Compare panasonic 14-140ll with 35-100 f2.8

OK I know this should be a no brainer, but can anyone actually show me some comparison shots, taken in good light  ( so the wider aperture of the 35-100 does not carry the day)

it's a lot of money for me to fork out for the faster lens, but I will if I get demonstrably better IQ.

I find it hard to get sample photos attached to reviews which show much....eg that on Photozone, which they say is sharp, does not look very good to me...not that 'sharp' is the whole of IQ.

Of course I get water resistance as well which is valuable to me.  Can anyone comment on how real that is (apart from a rubber  ring round the mount)

Anything else as an advantage/ disadvantage of the upgrade?

Thanks

tom

There are lots of YouTube videos extolling the virtues of the 35-100 2.8.  Watch them and decide if it's worth it.  I might own it one day.  I have no interest in the 14-150 at all.

i don't have samples, but i did have both the pany 14-140ii and the 35-100 2.8 for quite a while together. I was very surprised at how well the 14-140 held up and in good light frankly I could not separate the two. In the end I chose to keep the 14-140 as a lightweight travel solution (combined with 75/1.8 for when I need speed) and sold the 35-100 to fund the 40-150 only pro 2.8 for when I wanted the ultimate combination of IQ and speed and weight wasn't a factor.

That's what I though too, at first, when I got my 35-100. Actually, it's quite soft at closer focusing distances. The problem disappears at longer distances, or if you close down a little.

Hi

I have the 35-100 f2.8 and value it for being able to shoot at f2.8 even in good light for greater DOF control. Being weather sealed is not a big deal for me personally, although it is occasionally useful. If that is of no great benefit to you and size matters I would go for the new tiny Pana 35-100. If you don't mind the bulk of the 14-140II then it a no brainer to go for that.

I do have the 14-140, but not the 35-100, and I'm afraid I don't do comparison shots, so why am I posting?

Well, I do have the 12-35 f2.8, which is said to be similar quality.  I use the 14-140 as my go to travel lens, and I know I can trust it.  I think if you are posting on the web at say 1200 pixels on the long edge, you won't see a noticeable difference.  However, on a decent monitor, I certainly can see the difference in IQ.  For "serious" landscapes (which is what I bought it for) I would definitely use the 12-35.

Dave

Dave Stott wrote:

I do have the 14-140, but not the 35-100, and I'm afraid I don't do comparison shots, so why am I posting?

Well, I do have the 12-35 f2.8, which is said to be similar quality. I use the 14-140 as my go to travel lens, and I know I can trust it. I think if you are posting on the web at say 1200 pixels on the long edge, you won't see a noticeable difference. However, on a decent monitor, I certainly can see the difference in IQ. For "serious" landscapes (which is what I bought it for) I would definitely use the 12-35.

Dave

So, do have experienced shutter shock when using the 14-140 with GX7? How do you get around it?

The reason I ask is maybe replacing my 14-45 with 14-140 II for walk around longer reach travel lens.

You have original 14-140 or MK2?

Lena

Fair enough.  Just adding a thought.

Dave

Len_Gee wrote:

Dave Stott wrote:

I do have the 14-140, but not the 35-100, and I'm afraid I don't do comparison shots, so why am I posting?

Well, I do have the 12-35 f2.8, which is said to be similar quality. I use the 14-140 as my go to travel lens, and I know I can trust it. I think if you are posting on the web at say 1200 pixels on the long edge, you won't see a noticeable difference. However, on a decent monitor, I certainly can see the difference in IQ. For "serious" landscapes (which is what I bought it for) I would definitely use the 12-35.

Dave

So, do have experienced shutter shock when using the 14-140 with GX7? How do you get around it?

The reason I ask is maybe replacing my 14-45 with 14-140 II for walk around travel lens.

You have original 14-140 or MK2?

Lena

I do have the mk 2

I haven't tested for shutter shock on the gx7.  However, I don't generally shoot moving objects where shear would be noticeable, so I rely pretty much exclusively on the e-shutter (except when shooting flash, of course).  However, if I were shooting something moving fast, I would probably be using a ss beyond the shutter shock range anyway.

