Olympus 14-150II: a great travel lens

Until recently, my travel kit consisted of the following: an m43 camera (I've had the GF1, G3, GM1, E-M5, and now E-M5II), Panasonic 14-42PZ, 7-14, and 45-175. With the purchase of the E-M5II I took advantage of the $200 rebate and traded in the 45-175, figuring that the 14-150 was close enough at the telephoto end for my purposes, and the weatherproofing would be something I don't have with any other lens.

It turned out to be a great decision; I'm delighted with the 14-150 II. I did some tests--not up to DxO, Photozone, or SLRGrear standards, but enough to satisfy me--and found that at matched focal lengths and apertures the 14-150 II was as good or better than the 14-42PZ or the 45-175 at 14, 42/45, and 100mm, and only slightly softer at 150.

Last weekend was my first opportunity to use the 14-150 II in a travel setting. I was in Montreal on business, and did not have a chance to be out of the hotel until Sunday afternoon, and then it was only for a couple of hours. I walked around in Old Montreal and took some pictures. I was very pleased with the 14-150 II, which focused quickly and accurately, and I could not really fault the image quality. (With the Oly 45 f/1.8 or the 75 f/1.8 it would be a different story, but we're talking about a wide-range zoom.) For what it does, and the price, I think this is an outstanding lens. My travel kit is now the 14-150 II and the 7-14.

A few samples are below.

Bob

Great writeup. Appreciate hearing your thoughts.

I have the 14-150 I, which is apparently the same lens, sans weather sealing.

The convenience factor is huge, especially for travel.  But it is disappointingly soft, especially when light is an issue. I am always struggling between the ease of use, and the not quite good enough image quality. Drives me nuts, actually.

My solution? Sometimes I will actually carry two cameras. So much for the small m43 convenience factor, but it is still lighter than DSLR.

My solution? Sometimes I will actually carry two cameras. So much for the small m43 convenience factor, but it is still lighter than DSLR.

Mark, I'd be interested in hearing more about this. I've been thinking about what gear I'm taking on a 2-1/2 week European family vacation the summer, and will likely take two cameras. I'd been thinking about the E-M1 with my 12-40/2.8 (though I'd like wider) and my Stylus 1, with a couple of primes thrown in the bag. But as I've been looking at my Stylus 1 images over the past year, the more I'm thinking about swapping that out for a smaller m43 with the new 14-150, especially given the running $200 package discount.

I bought a refurb Oly 14-150 1st generation last year, but was never really satisfied with the results and sold it for what I paid for it. I'd been hoping that the new version would improve sharpness, so I've been trying to keep an eye on upcoming reviews and user reports. So fr, people seem to enjoy it.

Mark Rosen wrote:

I have the 14-150 I, which is apparently the same lens, sans weather sealing.

I've read that, too, but this does not agree with the specifications given by Olympus on the getolympus.com web site.

The specs provided by Olympus are:

14-150 (I): 13 elements, 10 groups; closest focus .9m

14-150II: 15 elements, 11 groups; closes focus .5m; ZERO coating of lens elements

So it seems the lenses are NOT the same.

In any case, the lens I have is not soft.  I compared it with the Pana 14-42PZ and Pana 45-175, and was prepared to return the 14-150II if it did not match these lenses in IQ, but I found that it was as good or better throughout the range, except at 150, where it was still Ok, and improved somewhat at 140. At 45mm (45-175) and 42mm (14-42PZ) it was actually sharper than these lenses. This part of the focal length range is important to me, so I repeated the test, and again found the 14-150 II to be superior. Maybe I have an ubusually good sample...

Bob

Robert Deutsch wrote:

Mark Rosen wrote:

I have the 14-150 I, which is apparently the same lens, sans weather sealing.

I've read that, too, but this does not agree with the specifications given by Olympus on the getolympus.com web site.

The specs provided by Olympus are:

14-150 (I): 13 elements, 10 groups; closest focus .9m

14-150II: 15 elements, 11 groups; closes focus .5m; ZERO coating of lens elements

So it seems the lenses are NOT the same.

In any case, the lens I have is not soft. I compared it with the Pana 14-42PZ and Pana 45-175, and was prepared to return the 14-150II if it did not match these lenses in IQ, but I found that it was as good or better throughout the range, except at 150, where it was still Ok, and improved somewhat at 140. At 45mm (45-175) and 42mm (14-42PZ) it was actually sharper than these lenses. This part of the focal length range is important to me, so I repeated the test, and again found the 14-150 II to be superior. Maybe I have an ubusually good sample...

