An M4/3 lens question

[davidedric]

I have recently bought an M4/3 camera (a Panasonic G5), with the 14-42mm vII kit lens. I have decided to add a lens to get extra reach.

My likely choice (based on reading reviews and posts) is the 45-175mm zoom.

However, there is also the 14-140mm zoom, at a rather higher price. Normally, I would avoid 10x zooms, but the reviews seem to suggest that the IQ's of the two lenses are similar.

So that could come down to a two lens solution, or a one lens (with a reduced reach at the long end, but probably good enough if I'm not shooting BIF or wildlife)

Would appreciate any views on those lenses.

Thanks,

Dave

[Manfred M]

Dave, I believe that Panasonic has recently released an updated version of the 14-140mm lens that is apparently sharper than the older version. The lens has a linear focus motor, rather than the more common stepper motor, so is better for video's continuous focus requirements that many amateur shooters have.

I do own the older version of the lens, but use it 100% of the time for video work, so I can't comment on it for photography. Video demands are lower as in HD I'm shooting to a 1920 x 1080 mFT sensor.

All things being equal, I would be tempted to go for the 45-175mm, because you already cover the lower focal length and the extra reach might be worth it. The 3mm where the two lenses don't overlap are unlikely to be missed.

[Shadowman]

No experience with the Panasonic zoom but have used the Olympus 40-150mm 4L5.6mm ED on a micro 4/3rd system. It's pretty functional and I've gotten some good shots with it, not enough reach for most of my applications so a 70-300mm was added to the system. When I purchased the EPL-1 the 14-42mm and 40-150mm came with the system so it wasn't like I was going to refuse it.

[jcuknz]

I simply have the 14-140 lens and after a couple of years, obviously I have the older version, I am quite happy with it and it saves a lot of messing around changing lenses When I first got MFT I had the kit lens but found it very limiting after being used to x12 zooms of my bridge cameras.

[ajohnw]

I shoot olympus but I would say from reviews that the biggest draw back of the 10x zoom is likely to be working from raw. More vignetting and distortion that the camera removes from jpg's. Probably chromatic problems as well.

I look around on these 2 when choosing lenses

http://www.photozone.de/all-tests

http://www.ephotozine.com/reviews

The 1st one is the best and not too difficult to understand.

John
-

[davidedric]

I shoot olympus but I would say from reviews that the biggest draw back of the 10x zoom is likely to be working from raw. More vignetting and distortion that the camera removes from jpg's. Probably chromatic problems as well.

Thanks for the links, John. As I shoot with a Panasonic body, the RAW's are auto-corrected, so it shouldn't be too much of a problem.

I looked at the sites. One needs to be careful - the photozone review, which is lukewarm, is for the old version of the 14-140mm lens. The ephotozine which is of the new version is very complimentary.

Dave

[thequacksoflife]

Thanks for the links, John. As I shoot with a Panasonic body, the RAW's are auto-corrected, so it shouldn't be too much of a problem.

I looked at the sites. One needs to be careful - the photozone review, which is lukewarm, is for the old version of the 14-140mm lens. The ephotozine which is of the new version is very complimentary.

Dave

I own the new one and have used the old one. I don't think optically the new one is significantly better, it may be a bit but......

Where the new one is better is that it focuses quicker & generally feels more responsive. It is significantly lighter and more compact. As superzooms go it is pretty decent. When I'm out with family/friends it's the lens I use with the 20mm f1.7 for when I want low light or just in case.

However if you already own the 14-42 MKII you would have total duplication so I question why you'd need both.

I've never used the 45-175 reviews suggest it is a good lens but not stellar I'd also look at the 45-150 which is a highly competent zoom. I seem to remember saying that the 45-175 is the choice for video but for stills theres not so much in it.

[ajohnw]

I would be inclined to follow Manfred's advice because there are no free lunches on extended zoom ranges. I have owned both the panasonic xx-200mm and the 100-300mm. If you may want to go longer later I would think about that too and give the xx-200mm a miss. Both gone now and to think I sold the Olympus 40-150mm. Fortunately the buyer never paid. You might like to look at the review on that one as a guide. In practice for what it is it's good. My only problem with it is that mine is silver. I feel like I should put a paper bag over my head when I use it.