I did test it quite extensively for shutter shock on the G5 (using tripod, indoors, solid floor and cross stitch tapestry as a target).   I did certainly find it, in the range others have, and so decided on the electronic shutter strategy.

I am literally just back from two weeks in South Africa with the 14-140 ll on most of the time (on my new G7 this time).  I haven't had chance to look at the images yet, but I am confident the lens will have performed well.

Dave

I thought long and hard before buying the 30-100 and I have to say u was really impressed with the 45-175. It's a great lens and incredibly good value.

So, do have experienced shutter shock when using the 14-140 with GX7? How do you get around it?

The reason I ask is maybe replacing my 14-45 with 14-140 II for walk around longer reach travel lens.

You have original 14-140 or MK2?

Lena

I have the 14-140 MK II and really love it for its quality and versatility when traveling. I had a OMD- EM5 , but sold it to get the GX7 ---- liked the handling and form factor of the GX 7. It handles very well, has more function buttons to use, and feels very well built.

However, it, in combination with some of my lens, suffered much more shutter shock than the Oly did with the same lens. Use of the electronic shutter helps the problem, but I did not know that until after taking a BUNCH of pics on a Norway trip [..was not able to check the pics on a computer until I got home]. I just noticed that many of the pics were not very sharp [and/or blury]. After comparing the two shutter types, I found that up to about 1/360 sec., SS is a real problem between the GX7 and the Pana 14-140 II. You WILL need to use the EFC shutter setting to take care of that problem!

.BTY-- the lens I was using included Oly 9mm, Pana 14-140 II, Pana 12-35 2.8, Oly 45mm 1.8, and the Pans 15mm 1.7. I think Oly does better with Shutterstock than Pana.... just one persons opinion...

Tom Axford wrote:

It may be that you really want the extra range of the 14-140, but if not and you value small size/weight as well, I'd suggest that it is definitely worth looking at the 35-100mm f/4-5.6 which is a superb little lens which is both stunningly small and light but also has IQ that is hard to fault. I use mine a lot.

In the same vein there's also the 45-150mm. It's slightly smaller and lighter than the 14-140mm II (52mm vs. 58mm filters) and costs quite a bit less… $250 vs. $600. It's slightly sharper over it's range and has a hair more reach, too. I use it with several primes or the 12-40mm with my GX8 (previously GX7). It performs well.

tomhongkong wrote:

OK I know this should be a no brainer, but can anyone actually show me some comparison shots, taken in good light ( so the wider aperture of the 35-100 does not carry the day)

it's a lot of money for me to fork out for the faster lens, but I will if I get demonstrably better IQ.

I find it hard to get sample photos attached to reviews which show much....eg that on Photozone, which they say is sharp, does not look very good to me...not that 'sharp' is the whole of IQ.

Of course I get water resistance as well which is valuable to me. Can anyone comment on how real that is (apart from a rubber ring round the mount)

Anything else as an advantage/ disadvantage of the upgrade?

I have the 12-35 and 35-100 f2.8 zooms because I'm an event pro and shoot in low light a lot. For my travel and landscape work, though, I recently got a 14-140 II for the convenience of not having to constantly swap lenses as I walk about. Like you, I wanted to know if the 14-140 IQ was good enough, so I did this test with all three lenses at f5.6. The f2.8 zooms are slightly better at some focal lengths, generally at the edges. But, I'm amazed how good the 14-140 is and have no hesitation about using it for images I want to print big.

For each image, I focused on the sign left of center. Shot handheld, OIS on, with e-shutter.

14-140 @ 14mm

12-35 @ 14mm

14-140 @ 24mm

12-35 @ 25mm

14-140 @ 34mm

12-35 @ 35mm

35-100 @ 35mm

14-140 @ 46mm

35-100 @ 50mm

14-140 @ 69mm

35-100 @ 72mm

14-140 @ 97mm

35-100 @ 100mm

14-140 @ 140mm