Bob

Thanks Bob...

This is good news... I wonder if it is worth an upgrade?

Mark

Is there someone who owns both the old and the new version? Any comments about comparing the two? any samples to compare?

PatrickNSF wrote:

My solution? Sometimes I will actually carry two cameras. So much for the small m43 convenience factor, but it is still lighter than DSLR.

Mark, I'd be interested in hearing more about this. I've been thinking about what gear I'm taking on a 2-1/2 week European family vacation the summer, and will likely take two cameras. I'd been thinking about the E-M1 with my 12-40/2.8 (though I'd like wider) and my Stylus 1, with a couple of primes thrown in the bag. But as I've been looking at my Stylus 1 images over the past year, the more I'm thinking about swapping that out for a smaller m43 with the new 14-150, especially given the running $200 package discount.

I bought a refurb Oly 14-150 1st generation last year, but was never really satisfied with the results and sold it for what I paid for it. I'd been hoping that the new version would improve sharpness, so I've been trying to keep an eye on upcoming reviews and user reports. So fr, people seem to enjoy it.

I carry the EMI with a 12-40mm Pro.... And an EM5 with the 14-150mm... I also bring the 9-18mm and 75-300mm and oh so many batteries.

Mark

thanks for this - been waiting to see something on the lens.  probably pulling the trigger monday and trading the 12-50, just need some extra reach without needing to change lenses (cant always change with kids running around) and the output seems pretty much the same.  was looking at the tamron, but the weather sealing will be nice to have at the beach and such...thanks again

jeff23r wrote:

thanks for this - been waiting to see something on the lens. probably pulling the trigger monday and trading the 12-50, just need some extra reach without needing to change lenses (cant always change with kids running around) and the output seems pretty much the same. was looking at the tamron, but the weather sealing will be nice to have at the beach and such...thanks again

This is the first wide-range zoom I've owned, always rejecting them, thinking that there must be a lot of compromises in obtaining the high zoom ratio. However, with the 14-150 II, whatever compromises they made appear to be no greater than with narrower-range zooms.  The lens is also small and light.  Although I'm very fond of the wide angle of the 7-14, the 14-150II gives you a great sense of freedom, being able to zoom in quickly without having to change lenses.

I'm now waiting for some rain (but, please, no snow!) to try out the camera/lens weatherproofing

Bob

It's been my experience that all lenses of this type-- but I'd include virtually all kit lenses that produce out-of-camera images that are a bit soft.  The good news is that they typically sharpen up nicely in editing.  If you want them sharper OOC just bump up the in camera sharpness.  Note:  sharpness is different than resolution.  We all should know the difference.

My Panasonic 12-32 is a good example of this-- soft out of camera, but sharpens nicely.  My Oly 14-150 and Tamron 14-150 fit in this class too.  I really like the better build quality of the Tamron and kept it rather than the others.

JL

WarrenKK wrote:

From the Olympus Asia site it appears that the MTF curves for I and II e identical.

I saw those MTF curves, and I don's see how they can be not just similar but identical, given the different assortment of lens elements.  My guess is that someone at Olympus neglected to run a new set of MTF measuremens, and just used the old one.

But tests from some sites seem to indicate otherwise. It will be interesting to find out which.

Yes.

Bob

-- hide signature --

WarrenKK

PetPeeve: posting a 800x600 to show anything other
than how soft my lens is or why I need new glasses.

JohnLock wrote:

My Oly 14-150 and Tamron 14-150 fit in this class too. I really like the better build quality of the Tamron and kept it rather than the others.

JL

Thanks John,

How would you rate the Tamron lens? I read somewhere on the net people having some mechanical problems with the Tamron. Any samples to share?

You may be right.  But bhphoto also lists the 14-150 specs as 13 elements 10 groups and the 14-150 II as 15 elements 11 groups.  Who are we to believe?

But it's a good point about the importance of the lens coating.  Also, incorporating weatherproofing may lead to changes in construction that can produce an imrovement in performance even if the lens elements were the same.  All I can say is that the 14-150 II performs better than I expected, on par or better than two well-regarded consumer-Level narrower-range zoons.

Bob