Is the Panny 14-140 worth $150 more than the Oly 14-150?

Frasier Krane wrote:

It should be noted that I generally don't use these summaries from DxO but I look at the acutance profiles on DxO.

Simply stated, the 14-140 II is better in the center at all focal lengths and blows it away in the corners. Check it out for yourself.

This is really the only superzoom (i.e. in the 10x range), on any system, that doesn't perform like a superzoom. It performs more like the 3x or 4x zoom.

It's really the only one that doesn't lose much performance on the long end.

And the person who stated that this lens is softer on the wide end is either wrong or had a bad copy. We had a post here recently where someone compared it, at 20mm, to the 20mm f/1.7 at f/5.6. No one could spot the difference between them.

And if you look at the DxO acutance for this lens at 20mm, it does perform as well as some primes.

Take it FWIW. It is worth $150 more. This lens is unique.

Frasier,

while I agree that the 14-140 II is a good lens, I think you are a little bit optimistic here ...

First of all, there is a Superzoom which is clearly better in most respects. Best of all, it is from the same manufacturer: the Panasonic Leica lens is much better. But it is for the old FT mount and compared to the third Pany superzoom incarnation it is for sure a bulky beast. While it is not the answer for the OPs requirements, we should not ignore this old gem like you did ...

Second, my findings are in sync with slrgear and ephotozine. Therefore we have at least three copies which are not perfect at the wide end ...

Did you try these lenses yourself or do you rely on DXO only?

Christof