The Superzoom which actually DOES it

Adam-T · Sep 5, 2014

I`ve just received my "Split from a kit" Panasonic 14-140 II and have just given it a blast on the EM5 .. the lens could easily be mistaken for the 45-150, they`re almost identical and are the same size , the 14-240 has an OIS switch but the EM5 uses its IBIS so until my GX7 comes back I won`t know how effective the Power OIS is .

Handing is smooth like the 45-150, in fact you`d not know which was which from a handling, looks or size point of view (the markings give it away and its fatter than the 45-150) .. fine so far, nice common 58mm front end too ..

Onto the Optics, you have to remember that Panasonic lenses have little UV protection hence all the threads about Purple fringing on Olympus bodies so it`s not mentioned here .. CA refers to the red/cyan type of this . I had a 58mm Pro1 UV fitted and still saw some PF on the EM5 but far less than expected and less than an unprotected 14-42-IIHD (Viva la 58mm filter thread !!)

Optically this lens was the reverse of what I expected.. having had some of the best DSLR megazooms (Sigma and Tamron as well as the Sony NEX 18-200) and tried the rest, the usual pattern is the wide end is sharp wideopen edge to edge with loads of distortion and CA and the long end is less impressive with soft edges and far worse CA .. I expected the Panny to be the same but it`s not .

At the wide end on the EM5 with no distortion correction, it`s like a very barrelled 25 or 26 mm field of view , very sharp in the middle wideopen but soft at the edges and a little bit of red/green CA though easily removable in Capture one - the 14-42 II HD for example is sharp edge to edge at F3.5 with no less CA and perfect everywhere at F4.5 , the 14mm F2.5 prime perfect everywhere at F2.8-3.5 .. stopping the 14mm end of the 14-140-II to F5.6 gets everything perfect everywhere though the CA remains as it should -- so OK then not as good as the new 14-42-II at 14mm ... it is however very usable at F3.5 , after testing I`m finding that the F3.5 performance seems to be down to angle of curvature as if you shoot forward of the subject you can get a more even performance and why Stopping down fixes this - this sample has little or no decentering at either end.

The big shock was the long end, it`s pin sharp from macro to infinity edge to edge wideopen with less CA than the wide end - this seems even to beat the 45-150 even for long end edge performance ! . also the ability for close focus at 140mm is amazing compared to the 14-42-II and 45-150 both of which are beyond lame with very poor close focussing distances ...

So it`s an F5.6 and be there throughout its range lens which is fine by me - far better the the best DSLR superzooms which are fine at F3.5 at 18mm but need a diffraction inducing F11 (and still CA & halation riddled) to get things good at 200, 250, 270 or 300mm depending on lens and sometimes don't make it . something has to give and I`m glad it`s not the long end .

Next I did the Walkaround test , taking pics of my usual test site at different focal lengths and ranges .. the lens passed with flying colours , it was left at F5.6 apart from one tight spot in an alcove (close range) where it was set wideopen and it did fine there too ..

What was funny was that with the 14mm F5.6 landscape shots, the consistency across the frame overall the shoot was better and CA was less than the two lenses which are sharp at the edges at F3.5 (the 12-32 and 14-42-IIHD) , both the latter can surprise you with frames with a dud edge at F5.6 occasionally, the old 14-45 did that also - none from the 14-140-II - my guess is that because its a superzoom, the range of latitude for IBIS before it ruins an edge is greater, may even be indirectly attributable to the 58mm front end compared to the tiny front ends on the two kit lenses mentioned, I`ll find out how it`ll be with OIS until I use the GX7 with it ..

So shoot with the lens set to F5.6 you can pretty much walk about waving it about with wanton abandon and get nearly all keepers (given no shutter shock or shake etc like any other lens) , I love glass like this ..

This has solved the "superzoom" thing for me The Fuji XS1 can now go along with the spare 14-42-IIHD and the 45-150 .. the 14-140-II handles very well indeed on the EM5 , I hope it will as well on the GX7 but it`ll be a killer in auditoriums with silent operation and POWER OIS . I`m saying goodbye to one of my 14-42-IIs and the 45-150 as a consequence ..

5 Stars because it`s pulled off something which Tamron in particular have been aiming at for over three decades - a decent superzoom through the range - Canon and Nikon have made a mess of it too despite their high prices, even Panasonic's earlier example was really only much good for video.

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

LMNCT · Sep 6, 2014

Now look what you have done. Now I have to go buy the 12-140 II ! Will it never end....

