The Superzoom which actually DOES it

I`ll re-do ths as the forums post editor is faulty with a longer reply

You have certainly had a string of bad luck trying to find a superzoom for landscapes at infinity.

I haven`t actually - the Sigma 18-200-II OIS of 2013 was better than the 18-270 Tamron I had and the previous 18-250s/18-200s on APS-C by various makers so did me up til recently -

M43 wise , I tried the Oly 14-150 twice and it didn`t cut the mustard (I had Oly bodies too at the times) and the Panny 14-140 Mk1 didn`t either even on a GH1 - but the Panny Mk2 DOES in that it actually matches or beats two excellent kit zooms .....

the Tamron now is oinly even worth considering with an Oly body and even them I`d want it to ne 5 Axis IBIS and even then from the samples I`ve seen the Panny Mk2 beatrs that also optically .

this doesn`t take anything away from that the Panny lens needs to be "fixed" for its Video IS and SS prone issues and I`m amazed that panny haven't done something ---- but then Oly haven`t fixed the various EM1 issues and couldn`t be bothered to put EFC on the EM5, EPL5 and EPM2 all of which use the same sensor as the EM10

vakhariasb wrote:

I just joined the forum and this would be my first post.

I have purchased a GX7 with 20mm kit - yet to receive the camera - in my country India - we don't get this camera officially.

Now, the OP mentioned ".....that Panasonic lenses have little UV protection hence all the threads about Purple fringing on Olympus bodies"

So, does that mean, I need to buy some filters to protect the lens?

Not unless you are actually experiencing purple fringing and want to treat it with a filter. Remember, a UV filter will also block some visible purple and hence alter your colours. And it may increase flare.

AdamT wrote:

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 hav

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.

-- hide signature --

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

I have it and I love it.  Fabulous travel lens.  

Dave

Bobby Rue Goldberg wrote:

Spiridakis Michael wrote:

Well really I had a very careful look at the samples and I am feeling very lucky that I still have the Fuji S100fs instead if a super zoom lens for m43.

You honestly believe that a P&S with a 2/3" sensor and a 14.3x zoom (from 2008) is going to compete with an MFT with a modern 10x zoom.

I guarantee you the 14-140 will obliterate your Fuji toy. But, if you really feel strongly about it, let's see some samples from your Fuji at 10x zoom.

You have just remind me the days that I used to play little more with the Fuji S100fs TOY....

This lens is remarkably sharp at 14mm and 140mm, and presumably at all focal lengths in between. Excellent pixel level detail here, bordering on prime-like.

Quite an amazing achievement for a 10x lens.

Superzooms are always a rollercoaster regarding edge sharpness in the middle area , the old Sigma 18-200 OSs were the worst , basically OK at 18 and 200mm and awful in between, they`ve got better over the yeas, the best APS still being the latest Sigma 18-200 DC/OS Macro (better than the 18-250s and 270s etc) - the Panny 14-140-II does a hell of a lot better than any of the APS-C lenses for mid focal lengths (better than the Mk1 or the Oly too) but it`s not perfect, there are still a couple of focal lengths where the edges aren`t as good as the centre wideopen , I don`t think they ever will be .

I`ve owned the S100FS, one with less CA than they usually have and you`re right, it`s not within missile distrance of the Panny 14-140-II in any respect .........

The point about Greece (where Mike is) is that the horrible Purple fringing the S100FS is famous for will rarely rear is ugly head and lets face it - Mike could have taken pics of that quality with an iPhone given his skills and lovely conditions .......... try pixelpeeping one shot in the UK at winter !!

Bobby Rue Goldberg wrote:

Spiridakis Michael wrote:

Bobby Rue Goldberg wrote:

Spiridakis Michael wrote:

Well really I had a very careful look at the samples and I am feeling very lucky that I still have the Fuji S100fs instead if a super zoom lens for m43.

You honestly believe that a P&S with a 2/3" sensor and a 14.3x zoom (from 2008) is going to compete with an MFT with a modern 10x zoom.

I guarantee you the 14-140 will obliterate your Fuji toy. But, if you really feel strongly about it, let's see some samples from your Fuji at 10x zoom.

You have just remind me the days that I used to play little more with the Fuji S100fs TOY....

These are nice pics, but you missed the point. Look at these samples here:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54348192

Look at them at 100%. It's pretty rare that you see this kind of detail at 100% zoom from a 10x zoom. In fact, it's almost unheard of. The intent of the OP was not to provide artistic pics, but to show the pure detail this lens can provide. I think that's why we're talking past each other.

