Olympus 14-150 II vs. 14-42 IIR and 40-150 f4-4.5 - an unscientific comparison

Several questions have been popping up lately about how the Olympus 14-150 II compares to the kit lenses (14-42 and 40-150), and so I took a bagful of lenses out to the cemetery this morning for some test shots. Here is what I found.

First, some wide angle tests:

Olympus 14-150 at 14mm

Olympus 14-42 RII at 14mm

Crop from the 14-150 at 14mm

Crop from the 14-42 at 14mm

Then some tests at the long end:

Olympus 14-150 at ~40mm

Olympus 40-150 kit lens at ~40mm

Crop from the 14-150 at ~40mm

Crop from the 40-150 at ~40mm

I tried to keep the images as similar as possible, although I will confess that I forgot to remove the UV filters, which may account for some of the color differences. (Oops! )

Overall, all the lenses performed well at the center (I didn't show any center crops because they all look the same), but I do think that the kit lenses outperform the 14-150 away from the center.

Another issue, which I didn't really think about until I started shooting the lenses side by side, is that the 14-150 has a much closer minimum focusing distance (50cm) than the 40-150 (90cm). I made a couple of lovely flower shots with the 14-150 that I couldn't do on the 40-150.

My take is that the 14-150 is worth is for the convenience, the weather sealing, and the closer focusing in some circumstances, but if you are an IQ junkie you are better off with the kit lenses.

Oh, yeah, and the 12-40 Pro blew everything else away ... but I kind of expected that.

Thoughts? Opinions?

That's my observation too, though I did compare the first version of the 14-150 to my Panasonic 14-45 and the Oly 40-150 R. After that I sold the Oly.

Then I gave a chance to the Panasonic 14-140II (probably the best ultrazoom in m43), and while it was better in my experience than the Oly, the other two lenses were still quite a bit better. So I sold it too.

But I can understand someone choosing the ultrazoom for convenience.

I've come to the same conclusion, and I've tried Oly 14-150mm I and Panasonic 14-140mm II. The only superzoom I actually like and appreciate is the four thirds (via adapter) Panasonic Leica 14-150mm. It's larger and heavier, but has nice contrast, color, resolution, bokeh, and I think a good UV filter is helping with purple fringing on my Olympus body (Panasonic bodies have stronger UV filters over the sensor).  It has less purple fringing than Panasonic 14-140mm II had. I gave up on the small and light idea for the superzoom, since image quality was just not up to par to other m43 lenses I've used.

Based on what I see in your test shots, I agree with your conclusion.  However, I think if you would have stopped both lenses down to f/8, I don't think you would see as much difference.

gandalfII wrote:

The scene of course is historic Oakland Cemetery in downtown Atlanta, worth a visit. Go early or late in the day during summer.

You have that right! It's my favorite place to go to figure out anything visual -- either with painting or photography.  And it's pretty close to home, and so I can hop over there and test something quickly without taking up my whole day.

Some folks take pictures of test charts, and I just head to the cemetery ....

Bobby J wrote:

Based on what I see in your test shots, I agree with your conclusion. However, I think if you would have stopped both lenses down to f/8, I don't think you would see as much difference.

Yeah, I wanted to test before diffraction started kicking in ...

Or are you saying that diffraction will hit both lenses equally at f/8, or that the 14-150 will somehow improve at f/8?

I am keeping the 14-150, for sure, because there are times when it's exactly what I need. If I miss a shot because I am changing lenses -- or because I can't changes lenses, then all the IQ in the world won't help me.

Very nice, and quite helpful comparison!

In the last shots I notice some CA on the 14-42, perhaps that one didn't have a UV filter? Interesting to see at any rate.

I totally agree about the 14-150 allowing one to do more. Right now there are so many shots I miss when I don't have both the 14-42 and 40-150 available or when I am changing lenses. I tend to be a bit paranoid about exposed sensors too, so I insist on changing lenses indoors in clean environments only! This certainly doesn't help me in the regard of being ready for the moment.

Today I was at the shore taking landscapes and a gorgeous raven (my favorite bird, btw!) flew not six meters in front of me and landed for a moment. I really wished I had my 40-150 on hand, but alas, it was still at home!

Nice to see no Barrel or Pincushion distortion on either lens as well!

I think the kit lens does a pretty nice job....thanks for posting these!

Sigurthr wrote:

Very nice, and quite helpful comparison!

In the last shots I notice some CA on the 14-42, perhaps that one didn't have a UV filter? Interesting to see at any rate.

I totally agree about the 14-150 allowing one to do more. Right now there are so many shots I miss when I don't have both the 14-42 and 40-150 available or when I am changing lenses. I tend to be a bit paranoid about exposed sensors too, so I insist on changing lenses indoors in clean environments only! This certainly doesn't help me in the regard of being ready for the moment.

Today I was at the shore taking landscapes and a gorgeous raven (my favorite bird, btw!) flew not six meters in front of me and landed for a moment. I really wished I had my 40-150 on hand, but alas, it was still at home!

Nice to see no Barrel or Pincushion distortion on either lens as well!

Sorry for being off topic but since you brought it up, the raven is my favorite, too, and I'm a lifelong birding fan. If you haven't already, I highly recommend this book: "Mind of the Raven, by Bernd Heinrich, a professor of animal behavior at the Univ. of Vermont. He demonstrates the extraordinary intelligence of these birds, more so than crows or the other members of the Corvid family. You'll love the book, I'd think.