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

I just got a Panasonic 14-140mm f3.5-5.6, and I've gotta say I'm impressed. I just shot a set of test images of forest landscapes at 14, 18, 25, 50, 70 and 100mm in good light at ISO 200, f5.6 and 1/500 with e-shutter. Was expecting to see some significant tradeoffs for the convenience, but it actually gives my two f2.8 Panasonic zooms a run for their money at f5.6. A tad lower contrast at 70-100mm, and slightly less sharpness in certain parts of the frame as some focal lengths, but impressively consistent sharpness across the frame. In short, I'm comfortable relying on this for travel & hiking shots I plan to print at A2 and A1 sizes and don't feel I'm giving up anything but weight by leaving the f2.8 zooms at home.

There are a significant number of lenses, even kit lenses, of different makers, that give very good results with good light at f/5.6 or whatever is their sweet spot.

However, if you want, for whatever reason f/2.8, they will not give you that. That is why you pay more, and have more bulk and weight!

The same conclusion here!

For my experience on zoom lenses back in the film days, not to mention a 10x superzoom, I was highly suspicious on its IQ. In order to lure my wife (doesn't like lens changing) taking over my GF3 (a rush purchase to replace my water damaged G1) for a GX1 few years ago, I had no alternative but to buy her 14-140II. Now, it was on GX1 and is always fighting to put it on my larger GX7 (good or not, I might have approval soon for GX8 ).

It is a great lens not only on its versatility, but IQ at least comparable or might slightly better than than 14-45. Of course, if we need the speed, only the pro f/2.8 zoom would satisfy us.

A recent cropped, OOC sample from GX7 + 14-140II that IMHO could beat 14-45 in every aspect...

Lets put away the shutter shock concern, just enjoy it.

There are a significant number of lenses, even kit lenses, of different makers, that give very good results with good light at f/5.6 or whatever is their sweet spot.

However, if you want, for whatever reason f/2.8, they will not give you that. That is why you pay more, and have more bulk and weight!

Sure, how many 10x zooms manage that feat tho? I think the 14-140 is a bit of a standout in that regard.

For my experience on zoom lenses back in the film days, not to mention a 10x superzoom, I was highly suspicious on its IQ. In order to lure my wife (doesn't like lens changing) taking over my GF3 (a rush purchase to replace my water damaged G1) for a GX1 few years ago, I had no alternative but to buy her 14-140II. Now, it was on GX1 and is always fighting to put it on my larger GX7 (good or not, I might have approval soon for GX8 ).

It is a great lens not only on its versatility, but IQ at least comparable or might slightly better than than 14-45. Of course, if we need the speed, only the pro f/2.8 zoom would satisfy us.

A recent cropped, OOC sample from GX7 + 14-140II that IMHO could beat 14-45 in every aspect...

Lets put away the shutter shock concern, just enjoy it.

It seems Panasonic thinks it's a valid enough concern that they introduced (via update) a special auto e-shutter mode on the G7/GX8, which when enabled will activate the e-shutter within the SS danger zone for certain lenses more susceptible to it (like the 14-140).

I don't think it's a knock against the lens, it's the body that's the root cause after all, but it is something to be aware of so one can work around it for optimal results... Hopefully they'll get around to implementing an EFC at some point. The 14-140 is brilliant tho, size of a DSLR kit zoom yet so versatile, kind of what m4/3 is all about.

Pedagydusz wrote:

There are a significant number of lenses, even kit lenses, of different makers, that give very good results with good light at f/5.6 or whatever is their sweet spot.

There are very few 10x zooms of any format that perform as well as this one.

However, if you want, for whatever reason f/2.8, they will not give you that. That is why you pay more, and have more bulk and weight!

Uh, yeah, I know that. I never said I was getting rid of my fast zooms. I need them for portraiture and low-light event work. My 14-140 is for travel and hiking, as I mentioned before.

Imagine an even cheaper 40-150mm ED R lens + C-180 TC

Shot behind a mesh....

Sheer detail...

As a newbie to photography, I think I lack in experience and gear pluralism to confidently praise the virtues of this lens, compared to the "competition".

However, posts like this make me feel a tiny bit more confident for the decision to purchase 14-140mm II as my very first lens in MFT world. Sure, the fast normal prime will follow next (when my budget allows it), but for an all around lens the 14-140mm II ticks many boxes already.

Great shots by the way.

The 14-140mm lens is a superb value for money for performance general walkaround and holiday lens.

Throw in a 9-18mm and you've got a wonderful pair of lenses for travel....unless you are going on safari....in which case you supplement your bag with the new 100-400mm lens!!!

...IMO, that is. I still have the older 14-140 f4-5.6 and I have to say that for the most part, the optical characteristics of this lens are superb with a clarity level that defies description for this type of lens. Where I can fault the older lens is the IS effectiveness at the long end of the focal length (where it's not very steady - perhaps up to 2 stops of IS effectiveness). But for everything else, even the older one is fantastic (yet larger). I keep that on the GH-3. I can only imagine that the newer 14-140 would be better on the IS end of things.

As an aside, I recently picked up the Tamron 14-150 which I now keep on my E-M5, and that lens has absolutely taken me aback in a most positive way. The Tamron 14-150 doesn't seem to get the exposure that it truly deserves. It is optically superb (both on the wide angle and telephoto end of things) and on Olympus cameras, is firmware updatable using the Olympus Firmware Updater, which is very convenient. I'd have to say that for me, this Tamron currently rules the roost of the 14-150's. It has a very small signature (doesn't look too large on any of the micro 4/3 bodies), is well made, and performs well. Now it doesn't come with IS, so Panny-only users (other than with the GX7 or GX8) wouldn't find it alluring.

