14-140 sharpness almost as good as 12-35/35-100 f2.8

Ken610 wrote:

I have some experience with both versions of the Panny 14-140. I bought the Mk 1 a few years ago as a walkabout lens, and began using it for close work shooting whales and dolphins. It is great for that, with its 10x zoom range. Unfortunately, in San Ignacio Lagoon, where you are allowed under Mexican rules to approach gray whales very closely, one large female came up under our 25-foot Ponga. It caught me off balance, and I ended up plunging it and the E-M1 body it was on into a foot of seawater for a moment. I immediately turned the body off and took the battery out. About 10 minutes later, back aboard our ship, I ran body and lens (still attached) under the drinking fountain. I then dried all I could reach with many paper towels. I removed the lens and attached the waterproof 12-40 to the body and ran them under the water fountain again, this time I opened all of the covers. I then used many paper towels to wick up all moisture I could see in the small recesses. I removed the 12-40 and put the body into a zip lock bag with rice. Knowing that the non-waterproof 14-140 must be toast, I also put it into a zip with rice. I changed rice about 3 times on about 12-hour intervals. I left the 14-140 in the bag until the end of the 9-day trip. I put a fresh battery into the body, and powered it up, and all seemed to be fine. I took several test shots with the 12-40 and Panny 100-300. All was well.

Upon returning from the trip, I left the 14-140 in the rice bag for several weeks. I ordered a 14-140 Mk 2 because I really like that lens for my close whale work. many weeks later, as I was preparing to offer the Mk 1 for sale as a parts lens, I tried it on a body just for fun. To my surprise, it powered up, all functions worked, and I found no grittiness or binding from what salt I was sure must be inside. Since I had already procrastinated so long in selling it, and it appeared to have not suffered any ill effects of its bath, I took it along (with the Mk 2 as backup) an a day trip, and was thoroughly pleased with the results of both shooting with it and with the photos it produced. While I still do not thoroughly trust it foe long term, I am pleased that the salvage efforts paid off. Now I have a backup for that lens that I have 98% confidence in. That said, I still believe in carrying spar lenses, 2-gallon Zip Lock bags, and desiccant, and know that this is a last-ditch effort that one cannot absolutely count on.

I like the Mk 2 slightly more than the Mk 1, in that the newer version is slightly smaller, lighter, and faster. I cannot see any difference between their output, although I have not made a direct side-by-side set of tests yet.

What a great experience and un-expectation. Fantastic.

I thought it might already be unbelievable for my G1 & 7-14, which was dropped into a river coming out like a water tank 4 years ago, after drying up they are managed to work normally until today (G1 was retired few months ago). Never expect your gears could also survive sea water. Quite likely the electronics inside your gears should start to oxidize (mine had been declared non commercially repairable, total loss by Panny). I would start to look for a 2nd EM1(?) in case they might suddenly fail without notice... My G1 had few times occasional lock up and need to take out the battery to start it.

Learned from my accident, now I would prefer more dramatic way to steam out moisture (if any) inside my gear. Of course the super absorption power silica gel would be employed for afterward storage, after tissue paper, dry clothes etc to dry up the external, a hot hair blow dryer would be my tool of 1st choice for the quickest result to minimize the time of any possible moisture inside.