There is a tendency in reviews to rate in comparison with similar products. The de site stars relate to what is possible on primes and I only recollect seeing 1 4+ stars. His summaries are usually fair from what I have seen and most of all the resolution charts give a good idea of what to expect across the frame. I recollect he does point out that the Panasonic 14mm to is better than the Olympus one. Sacrilege almost hard to believe but in a few cases maybe they are.

John
-

[ajohnw]

I own the new one and have used the old one. I don't think optically the new one is significantly better, it may be a bit but......

Where the new one is better is that it focuses quicker & generally feels more responsive. It is significantly lighter and more compact. As superzooms go it is pretty decent. When I'm out with family/friends it's the lens I use with the 20mm f1.7 for when I want low light or just in case.

However if you already own the 14-42 MKII you would have total duplication so I question why you'd need both.

I've never used the 45-175 reviews suggest it is a good lens but not stellar I'd also look at the 45-150 which is a highly competent zoom. I seem to remember saying that the 45-175 is the choice for video but for stills theres not so much in it.

In my opinion new versions often aren't that much different to earlier ones in fact I have a tendency to feel that they can be slightly worse at times. The telling aspect really is price and what optics are in the new one and even that may not be a good guide.

John
-

[thequacksoflife]

In my opinion new versions often aren't that much different to earlier ones in fact I have a tendency to feel that they can be slightly worse at times. The telling aspect really is price and what optics are in the new one and even that may not be a good guide.

John
-

that's certainly true of some of the kit zooms....... the 14-45 was better than the 14-42 MKI

as I say I've used both travel zooms and the differences are minimal optically. The weight and size are what clinches it for me.

as to the telephoto, i've used most of the pannies and the only I've stuck with is the 100-300.... it ain't perfect but.....

[ajohnw]

that's certainly true of some of the kit zooms....... the 14-45 was better than the 14-42 MKI

as I say I've used both travel zooms and the differences are minimal optically. The weight and size are what clinches it for me.

as to the telephoto, i've used most of the pannies and the only I've stuck with is the 100-300.... it ain't perfect but.....

I would agree on the 100-300mm. It's not bad at all and better would cost rather a lot more. It also does stand up to the competition. I've switched to the Olympus 75-300mm. Weight was one aspect that drew me towards Olympus. That was the whole idea of going m 4/3 really and the quality came as a bit of a surprise especially the 2 basic kit lenses. I really didn't expect to finish up buying an EM-5 but the E-P3 did it for me.

John
-

[thequacksoflife]

there's a guy called David Thorpe who does good reviews of m4/3 on you tube. or maybe he is good because I agree with him

[xpatUSA]

I have recently bought an M4/3 camera (a Panasonic G5), with the 14-42mm vII kit lens. I have decided to add a lens to get extra reach.

My likely choice (based on reading reviews and posts) is the 45-175mm zoom.

However, there is also the 14-140mm zoom, at a rather higher price. Normally, I would avoid 10x zooms, but the reviews seem to suggest that the IQ's of the two lenses are similar.

So that could come down to a two lens solution, or a one lens (with a reduced reach at the long end, but probably good enough if I'm not shooting BIF or wildlife)

Would appreciate any views on those lenses.

Thanks,

Dave

Have you considered the Panasonic 45-200mm? I bought it to go with my G1 kit lens, the well-respected 14-45mm.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showprodu...ct/1226/cat/69

Not the finest lens on the planet but mine was cheap and I don't use it very often.

[inkista]

I like my 45-200 OIS as well, and I do use it a lot, but if price is no object, the 45-175 looks to be a newer, better performing, smaller lens, particularly when it comes to LoCA (purple fringing).

[davidedric]

Hi folks, and thanks for your thoughts.

I had basically narrowed it down to either the 45-175mm (paired with the kit lens I already have) or the 14-140mm (as a single lens system). I read all the reviews that I could find, including a couple of head to head ones, and it seems that optically, they are very similar (I was surprised, I would have thought that the 10x zoom would have performed worse). The weights of the two lens vs. the one lens are very similar.

So it came down to a balance of cost, convenience, and the extra reach of 175 vs. 140. In the end I decided that the extra reach was not very important to me for the uses that I plan, and convenience of one lens won out over the cost.

I now have the 14-140mm, and will see how I go. Plans for upgrading my dslr body to a 70D are now on hold!

Dave