Panasonic 35-100mm F4-5.6 v Panasonic 14-140mm f3.5-5.6

I am looking for a good general walk around lens for my EM1 and have narrowed my choice to these two. As far as I can see the 35-100 is smaller, lighter and possibly sharper but the 14-140 has a better range (obviously!).

I know so few people seem to use the new 35-100 but does anyone have any thoughts on which may be better for general use. I am think  of using it for outside walk around family shots. My main concern with the 35-100 is the minimum focal distance (maybe a fraction too long for me?) and for the 14-140 it is the size!

This is a strange choice! Yes the 14-140 is a walk around lens but with a hefty tele part. I would prefer 12-32 (very small) or 12-42mk2 (only a little bigger). You could add the 35-100 as a tele zoom. Unless you know for sure 35mm is wide enough for your needs (70mm on FF) then the 35-100 would be fine.

The 14-140 is uspposed to have shuttershock issues. I use mine with an OM-D EM10 set for first curtain electronic shutter so that is not an issue. It's a great lens for travel and "walk around" if you need the tele. I recently traveled to see my grandchildren to another city and brought athe14-42 EZ which was fine for some things, but I missed shots of bird and tighly cropped tele shots of kids playing- I missed the 14-140. I have a 35-100 which I haven't used much.

I have both lenses and both are excellent.  I would say the 35-100 is sharper but there is not much wrong with the 14-140 Mk II either !  Both are superb.

The 35-100 is very small and intended to be suitable for the GM1 / GM5 which is why I bought it (for my GM1).  The 14-140 is bigger but still not huge.

The choice depends on your use - I would have thought the 14-140 would be more flexible but it is a bit difficult to advise.  I don't use either particularly close as I have a 12-35 for that.

Quality wise you can't go wrong with either.  The 14-140 certainly has IS built into the lens.  I can't remember with the 35-100.

If you want small the 35-100 is hard to beat and the IQ from it is stunning ... but that 35 starting point is restrictive so I use it with the 12-32 on my GM1.

HDcamfan wrote:

I am looking for a good general walk around lens for my EM1 and have narrowed my choice to these two. As far as I can see the 35-100 is smaller, lighter and possibly sharper but the 14-140 has a better range (obviously!).

I know so few people seem to use the new 35-100 but does anyone have any thoughts on which may be better for general use. I am think of using it for outside walk around family shots. My main concern with the 35-100 is the minimum focal distance (maybe a fraction too long for me?) and for the 14-140 it is the size!

I don't have 35-100 but have keen interest on it. I saw a used copy today for only US$130 and am struggling in figuring my way as I am actually looking for a smaller and lighter replacement for my heavy old Panny 45-200. Decision, decision, decision... 100 might be a bit short for me yet...

OK, back to the business. Would you mind a heavier and larger package or a light and small one? Your current standard lens (12-40 f/2.8 or what?) would be a determine factor.

1) If you wish to go light, then, the maths is: 35-100 f/4-5.6 is 135g, plus your standard kit (if 12-40 f/2.8, then 382g), total are 517g covering 24mm to 200mm and f/2.8 from 24mm to 80mm. If you have that Panny 12-32 f/3.5-5.6 of 70g, your combo would just be 205g covering similar aov but slower in the wide~standard range.

2) 14-140 MII is 265g covering 28mm to 280mm. Less wide and slightly longer (only 80mm, tiny difference in real life). If you have Panny's 2 tiny zooms as in 1), then this 10x zoom is heavier and larger (otherwise depends on the standard kit lens you got). You would enjoy the convenience without lens changing and also having similar speed. But if you have 12-40 f/2.8, then, this 10x zoom would be smaller and lighter, more convenience but slower in the early aov range.

My copy of 14-140 MII is very sharp, at least not weaker than my famous Panny 14-45. On the long end it is better than my 45-200 (FYI, there was a general consensus among forum members that at least upto 150+, 45-200 is quite sharp). Might be of sample variance some users had complained shutter shock (specially on GH3) or has over sensitive OIS causing irregular jittering in video shooting. Honest, My wife and I used it mainly on GF3 (an old and just entry model) and sometimes on GX1 for 2 major trips plus many shooting events in last 6 months, same as some forum members' experience, we are perfectly happy with our copy.