Your pics are nice, but you haven't provided me with full-sized pics, nor the focal lengths necessary to judge how far into the zoom range you are. Almost all lenses can do well at the wide angle. It's when you get to the telephoto end that things tend to fall apart. It was simply my contention that your camera would come nowhere near the detail that the 14-140 lens could provide at 100% at 280mm eq.

People get into all sorts of nitpicky things about lenses, but, ultimately, it comes down to optical quality, and this lens provides it at an almost unprecedented level throughout it's 10x zoom range.

Well I didn't post these pictures in order to demonstrate any artistic characteristics of them if there any.... I post them in order to proof that all the super zoom's pics of m43 that I have seen to date have not impress me at all.

Firstly you commented on my initial post the S100fs as a toy camera of 2008, secondly as I was expecting, you demand full size pictures in order to pixel pip... SO I have to post some... although I have my own thoughts in this... given that all my pictures are developed RAW files I have the habit to develop them with mild sharpening because my own theory is that the sharpening of a picture never finish even if you think that you have done all the pp... sharpening is something that is applied to a specific size of a picture for monitor viewing or paper printing so... it is something very relative to the size... also is very relative to personal tastes and again I don't prefer the ultra sharp images... that are reflecting the photographer's mania for sharpness... Lastly I believe that a full size 11mpxel picture has to bee on a wall and human to be see it from a sufficient distance, that's why I use to post usually web sized pictures of 800X600 pixels...

Anyway I'll post some with both wide angle and telephoto shots in order to study the quality of this lens... The differences that you'll find are only based in 11 mpixels vs 16 , speaking for any other have in mind how a FF will be compared with a m43 in full scale pp...

AdamT wrote:

I`ve owned the S100FS, one with less CA than they usually have and you`re right, it`s not within missile distrance of the Panny 14-140-II in any respect .........

The point about Greece (where Mike is) is that the horrible Purple fringing the S100FS is famous for will rarely rear is ugly head and lets face it - Mike could have taken pics of that quality with an iPhone given his skills and lovely conditions .......... try pixelpeeping one shot in the UK at winter !!

Hi Adam.... my comments are not against you but I just can't be exited from these 14-150 lenses... I was just expecting something more...

.........Also they`re close subjects (Macros, objects at close quarters) - always easy on a camera and why manufacturers use portraits and macros for  samples, it`s a cop out. Shoot a wide end landscape with the S100FS like in my sample and you'll see all sorts of issues from CA to acfoss the frame consistency - same at the long end. the camera is also awful to AF at the long end, it`s very slow .

landscapes are the real test for both ends of a zoom especially at infinity hence my test shots which show the lens in a non cop-out environment , as you can see, the pixel level sharpness is stunning (it was shot RAW BtW)

This is no disrespect to you Mike you`re an excellent photographer living in paradise (sunny photogenic Greece) but I can`t see anything you could dislike about the 14-140-II unless you`re big on Video , you`d not touch the slow, challenged S100FS ever again - I loved the cam in its day, but things have moved on big time .

Bobby Rue Goldberg wrote:

Spiridakis Michael wrote:

Bobby Rue Goldberg wrote:

Spiridakis Michael wrote:

Bobby Rue Goldberg wrote:

Spiridakis Michael wrote:

Well really I had a very careful look at the samples and I am feeling very lucky that I still have the Fuji S100fs instead if a super zoom lens for m43.

You honestly believe that a P&S with a 2/3" sensor and a 14.3x zoom (from 2008) is going to compete with an MFT with a modern 10x zoom.

I guarantee you the 14-140 will obliterate your Fuji toy. But, if you really feel strongly about it, let's see some samples from your Fuji at 10x zoom.

You have just remind me the days that I used to play little more with the Fuji S100fs TOY....

These are nice pics, but you missed the point. Look at these samples here:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54348192

Look at them at 100%. It's pretty rare that you see this kind of detail at 100% zoom from a 10x zoom. In fact, it's almost unheard of. The intent of the OP was not to provide artistic pics, but to show the pure detail this lens can provide. I think that's why we're talking past each other.

Your pics are nice, but you haven't provided me with full-sized pics, nor the focal lengths necessary to judge how far into the zoom range you are. Almost all lenses can do well at the wide angle. It's when you get to the telephoto end that things tend to fall apart. It was simply my contention that your camera would come nowhere near the detail that the 14-140 lens could provide at 100% at 280mm eq.