Henry Richardson · Sep 6, 2014

Thanks for the review. I have the Olympus 14-150mm and I have used it on my E-M5 for the last 28 months. Used it in Nepal, Turkey, Bali, Japan, Taiwan, and around the U.S. I haven't done any testing of it, but I have been pretty happy with it. Some people who post here like it a lot and some don't, but like any lens there probably are sample variations. Maybe mine is one of the better ones. I have had a few other superzooms over the years:

Sigma 18-125mm
Sigma 18-200mm OS
Sony 18-250mm
Tamron 18-270mm VC

Again, without testing I think the Olympus is the best of the bunch. Also, the E-M5 CDAF just nails the focus better most of the time than the DSLRs I used with the other superzooms (Canon 30D and 60D, Sony A700).

By the way, what happened to your GX7? Did you have to send it in for repair?

After you have a chance to use the lens with OIS please let us know how that goes. One thing I hated about the Tamron 18-270mm VC was that the VC mechanism would go to sleep after a short time so it would have to wake up (not talking about the camera here, talking about the lens VC) and if you shot too quick you would get a smeared photo because the lens elements were getting into position. I hated that and regularly got ruined shots. Never had that problem with the Sigma OS and never had a problem with the Sony IBIS. I have read a few places that all the Tamron VC lenses suffer from this problem. I don't know if the latest VC lenses are fixed. The VC was very effective once it was up and running though. I wonder if the Panasonic OIS has this problem?

Adam-T · Sep 7, 2014

Member said:
Again, without testing I think the Olympus is the best of the bunch. Also, the E-M5 CDAF just nails the focus better most of the time than the DSLRs I used with the other superzooms (Canon 30D and 60D, Sony A700).

The EM5 does do a lot better than those cameras in my experience too ..

I didn`t consider the Olympus 14-150 because it got poor reports compared to the Original Panasonic F4-5.8 especially for across the frame performance at full zoom (I compress landscapes a lot) but the reports here on the new Panasonic F3.5-5.6 got me interested,

It comfortably beats my Press lens across the range -- the hidden Gem Sigma 18-200 DC-OS_II (Launched 2012) which is better than all the previous Sigmas and the Tamron 18-270 variants let alone the canons and Nikons . the new panny kills it, I guess its easier to make a 10X zoom for a far smaller sensor than an 11 to 16X zoom for APS-C (the Sigmas and tamrons are built down to a price too)

Member said:
By the way, what happened to your GX7? Did you have to send it in for repair?

Yes, it has dust on the actual sensor under the SSWF like the GM1 I had did - I figured that it`d be better to get it cleaned out instead of playing postal tennis with multiple GX7s

Member said:
After you have a chance to use the lens with OIS please let us know how that goes.

I will

Member said:
One thing I hated about the Tamron 18-270mm VC was that the VC mechanism would go to sleep after a short time so it would have to wake up (not talking about the camera here, talking about the lens VC)

I hated that too but the VC was very good at slow shutter speeds though and the optics on the NON-PZD one weren`t bad at 270mm wideopen (the PZD version lost that) .. the Panny 14-140-II is in a different league though

Member said:
lenses suffer from this problem. I don't know if the latest VC lenses are fixed. The VC was very effective once it was up and running though. I wonder if the Panasonic OIS has this problem?

the only Panny OIS I had an issue with was the 45-200 - it was pretty ineffective at 200mm mosty of the time because it jittered - thankfully the lens had a switch to knock it off ! . I found the 100-300 was infinately better . the 45-200 is an old lens though , the optics weren`t up to much either . I expect the 14-140 to be at least as good for OIS as the 45-150 which is pretty good considering the 45-150 is using the old "Mega" system , the "POWER OIS" in the 14-140 ought to be pretty damn good .

It does Pee me off that OIS is running all the time in the lens when mounted on the EM5 but I guess it has to keep the stabilizer element centered

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

Henry Richardson · Sep 7, 2014

AdamT said:
I didn`t consider the Olympus 14-150 because it got poor reports compared to the Original Panasonic F4-5.8 especially for across the frame performance at full zoom (I compress landscapes a lot) but the reports here on the new Panasonic F3.5-5.6 got me interested,

When I bought the Olympus the new Panasonic didn't exist. If it had then I would have considered it and maybe got it since it has OIS and would be just as useful on a Panasonic body whereas the Olympus isn't so attractive on a non-IBIS Panasonic body. Anyway, here are reviews of the 2 lenses from one website and they both look not so bad:

Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-150mm f/4-5.6 Lens Review

Gary Wolstenholme reviews this superzoom lens designed for Micro Four Thirds system cameras.

www.ephotozine.com

Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-140mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens Review

Gary Wolstenholme reviews the new, more compact, Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-140mm f/3.5-5.6 telephoto zoom lens.

www.ephotozine.com

By the way, here is something that I recall from a few years ago when David Kilpatrick reviewed the Sony 18-250mm lens. He found that it was only at the last few millimeters of focal length that it got significantly worse. My recollection is that he said if he considered it an 18-235mm lens instead of an 18-250mm lens then his feelings about the lens were quite different. I never worried much about using the 250mm end wide open at f6.3 for most of the ways I used it since at that focal length I didn't care much about the edges since they were out of focus anyway. Whether that applies much to other superzooms, I don't know. Testing is almost always done at each end of the zoom range and a few others in between, but never at just slightly less than than the max so I don't know whether it is common for them to be quite a bit better if you back off just a little. I wonder how the Olympus would fare if I pretended it was a 14-140mm like the Panasonic? I am not really into testing, I just use them, but if I think about it the next time I am using it I will take the identical shot at 150mm and 140mm.

Adam-T · Sep 7, 2014

Member said:
By the way, here is something that I recall from a few years ago when David Kilpatrick reviewed the Sony 18-250mm lens. He found that it was only at the last few millimeters of focal length that it got significantly worse.

That was the Tamron 18-250 with a sony badge and it was decent, I had one until the superior 18-270VC (1st rev) came out as it beat all the sigmas bar stellar copies of the original 1st generation non stabilized 18-200DC . the long end of the Tamron (sony) 18-250 was poor at the edges at 250 though as you say got better as you zoomed back, at close distance anyway.. getting the edges sharp in a compressed landscape needed F16 which wasn`t good for any APS-C sensor above 6Mp.

Tests in Reviews are always done at close range, garden distance at most . the new Panny 14-140 even pulls it off at infinity which is the hardest part (and essential for compressed landscapes), only really good 70-300 full frame lenses can pull this off on APS-C .. What gets me about the panny II is that the close focussing at 140 is very good indeed for both closeness and quality , total contrast to its stablemates, 14-42-IIHD and 45-150 which don`t even get remotely close at full zoom and aren't at their best as close as they do get.

Henry Richardson · Sep 7, 2014

AdamT said:
I hated that too but the VC was very good at slow shutter speeds though and the optics on the NON-PZD one weren`t bad at 270mm wideopen (the PZD version lost that)

Yeah, I had the first, non-PZD 18-270mm. Much bigger than the later PZD version, but I read the long end was better.

Adam-T said:
the only Panny OIS I had an issue with was the 45-200 - it was pretty ineffective at 200mm mosty of the time because it jittered - thankfully the lens had a switch to knock it off ! . I found the 100-300 was infinately better . the 45-200 is an old lens though , the optics weren`t up to much either . I expect the 14-140 to be at least as good for OIS as the 45-150 which is pretty good considering the 45-150 is using the old "Mega" system , the "POWER OIS" in the 14-140 ought to be pretty damn good .

I have the 45-200mm too, but almost never use it. I can't really say how effective the OIS is on it since the few times I used it on my E-M5 I used IBIS. I have used it a little on my G3, but that was a couple of years ago.

vronv · Sep 7, 2014

Hi

Tamron 14-150mm F/3.5-5.8 Di III ..."The Superzoom which actually DOES it"

I realy mean it.

Very good all-around lens.

Ron

jim stirling · Sep 7, 2014

AdamT said:
I`ve just received my "Split from a kit" Panasonic 14-140 II and have just given it a blast on the EM5 .. the lens could easily be mistaken for the 45-150, they`re almost identical and are the same size , the 14-240 has an OIS switch but the EM5 uses its IBIS so until my GX7 comes back I won`t know how effective the Power OIS is .

Handing is smooth like the 45-150, in fact you`d not know which was which from a handling, looks or size point of view (the markings give it away and its fatter than the 45-150) .. fine so far, nice common 58mm front end too ..

Onto the Optics, you have to remember that Panasonic lenses have little UV protection hence all the threads about Purple fringing on Olympus bodies so it`s not mentioned here .. CA refers to the red/cyan type of this . I had a 58mm Pro1 UV fitted and still saw some PF on the EM5 but far less than expected and less than an unprotected 14-42-IIHD (Viva la 58mm filter thread !!)