There were a few threads (not many, may be because 35-100 is still new and not as attractive as those pro f/2.8s) discussing its IQ. It should be a good lens at its price.

Conclusion, IQ of both should be OK. The remaining question would depend on your choice in size and weight vs convenience.

P.S., 35-100 equal to AoV of 70mm (a short tele) to 200mm (a mid-long tele). Not surprise to have a longer min shooting range. But normally it would be accompanied with a standard kit of eq 24mm or 28mm as start and the need of closer shooting range should been covered. Right?

The tiny 35-100 has OIS and it is very light and sharp.  If you do not need something longer, it is a very nice lens.

Tangential discussion:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55541130

HDcamfan wrote:

I am looking for a good general walk around lens for my EM1 and have narrowed my choice to these two. As far as I can see the 35-100 is smaller, lighter and possibly sharper but the 14-140 has a better range (obviously!).

Well, which focal lengths do you use? It's as simple as that. I for one, barely use my 14-42 zoom and could use 35-100 as my primary walk around lens. Could you? If not, then 14-140 is your choice (or go for FZ1000 for similar amount of money).

Everything is a compromise.  I use the 12-32 as my walk around and the 35-100 F4-5.6 for almost everything else.  Both are amazing lenses and are tiny.

wine540 wrote:

The 14-140 is uspposed to have shuttershock issues. I use mine with an OM-D EM10 set for first curtain electronic shutter so that is not an issue. It's a great lens for travel and "walk around" if you need the tele. I recently traveled to see my grandchildren to another city and brought athe14-42 EZ which was fine for some things, but I missed shots of bird and tighly cropped tele shots of kids playing- I missed the 14-140. I have a 35-100 which I haven't used much.

I wonder about that too.  I've read about the shutter shock issue on the SLRGear review and also some reports of people who've used this lens--on both Panasonic and Olympus cameras.  One person wrote that he went through 2 copies of the 14-140mm II, and both had bad shutter shock even with 0-second anti-shock setting turned on.  That put me off the Panasonic version, even though it's supposed to be very good optically.  (Though SLRGear measures the first version to perform better, for some reason).

I had the first version of Olympus 14-150mm, and it was a bit soft for my liking, especially on the long end.  I'd like to own a super-zoom again for situational convenience, but can't decide between Tamron's 14-150mm III, Olympus 14-150mm II, and maybe Panasonic 14-140mm II *if the shutter shock issue has been addressed somehow*.  Holding off until I gather more information.

Here are a few of mine.  The lizard has been cropped.  The 35-100 F4-5.6 is not a macro lens.

john isaacs wrote:

If you want to replace the 45-200, I suggest the 45-175, much smaller, nano tech, power zoom which on a Panasonic body can be controlled via iPhone. Fun lens. A bit sharper and larger than the 45-150 (which loses 25% of the zoom you are used to). The 35-100 does not have comparable reach, but it's a good portrait/event lens. Not enough reach for real telephoto work.

Thank you for your kind advice. I'm still considering and might make my call before my next trip in early June. 45-175 is high on my list.

OrdinarilyInordinate wrote:

wine540 wrote:

The 14-140 is uspposed to have shuttershock issues. I use mine with an OM-D EM10 set for first curtain electronic shutter so that is not an issue. It's a great lens for travel and "walk around" if you need the tele. I recently traveled to see my grandchildren to another city and brought athe14-42 EZ which was fine for some things, but I missed shots of bird and tighly cropped tele shots of kids playing- I missed the 14-140. I have a 35-100 which I haven't used much.

I wonder about that too. I've read about the shutter shock issue on the SLRGear review and also some reports of people who've used this lens--on both Panasonic and Olympus cameras. One person wrote that he went through 2 copies of the 14-140mm II, and both had bad shutter shock even with 0-second anti-shock setting turned on. That put me off the Panasonic version, even though it's supposed to be very good optically. (Though SLRGear measures the first version to perform better, for some reason).

This is one among a sequence of about 100+ shots on our day out shooting by GF3 (no IBIS, entry level body, old 12M panny sensor, small and no evf so more vulnerable to shaking) + 14-140 MII by my wife who is not a very experienced shooter as me. I don't see SS as a lot other users don't:

Or our recent to a local flower show like this from the same combo:  Edit: I better find another sample since the following was taken at 1/1000" out of the complained SS range of shutter speed. I need to go through my external disk and many need some time. Pls forget the following flower image.