People get into all sorts of nitpicky things about lenses, but, ultimately, it comes down to optical quality, and this lens provides it at an almost unprecedented level throughout it's 10x zoom range.

Well I didn't post these pictures in order to demonstrate any artistic characteristics of them if there any.... I post them in order to proof that all the super zoom's pics of m43 that I have seen to date have not impress me at all.

I don't understand what you're saying. What specifically doesn't impress you? As you've noted yourself, composition and PP a shot are two very important factors, and neither of these were done in this thread with the 14-140 II. All that was done was take some random OOC shots to demonstrate the pixel level detail of the lens. Most of that doesn't "impress you at all" has to do with the body's processing, not the lens itself.

You're trying to compare your finished, PP'd shots against some random shots the OP took with no composition in mind and no PP. It doesn't really make sense, and you seem to be missing the point of the thread.

All I really wanted was for you to demonstrate the quality of your lens at 280mm eq. Just take an OOC jpeg at 10x zoom of something with a lot of detail. It doesn't require PP or any work at all.

Firstly you commented on my initial post the S100fs as a toy camera of 2008, secondly as I was expecting, you demand full size pictures in order to pixel pip... SO I have to post some... although I have my own thoughts in this... given that all my pictures are developed RAW files I have the habit to develop them with mild sharpening because my own theory is that the sharpening of a picture never finish even if you think that you have done all the pp... sharpening is something that is applied to a specific size of a picture for monitor viewing or paper printing so... it is something very relative to the size... also is very relative to personal tastes and again I don't prefer the ultra sharp images... that are reflecting the photographer's mania for sharpness... Lastly I believe that a full size 11mpxel picture has to bee on a wall and human to be see it from a sufficient distance, that's why I use to post usually web sized pictures of 800X600 pixels...

Anyway I'll post some with both wide angle and telephoto shots in order to study the quality of this lens... The differences that you'll find are only based in 11 mpixels vs 16 , speaking for any other have in mind how a FF will be compared with a m43 in full scale pp...

First of all, I don't have focal lengths on these shots, yet again. How am I to know at what zoom level you shot them? Second, I don't think the only difference is going to be the 11 MP vs. 16 MP. There isn't a chance in hell that the lens on that Fuji is in any way going to match up to the 14-140 II. It ain't gonna happen. And all I need is an OOC jpeg at 280mm eq (10x zoom) to prove it.

Really if you can't see in these pictures the superiority of a lens then you are not able to look at any picture in order to do so....  all the six pics that I picked to post are carefully picked in order to demonstrate special characteristics of the lens... in picture No4 you can see the lens at 28mm equiv. spotted in a 3dimensional human object with all the critical elements of a picture, sky, flesh, white objects as well as 3D objects, you can easily study the absence of any serious PF/CA, the sharpness across the frame and color reproduction although here is heavily related the whole camera too.

In pictures No 1-2-3 the lens is hunting a flying 3D object in telephoto mode presumably somewhere between 300 - 400mm equiv. from a sufficient distance you can estimate how far from the object is the camera studding the background that is not hardly OOF given the small size of the sensor. Again many critical elements are present, the sky, green, 3D objects, and white, so all the critical characteristics can be so easily studied.

Speaking for pictures No5 & No6 the lens is on tele macro mode that is so easily demonstrated from the magnification of really small objects and the OOF background that can be achieved in a small sensor size camera only in telemacro mode.

SO really I don't know what you are looking for in EXIF info, and what is that you can't understand, Also I don't know why you are looking for OOC files, who ever told you that OOC jpgs are a safe method to estimate a lens or a camera, ONLY RAW can demonstrate safely what a camera/lens can do....

I am wondering why I am speaking as its obvious that you repeat the same things, Fuji, P&S, 2008 etc,etc,etc, really its not my fault that you have missed the S100fs from your photographic experience...

And, this brings me to my final issue. Why do you believe that this P&S (with a 2/3" sensor) from 2008 is not only better, but so much better than MFT sensors and lenses from 2015. It doesn't make sense to me. The OP has already stated that he has the same Fuji camera and it wasn't within a missile's distance (or something to that effect) of the 14-140 II.

I don't ever recall this Fuji camera being discussed in 2008 as some revolutionary breakthrough in camera design. What makes this camera so special?

-- hide signature --

www.spiridakis.gr