expand...

Image quality usually a bit better with separate kit lenses, but not amazingly different to the superzooms.

bradevans said:

Also is the $680/$600 simply the price of convenience or is a better lens too?

Click to expand...

You pay for the convenience, the 14-140mm class of lens makes a great fuss-free travel lens.

The main consideration is that you have a G5 and that definitely needs to use the OIS in the lens when you get to tele focal lengths.

In my case I use an Oly E-PL5, sometimes with the Oly 14-150mm and use the body IBIS if needed, or mostly now I use the Pana 14-45mm and 45-150mm lenses for better quality and the E-PL5 ability to use the OIS of the unswitched 45-150mm lens. That is probably the best combination of kit lenses to use for either Pana or Oly as long as the Oly body can use the OIS of the 45-150mm.

The new Panasonic 14-140mm (smaller and lighter and cheaper? than the old one) is the obvious superzoom lens for you to evaluate. Forget the Olympus 14-150mm as the lack of stabilisation will leave you with shaky shots as the light gets less than good daylight. You need a minimum of 1/300 sec for 150mm if your handholding ability is good and there happens to be no stabilisation, but with OIS (or Oly IBIS) that falls to maybe 1/30 second as the slowest hand held speed, and that often happens in overcast situation or in shadow areas.

Regards...... Guy

From the numbers and sample images on photozone I would not recommend either lens.

Making a decent superzoom is pretty hard. I had the Canon 18-200IS before (on my 450D) and that was at pretty good at f/8 at pretty much all focal lengths. The m43 superzooms seem to have pretty bad performance at the long end.

And since you would need the Panasonic to get OIS you should check out Photozone to discover that this lens gives pretty strong vignetting at all focal lengths, unlike most other lenses that would only do that at the wide end.

All in all I'm not thrilled about the superzooms for m43 and would recommend keeping separate lenses for better image quality.

I bought the double zoom e-pl2 (14-42 & 40-150) and found that at a carnavalparade I missed shots becaurse I had to change lenses. (switching from groups to details and back) Also on schooltrips I sometimes had to choose what photo to take. So I bought a refurbished 14-150. That works fine for me. It is my main walkaround lens when on vacation or on a schooltrip. (or on a windy beach where I don't want to change lenses) The 40-150 is sold and the 14-42 is on my wife's e-pm1 now.

For candid shots of pupils and the kids it is ok. But you will have to consider it's limitations. Read some reviews, look at samples (on flickr for example) and if you want a specific kind of picture as an example send me a p.m.

bradevans said:

bradevans wrote:

I have the 14-42 and 40-150 coupled with my G5.

Wondering if anyone has sold off these two and moved to the Panny 14-140 or the Oly 14-150. My main motivation would be convenience of the 10x as an everyday walkaround lens, one lens left on vs two and having to change.

Any perspectives on image quality would be appreciated. Also is the $680/$600 simply the price of convenience or is a better lens too?

Thanks

brad

Click to expand...

For travel, that has been by preferred set up, with a 20 mm for low light work. The 14-140 is a very slow lens, but very convenient in most respects. You do not get the ultimate sharpness, by any means, but you do get shot. I have found that unless you have two bodies, switching between the 14-45 and 45-200 in my case causes missed shots, or decisions not to take certain shots.

The shots are for me, and not for publication or anything else, so I accept the loss of image quality for a compact, simple kit.

bradevans said:

bradevans wrote:

I have the 14-42 and 40-150 coupled with my G5.

Wondering if anyone has sold off these two and moved to the Panny 14-140 or the Oly 14-150. My main motivation would be convenience of the 10x as an everyday walkaround lens, one lens left on vs two and having to change.

Any perspectives on image quality would be appreciated. Also is the $680/$600 simply the price of convenience or is a better lens too?

Click to expand...

I have not owned the 14-140 but have been considering the newer version.

It's hard to find particularly usable technical comparisons, but the summary seems to be that it's about as good as the kit lenses. It has a bit more vignetting and CA but those are easily corrected (automatically, even, on a Panasonic body). Also, the Power OIS on the 14-140 should provide better stabilization than the Mega OIS on the kit lenses.

(Note that the older version gets somewhat badly soft in the corners/edges towards the long end. It also only has Mega OIS and is bigger and heavier. I'd say you want to avoid it versus the new version unless you get an exceptional deal.)

So the price really is mostly for the convenience, but that is worth something. After all, convenience is basically the point of zooms and a superzoom gives you, well, super convenience ;-). Consider, if you will, that you are recording a performance and from your seat capturing most of the stage would require ~30mm and a close up of an actor would require ~80mm. That splits your zoom range so you might as well just put on the 45mm prime and get what you can. Also, note that the 14-140 is only a little larger and heavier than the 45-150, so it's a decent savings over a two lens kit.

Is it worth it? Eh... It's ultimately pretty style dependent. Personally, I tend to walk around with a prime because the better quality and speed more than make up for the missed shots due to lack of zoom, so I'd rather put the money towards something that offers more than more flexible zooming.

If (slow) zooms are more your style, though, it would be a good investment. However, it sounds like you only have the dual lens kit thus far... I would therefore recommend getting a prime like the 20mm f/1.7 to see how much you like primes vs zooms. It's a great little lens and quite cheap used on eBay right now, which means you wouldn't lose a lot if you wanted to sell it later. Certainly the superzoom would remain a handy tool regardless of how you feel about primes, but if you do enjoy prime shooting you may want to save the money and keep the kit zooms.