Optically this lens was the reverse of what I expected.. having had some of the best DSLR megazooms (Sigma and Tamron as well as the Sony NEX 18-200) and tried the rest, the usual pattern is the wide end is sharp wideopen edge to edge with loads of distortion and CA and the long end is less impressive with soft edges and far worse CA .. I expected the Panny to be the same but it`s not .

At the wide end on the EM5 with no distortion correction, it`s like a very barrelled 25 or 26 mm field of view , very sharp in the middle wideopen but soft at the edges and a little bit of red/green CA though easily removable in Capture one - the 14-42 II HD for example is sharp edge to edge at F3.5 with no less CA and perfect everywhere at F4.5 , the 14mm F2.5 prime perfect everywhere at F2.8-3.5 .. stopping the 14mm end of the 14-140-II to F5.6 gets everything perfect everywhere though the CA remains as it should -- so OK then not as good as the new 14-42-II at 14mm ... it is however very usable at F3.5 , after testing I`m finding that the F3.5 performance seems to be down to angle of curvature as if you shoot forward of the subject you can get a more even performance and why Stopping down fixes this - this sample has little or no decentering at either end.

The big shock was the long end, it`s pin sharp from macro to infinity edge to edge wideopen with less CA than the wide end - this seems even to beat the 45-150 even for long end edge performance ! . also the ability for close focus at 140mm is amazing compared to the 14-42-II and 45-150 both of which are beyond lame with very poor close focussing distances ...

So it`s an F5.6 and be there throughout its range lens which is fine by me - far better the the best DSLR superzooms which are fine at F3.5 at 18mm but need a diffraction inducing F11 (and still CA & halation riddled) to get things good at 200, 250, 270 or 300mm depending on lens and sometimes don't make it . something has to give and I`m glad it`s not the long end .

Next I did the Walkaround test , taking pics of my usual test site at different focal lengths and ranges .. the lens passed with flying colours , it was left at F5.6 apart from one tight spot in an alcove (close range) where it was set wideopen and it did fine there too ..

What was funny was that with the 14mm F5.6 landscape shots, the consistency across the frame overall the shoot was better and CA was less than the two lenses which are sharp at the edges at F3.5 (the 12-32 and 14-42-IIHD) , both the latter can surprise you with frames with a dud edge at F5.6 occasionally, the old 14-45 did that also - none from the 14-140-II - my guess is that because its a superzoom, the range of latitude for IBIS before it ruins an edge is greater, may even be indirectly attributable to the 58mm front end compared to the tiny front ends on the two kit lenses mentioned, I`ll find out how it`ll be with OIS until I use the GX7 with it ..

So shoot with the lens set to F5.6 you can pretty much walk about waving it about with wanton abandon and get nearly all keepers (given no shutter shock or shake etc like any other lens) , I love glass like this ..

This has solved the "superzoom" thing for me The Fuji XS1 can now go along with the spare 14-42-IIHD and the 45-150 .. the 14-140-II handles very well indeed on the EM5 , I hope it will as well on the GX7 but it`ll be a killer in auditoriums with silent operation and POWER OIS . I`m saying goodbye to one of my 14-42-IIs and the 45-150 as a consequence ..

5 Stars because it`s pulled off something which Tamron in particular have been aiming at for over three decades - a decent superzoom through the range - Canon and Nikon have made a mess of it too despite their high prices, even Panasonic's earlier example was really only much good for video.

Adam-T · Sep 7, 2014

vronv said:
Hi

Tamron 14-150mm F/3.5-5.8 Di III ..."The Superzoom which actually DOES it"

I realy mean it.

Very good all-around lens.

For Olympus owners anyway - they missed out the VC ..

I can`t see the point in Tamron releasing this lens , if they`d made it 14-200 VC (which is what you`d expect from Tamron) I could understand it , all they`ve done is made a better Olympus 14-150 . Even if its as good as the new Panasonic, it doesn`t offer anything over it and is bigger.

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

Henry Richardson · Sep 8, 2014

Adam-T said:
That was the Tamron 18-250 with a sony badge and it was decent, I had one until the superior 18-270VC (1st rev) came out as it beat all the sigmas bar stellar copies of the original 1st generation non stabilized 18-200DC . the long end of the Tamron (sony) 18-250 was poor at the edges at 250 though as you say got better as you zoomed back, at close distance anyway.. getting the edges sharp in a compressed landscape needed F16 which wasn`t good for any APS-C sensor above 6Mp.

