The Superzoom which actually DOES it

AdamT wrote:

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:

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/olympus-m-zuiko-digital-ed-14-150mm-f-4-5-6-lens-review-22983

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lumix-g-vario-14-140mm-f-3-5-5-6-lens-review-22632

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.