These samples were not few good ones from thousands of failed images (I must confused not every image was taken by the combo within the SS shutter range, some might be faster and some might be taken by slower shutter because they were not originally intended to prove SS). By the end, I believe no one would wish to see hundreds of similar images to prove no SS.

Please judge by yourself to see would I be a few lucky ones to have a good copy as many others happy users (never forget 14-140 MII is a very frequently recommended lenses here!), or just a few unlucky owners had defectively copies and shouted their satisfaction out loud? One thing is real SS could not be avoided on tripod or adding weight to the camera. Sadly so far no unfortunate user willing to test their bad copy on tripod to see would it be a true SS and keep the mysterious lingering around....

I had the first version of Olympus 14-150mm, and it was a bit soft for my liking, especially on the long end. I'd like to own a super-zoom again for situational convenience, but can't decide between Tamron's 14-150mm III, Olympus 14-150mm II, and maybe Panasonic 14-140mm II *if the shutter shock issue has been addressed somehow*. Holding off until I gather more information.

alcelc wrote:

Please judge by yourself to see would I be a few lucky ones to have a good copy as many others happy users (never forget 14-140 MII is a very frequently recommended lenses here!), or just a few unlucky owners had defectively copies and shouted their satisfaction out loud? One thing is real SS could not be avoided on tripod or adding weight to the camera. Sadly so far no unfortunate user willing to test their bad copy on tripod to see would it be a true SS and keep the mysterious lingering around....

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1611/cat/all

(scroll down to "Shutter-related Blur Problems").

OrdinarilyInordinate wrote:

alcelc wrote:

Please judge by yourself to see would I be a few lucky ones to have a good copy as many others happy users (never forget 14-140 MII is a very frequently recommended lenses here!), or just a few unlucky owners had defectively copies and shouted their satisfaction out loud? One thing is real SS could not be avoided on tripod or adding weight to the camera. Sadly so far no unfortunate user willing to test their bad copy on tripod to see would it be a true SS and keep the mysterious lingering around....

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1611/cat/all

(scroll down to "Shutter-related Blur Problems").

I had a good copy and I enjoy it. Like a lot of happy users out there. What would be a review be related to me. Would it suddenly turn my images blurry?

The only way is pick up one, test it by yourself and if you do not happy with it, move on to what ever lens that might serve you. Your money ruled.

My post is to prove the 14-140 MII is not a piece of junk. It is indeed a very capable one like many high recommendations around. Any intentional blurred image would be easy to produce, it would be difficult to capture something to prove no SS if there is a real lens deficiency (might be, only might be on a better camera with silence shutter sharpness of my samples could be improved, but I don't think they were out of any reasonable level). If one day my grand daddy grade 14-45 out of service, I would get one more without hesitation.

EDIT: Another sample image which was taken from a recent local flower show by GF3 + 14-140 MII to replace the one (wrongly selected as it was taken out of the so called usual SS shutter speed range) I posted in my last post.

HDcamfan wrote:

Thanks for the replies. I have the Panasonic 15mm and olympus 25mm 1.8, both of which are great. I just want something I can use on family days out with a bit more reach and a one Lens solution as if at say the zoo I don't want to be changing lens. The 35-100 really appeals for the size and reported sharpness but generally I use 15mm as a walk around so a little concerned that 35 may not be wide enough.

If you satisfy the coverage of your existing 15mm (a mid wide angle), then paired with 35-100 would be a very portable system to go. Might be consider one more MF Samyang wide angle which is small, not heavy and its very deep dof requires only small focus work in case you need wider coverage.

The 14-140 makes me nervous for ss issues

Would these taken by entry body GF3 + 14-140 MII be good enough for you?

and is also a bit larger

Agreed. Of course, its your preference.

so I may feel inclined to leave it at home but the range is fantastic.

I guess I will have to make a decision at some point and my gut feeling is the 35-100.

Good choice.

I would love to see more samples from this lens but after searching the Internet there are (surprisingly) not that many examples.

That photo is at 1/200s and 1/100s shutter speed. The troublesome speeds are reported in that review (slower). Also over 50mm focal length, and yours is at 30mm and 21mm.