Yes, the Sony 18-250mm was almost the same as the Tamron 18-250mm. The screw drive AF mechanism had different gearing for the Sony model and the coatings I recall were different. Of course, cosmetics were different too. I seem to recall that the zoom ring may have turned in the opposite direction too. The Sony 11-18mm was also quite similar to the Tamron 11-18mm.

I also had the first version of the Tamron 18-270mm, but in Canon mount.

Adam-T said:
Tests in Reviews are always done at close range, garden distance at most . the new Panny 14-140 even pulls it off at infinity which is the hardest part (and essential for compressed landscapes), only really good 70-300 full frame lenses can pull this off on APS-C .. What gets me about the panny II is that the close focussing at 140 is very good indeed for both closeness and quality , total contrast to its stablemates, 14-42-IIHD and 45-150 which don`t even get remotely close at full zoom and aren't at their best as close as they do get.

I rarely use these superzooms for landscape stuff. That is interesting to hear that most of them are much worse at infinity than shorter distances. I wonder why?

Adam-T · Sep 8, 2014

Member said:
I rarely use these superzooms for landscape stuff. That is interesting to hear that most of them are much worse at infinity than shorter distances. I wonder why?

Something to do with the focussing system being optimized for closer range I guess , the best 70-300s are sharp edge to edge at 300mm infinity , poor ones are not but are OK at garden distances .

ABCMO · Sep 8, 2014

Adam-T said:
It does Pee me off that OIS is running all the time in the lens when mounted on the EM5 but I guess it has to keep the stabilizer element centered

Adam, thank you for the review that started this thread. It brought this lens to my attention; I hadn't really paid any attention to it before. The reason I'm interested is that my wife and I are taking a three week trip to Australia and New Zealand late in November, and this lens might be something that could lighten my camera kit even more. I would be using it on my Oly E-M5, and it would replace my Oly 40-150 and possibly my Panasonic 14-42II. What do you think? You and I are both fans of the Panasonic 14-42II. Would there be much, if any, difference in image quality if the 14-140 were used in daylight outdoors and at the optimal f-stops (5.6 and at the longer focal lengths, f8)?

I've included the short statement from your message above because I wanted to see if that meant the OIS kept running even if you set the switch on the lens to "off." That's probably what you meant, although that behavior of the lens certainly seems odd in that case. Also, how much sound comes from the OIS? Is this the sort of thing that only the photographer using the camera can hear? And only then, perhaps, in something like a very quiet room?

Since you tested this lens on the E-M5, did you see any sign of shutter shock, as some people have reported with this lens?

One final question is, which brand of 2A UV filter did you use to deal with the purple fringing problem?

Al

Adam-T · Sep 8, 2014

ABCMO said:
I would be using it on my Oly E-M5, and it would replace my Oly 40-150 and possibly my Panasonic 14-42II. What do you think? You and I are both fans of the Panasonic 14-42II. Would there be much, if any, difference in image quality if the 14-140 were used in daylight outdoors and at the optimal f-stops (5.6 and at the longer focal lengths, f8)?

Going by this sample, setting the cam F5.6 all the way it`ll be bang on, I`d say I`d beat the Olympus 40-150 wideopen in the same focal lengths - all F8 wil bring is diffraction , the lens is tack sharp at 140mm wideopen .. if you need to use F3.5 at the wide end indoors, it`ll be fine too .. at F5.6 it matches the Panny 14-42-II easily and I`d even say it was more stable focus wise

I`d go as far as to say that if you get this lens, you`ll dump the Oly 40-150, it`ll be totally redundant - the 14-42-II would be to if it wasn`t so small

ABCMO said:
I've included the short statement from your message above because I wanted to see if that meant the OIS kept running even if you set the switch on the lens to "off."

the OIS needs to run to keep the Stabilizer optic centralized, its the same in the 14-42 too, it just galls me that we can`t switch off IBIS and use it (to save power if nothing else) but it does`t seem to use much power . the OIS is almost silent, you have to hold your ear to it to hear it . Oly IBIS however sounds like a gasleak - LOL

ABCMO said:
Since you tested this lens on the E-M5, did you see any sign of shutter shock, as some people have reported with this lens?