Thanks to all for their input - great stuff.

At present I can fit all my gear in this mini backpack style bag


G5 14-42 14pancake Oly45 Oly40-150 Panny 100-300 Rokinon FishEye

It seems the biggest (only?) virtue is the convenience of the single zoom but at a high price. And the 40-150 does pretty well on its own, especially for the price.

For the price, I'm halfway to the Panny 12-35 or 35-100. And those lenses have a lot of virtue!

thanks again

brad

bradevans said:

bradevans wrote:

Thanks to all for their input - great stuff.

At present I can fit all my gear in this mini backpack style bag

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/199527-REG/Lowepro_LP01131_PEF_Micro_Trekker_100_Black.html

G5 14-42 14pancake Oly45 Oly40-150 Panny 100-300 Rokinon FishEye

It seems the biggest (only?) virtue is the convenience of the single zoom but at a high price. And the 40-150 does pretty well on its own, especially for the price.

For the price, I'm halfway to the Panny 12-35 or 35-100. And those lenses have a lot of virtue!

thanks again

brad

Click to expand...

I have to tell you....I got a 14-140mm with my first GH2, and planned to sell it. On a lark, I gave it a try, and was surprised at how good it was. To this day, it surprises me each time I put it on the camera....I expect it to be terrible, and it is actually a pretty good lens. I find that I prefer the output of it to the kit 14-42 and 45-150mm lenses; I use the 14-140mm and the 100-300 if I am out on a nature walk, but go to primes for around town and low light use.

The only drawback to it vs the kit duo is that it is a heavy sucker. However, the new version is a LOT lighter and less bulky, and it might just be what you are looking for. I have not tried the new one, but I do plan to, just to see if it is at least on a par with the original one. If so, I would DEFINITELY buy it, as a smaller lens with equally good IQ is exactly the ticket for me for this kind of all purpose lens.

I would not rule it out of your consideration...it's really a very convenient lens with surprisingly good performance in many situations.

-J

I've got the kit lens 14-42, 45-200 & 14-140.

I take the first two only when i know the situation is predictable. ie, if I can stay close to wide or if I don't need wider angle at all. If I don't know about the situation, I take 14-140mm. And that is the most used lens for me especially shooting kids outside and travel. This one makes a great combo with 20mm for traveling for me.

Here is the best review on 14-140mm
I noticed that the new 14-140mm has plastic zoom ring? Not sure how grippy it is.

Coming from an FZ50 with its x12 zoom I found the 12-42 very restrictive for what I see.

I wanted a large sensor bridge camera without the weight of aps-c or FF. I 'lost' the use of the 14-42 when I gave my original MFT a G3 to my son and just have the 14-140 on the GH2.

Coupled with a 2 dioptre close-up lens that is my current kit though there is a 4 dioptre on its way to me as the 2D on a 280 lens doesn't give me the tight framing that I have been used to with it on my FZ50's 430mm lens.

That I have an MFT ILC just means I could and have given my DSLR away.... my only desire for an ILC is to use extension tubes and bellows which with the 2 D simply has not been required till today. They were the only reason I bought the DSLR in the first place, I am very happy with bridge cameras as working tools.

When Panasonic brought out the FZ100/150 I really didn't see much point in changing yet again, I had had 20 and 30 and 600mm reach is not that much different to 430 to justify purchase and I have 750 and 950 reach with my TCON and Raynox tele adaptors. With a step down ring I can use the TCON x1.7 on the 14-140 for a little under 500mm reach. It is not as good a 'mate' as on the FZ50 but even at an effective f/10 AE snaps into focus. By a good 'mate' I am refering the slight vignetting which causes 1/3 stop loss on the FZ50 but 1.6 stop loss on the 14-140 .... the compesation is the ability to up the ISO which I rarely did with the FZ50.

So altogether MFT is a giant step forward with the 14-140. I am not a pixel peeper or color fanatic and judge my gear on the composition it produces for me after being ediiting. I want a good flexible and versatile working rig ...... and shoot for my editor. [PSPx4]

My original Pen kit was the 14-42 kit lens, the 17 2.8 and the 40-150 which I had bought cheap way back when Staples had a deal for under $100.

Was pretty happy with this combo and the 40-150 was a great performer, until I decided to upgrade to a 9-18 plus a second body. The jump from 18mm to 40 was too much of a gap so I decided to sell the 40-150 and get a refurbished 14-150.

Now with my 2 body setup I can be ready for pretty much anything, street shooting with the 9-18 plus 17mm, or general holiday shooting with the 9-18 plus 14-150.

Yes, the 14-150 is not as sharp as the 40-150 was but I rarely zoom past 75-100mm. I mostly find it useful in the 25-75mm range to reach out and get a nice head shot or something similar. For most shots I could probably get the same with the 14-42 kit lens and similar IQ, but nice to have the extra reach without needing to change lenses.

Now my own personal decision is if/when to get the 17mm 1.8. I don't mind the IQ on the 2.8 and love the pancake for use as a pocket camera, will keep it regardless, but I shoot so much at that focal length and often in dim lighting that I am pretty sure the 1.8 will end up in my bag sooner rather than later.

I recently got rid of my 14-140mm. Great all around lens, but at the cost of image quality.

I now carry around the 14-42mm + 45-175mm--much better image quality.