Jacques Cornell wrote:

I just got a Panasonic 14-140mm f3.5-5.6, and I've gotta say I'm impressed. I just shot a set of test images of forest landscapes at 14, 18, 25, 50, 70 and 100mm in good light at ISO 200, f5.6 and 1/500 with e-shutter. Was expecting to see some significant tradeoffs for the convenience, but it actually gives my two f2.8 Panasonic zooms a run for their money at f5.6. A tad lower contrast at 70-100mm, and slightly less sharpness in certain parts of the frame as some focal lengths, but impressively consistent sharpness across the frame. In short, I'm comfortable relying on this for travel & hiking shots I plan to print at A2 and A1 sizes and don't feel I'm giving up anything but weight by leaving the f2.8 zooms at home.

I currently have the Oly 14-150 MKI, which I got at a wonderful price. Can't complain as it does the job. How does this compare to the 14-140 MKII?

And for video, did Panny ever fix the jitter problem that seems to come up a lot on these boards?

I would probably stick with the Oly simply because the others are way more expensive (compared to what I got it for), but would certainly like to know what my options are.

codyghind wrote:

As a newbie to photography, I think I lack in experience and gear pluralism to confidently praise the virtues of this lens, compared to the "competition".

However, posts like this make me feel a tiny bit more confident for the decision to purchase 14-140mm II as my very first lens in MFT world. Sure, the fast normal prime will follow next (when my budget allows it), but for an all around lens the 14-140mm II ticks many boxes already.

Great shots by the way.

The 14-140 II is a very versatile lens, especially for daytime / well illuminated scenes. Go out and take pics with it

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.

Jacques Cornell wrote:

I just got a Panasonic 14-140mm f3.5-5.6, and I've gotta say I'm impressed. I just shot a set of test images of forest landscapes at 14, 18, 25, 50, 70 and 100mm in good light at ISO 200, f5.6 and 1/500 with e-shutter. Was expecting to see some significant tradeoffs for the convenience, but it actually gives my two f2.8 Panasonic zooms a run for their money at f5.6. A tad lower contrast at 70-100mm, and slightly less sharpness in certain parts of the frame as some focal lengths, but impressively consistent sharpness across the frame. In short, I'm comfortable relying on this for travel & hiking shots I plan to print at A2 and A1 sizes and don't feel I'm giving up anything but weight by leaving the f2.8 zooms at home.

I have the 14-140 and the 12-35.

I really like the 14-140.   It's my go to general travel lens.  However, I bought the 12-35 for landscape and I do think I get better sharpness and definition so it will stay in the bag.  Wouldn't see a difference posted on the web, mind.

Dave

codyghind wrote:

As a newbie to photography, I think I lack in experience and gear pluralism to confidently praise the virtues of this lens, compared to the "competition".

However, posts like this make me feel a tiny bit more confident for the decision to purchase 14-140mm II as my very first lens in MFT world. Sure, the fast normal prime will follow next (when my budget allows it), but for an all around lens the 14-140mm II ticks many boxes already.

Great shots by the way.

I guess you looked at my sites. Thanks for the generous feedback.

I think this is a great starter lens, if a bit pricey (for a starter). This and a 20/1.7 and 42.5/1.7 will take you a long way.

...IMO, that is. I still have the older 14-140 f4-5.6 and I have to say that for the most part, the optical characteristics of this lens are superb with a clarity level that defies description for this type of lens. Where I can fault the older lens is the IS effectiveness at the long end of the focal length (where it's not very steady - perhaps up to 2 stops of IS effectiveness). But for everything else, even the older one is fantastic (yet larger). I keep that on the GH-3. I can only imagine that the newer 14-140 would be better on the IS end of things.

As an aside, I recently picked up the Tamron 14-150 which I now keep on my E-M5, and that lens has absolutely taken me aback in a most positive way. The Tamron 14-150 doesn't seem to get the exposure that it truly deserves. It is optically superb (both on the wide angle and telephoto end of things) and on Olympus cameras, is firmware updatable using the Olympus Firmware Updater, which is very convenient. I'd have to say that for me, this Tamron currently rules the roost of the 14-150's. It has a very small signature (doesn't look too large on any of the micro 4/3 bodies), is well made, and performs well. Now it doesn't come with IS, so Panny-only users (other than with the GX7 or GX8) wouldn't find it alluring.

Or weather sealing, so Oly users probably wouldn't pick it over the 14-150 either... Is it now cheaper than the Oly one at least?

I came at this from a different direction. I came across an absolute bargain on a GH4 + 14-140 mkII and realised it would be lighter than the G1 + 14-45 + 45-200 it would replace. My subjective view was that I lost a little bit of quality at the short end versus the 14-45 but gained at the medium telephoto against the 45-200.  I have subsequently been able to buy the 12-35 and 35-100. Again subjectively, I think there is some improvement in sharpness over the 14-140, but I will accept the greater gain is in the f2.8 capability. I have also found the weather sealing useful, though I do not push it very far. However what I appreciate most is the flexibility to take out either the 14-140 or the f2.8 pair depending on what I'm doing and what I wish to carry. The other odd advantage of the 14-140 that has not been mentioned is its ability to focus down to 0.5m at 140mm, compared to 0.85m on the 35-100. Not exactly macro, but an increase by about a factor of 2 in magnification.