Shutter shock has no connection with this lens in particular - it`s no worse than it is on any lenses covering the same focal length - have I seen it? - yes but then I`ve seen It with the 45-150, the Oly 40-150 etc too, it`s the focal length and shutter speed in combo with the mass of the whole rig which causes the issue not the actual lens on the cam .. a heavier lens like the 100-300 is less of an issue , I`d say the Oly 40-150 is worse for it .. if you hold the rig steady, you should be fine.

ABCMO said:
One final question is, which brand of 2A UV filter did you use to deal with the purple fringing problem?

I always use Hoya Super HMC Pro1s, thankfully the lens has a 58mm thread ! . I shoot RAW and can easily remove any CA if there is any - amazingly the "real" CA (red/cyan type) seems less on this lens than the 14-42-II or 14-45 ! .

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

ABCMO · Sep 8, 2014

Adam, thank you for your answers to my questions. They helped a lot. Since I've only considered this option for about eight hours, I'm going to think about it a bit more, but I'm leaning toward the 14-140II.

Al

Adam-T · Sep 8, 2014

DISCLAIMER .. These are just Test shots , not designed to have any artistic quality or anything, taken just to see how the lens fares in the field.

All shot on the EM5 casually pointing the thing around on walkabout with the lens set to F5.6 (so the long end is wideopen) and all are full size so click on Original size to pixelpeep . obviously take DOF, Atmospherics etc into account with the 140mm ones and stuff in the distance at 14mm , also that they were shot on an Oly camera (UV and all that) ..

Distortion correction was switched off in the RAW converter so you can see what the lens is really doing (about a 25/26mm FOV at 14mm actually)

PLEASE Look on the Gallery page - the Forum Viewer (just clicking on the image) mushifies the image , it`s a LOT clearer by clicking Gallery link under the pic and then on Original size

These may get removed months down the line if my gallery gets tight on space

14mm standard type scene

140mm F5.6 portrait type shot

this thing gets close - 140nmm F5.6

Standard type landscape - 14mm F5,.6

Now zoomed in at 140mm F5.6 (the trees are way in front so are OOF)

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

Adam-T · Sep 12, 2014

I`ve got my GX7 back and the weather has become dull so have been able to to do a Mech shutter vs electronic shutter test with the 14-140 ...

All I can say is that I`m amazed at both Oly and Panasonics severe shortsightedness regarding the shutter shock issue - APS-C Mirrorless cams have had Electronic first Curtain since the Samsung NX10 and Sony Nex-5N (Years) yet the only M43 cams with it currently are the Oly EP5, EM10 and EM1 and they only had it after a very late firmware update after complaining reviews .. there isn`t a SINGLE Panasonic body with the feature and shutter shock is both real and repeatable .

the GX7 thankfully has a full electronic shutter which combats this without crippling the RAW output in the way that the GM1 and GH4 do but there`s still chance of rolling artifacts so there`ll always be a compromise od some kind with a Panny body and an even more severe one with all Oly bodies bar the THREE mentioned above ... Panny need to do an EFC firmware for the GF6, G5, G6, GX7, GM1, GH3 and GH4.

Anyway this lens`s OIS can be a bit drifty in the finder but it`s capable of handholding at 13th sec full zoom (sitting down , no special bracing) with 4 out of 5 keepers and 3 of those pixelpeepable at 100% ..... DO use the electronic shutter though .

ALL 100% Crops showing Shutter shock at 140 250th sec compared to Electronic shutter - both sharpened with the same PS Action followed by the 13sec 140mm test ..... Click ORIGINAL to see full size, the forum viewer smudges detail

All 100% Crops - click Original for full size

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

speculatrix · Jan 16, 2015

great pictures, very useful, thanks for taking the effort to post them.
OTOH, I should blame you for the likely damage to my wallet now it seems likely I'll buy this lens!

amipal · Jan 16, 2015

speculatrix said:
great pictures, very useful, thanks for taking the effort to post them.
OTOH, I should blame you for the likely damage to my wallet now it seems likely I'll buy this lens!

You won't regret it - the 14-140 Mk2 is a quantum-leap above the original. I sometimes have difficulty telling the difference between shots taken with it and the PL25mm. No zoom should be this sharp.

Cheers,
Paul

trog100 · Jan 16, 2015

optically its very sharp but mine suffers badly from shutter shock on on my GX7..

once i realised the cause of some less than perfect images i realized just how good the lens actually was..

trog

The Superzoom which actually DOES it

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Henry Richardson

Guest

Forum Pro

Henry Richardson

Guest

Forum Pro

Henry Richardson

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Henry Richardson

Guest

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Attachments

Forum Pro

Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts