14-45 or 14-140 as second GF1 lens?

[Pelao]

Hi

I have had my Gf1 and 20mm for 2 months, and am very happy with both. I would like a second lens for flexibility in terms of wide and zoom.

Until recently I was pretty much determined to get the 14-45: it receives good reviews and offers a nice range. The 14-140 seems to generate less enthusiasm, and slightly less favourable reviews, but certainly the extra reach is attractive.

My Gf1 is generally used for personal stuff, and the news lens would be for some street situations, nature etc.

I would appreciate your thoughts and insights.

 

[DHart]

Pelao.... so far, I have the 20 and the 14-45 and I use the 14-45 much more than I do the twenty. Though I love the twenty, would not want to give it up, and it shines in it's appropriate applications.

Of these two lenses you're comparing, I can only speak for the 14-45mm... and I love the lens! It produces beautifully detailed images.

That said, I would prefer the longer reach of the 14-140, provided the size isn't dramatically larger (I don't think it is) and the image quality is comparable. Hopefully someone who has both can attest first hand if the image quality is comparable between the two lenses. If I'm not mistaken, I believe the 14-140 is about twice the price of the 14-45... so I would expect it to ROCK!

 

[mark1958]

I have all three lenses. The 14-140mm is a great all in one lens. It is quite a bit heavier and bigger than the 14-45mm. It is commonly what i take when space is an issue. I use a small bag, I take my GF1, 20mm, and 14-140mm. I use the former only when in low light or if i need to stick in a jacket (e.g. skiing). The IS on the lens works well. THe optics are not that much different from the 14-45 but it is not as good 45-140 compared to the 45-200. So sometimes i am torn about taking the 14-45 and 45-200. I suspect weight wise pretty similar to the 14-140mm alone but not having to do lens changing is important.

 

[Jack]

LIke Mark, I own all three. And I like them for what they offer. The 14-140 is a great single-lens solution for a day of walking around exploring a new city when you're not sure what you'll see. It is big, but not horrendously so. The 14-45 is also great, and small, just lacks the longer end when you want it. It is the lens I keep on my IR converted GF1 most of the time. The 20 is perhaps the last lens I'd sell, simply because it renders very much like an older 50 Lux on a Leica. It's what's on the GF1 at night.

 

[ggibson]

I added the 45-200mm to compliment my 20mm. It offers such a different range. The 20mm is flexible enough that I decided that I didn't need to buy the 14-45mm.

 

[DHart]

I added the 45-200mm to compliment my 20mm. It offers such a different range. The 20mm is flexible enough that I decided that I didn't need to buy the 14-45mm.

I find many instances where if the 20 was as wide as I could go , that I couldn't create the image I needed to create. Such as this one

I find so many times when I need wide that even the 14-45 isn't wide enough sometimes... thus the 7-14 is my next lens for my GF1.

So... having the 14-45 already, I suppose the 45-200 would probably be a better choice than the 14-140? Are the 14-140 and 45-200 comparable in IQ?

I guess creating movies with the GH1/GH2 could be a decisive factor... as I understand it, the 14-140 is designed for silence while movie making... I guess that means the 45-200 would be noisy? This is something I'd like to understand better.

 

[s.agar]

I also have the 14-45mm. I can recommend it as a single lens, because it covers a very reasonable 28-90mm range. It's small, lightweight and cheap. Then naturally the next lens that I bought was the 45-200mm.

I'm very happy with the 14-45mm photos. I wonder if the 14-140 would be as good in that range.

 

[ggibson]

I find many instances where if the 20 was as wide as I could go , that I couldn't create the image I needed to create.

I find so many times when I need wide that even the 14-45 isn't wide enough sometimes... thus the 7-14 is my next lens for my GF1.

So... having the 14-45 already, I suppose the 45-200 would probably be a better choice than the 14-140? Are the 14-140 and 45-200 comparable in IQ?

I guess creating movies with the GH1/GH2 could be a decisive factor... as I understand it, the 14-140 is designed for silence while movie making... I guess that means the 45-200 would be noisy? This is something I'd like to understand better.

Beautiful image! Indeed, I also want wider than 20mm, so I'll be picking up the 7-14mm soon as well.

As far as the zooms go, I compared the reviews on slrgear: 14-140 vs 45-200. Looks pretty similar to me; the major difference is that the 45-200 basically gets a full stop faster aperture over the shared focal lengths.

 

[Jack]

So... having the 14-45 already, I suppose the 45-200 would probably be a better choice than the 14-140? Are the 14-140 and 45-200 comparable in IQ?

Well..... I started with the 20, 14-45, 7-14 and 45-200. What I found is usually when I had the 45-200 mounted, I wanted wider than 45 just often enough it was a hassle. Plus the 14-140 is slightly smaller than the 45-200. Anyway, I sold the 45-200 and got the 14-140 for those reasons and am quite happy with my kit. I do want to get the 14/2.8 when it ships, and would love a fast 40 as well.

 

[Pelao]

Hi All

Thanks for the input.

I am really enjoying the 20mm, much the way I do a 50mm on my 5D: it makes me apply a little more thought to my composition. I really do want a zoom though, and I would like to have just one. This way I can have a very compact, take everywhere kit.

At this point the 14-140 is leading. I suppose I really need to look through my forums and threads and have a look at what was achieved with these two lenses, and compare that to what I am most likely to shoot.

Thanks again.

 

[DHart]

Well..... I started with the 20, 14-45, 7-14 and 45-200. What I found is usually when I had the 45-200 mounted, I wanted wider than 45 just often enough it was a hassle. Plus the 14-140 is slightly smaller%

Somehow my previous reply to your comments didn't "take". I'll try again.

I really appreciate your thoughts on this. This is an excellent and very applicable point to me. I can see my experience with a 45-200 mirroring yours.

I use long lenses almost exclusively in my portrait business. But otherwise, my vision generally leans toward wider views, especially for travel photos. The GF-1 is not my pro-use camera; I bought it for "off work" shooting, trips, walk around, etc. I would probably only very occasionally use the 45-200, whereas the 14-140 would stay on the camera far longer (switching probably just for the 7-14mm or the 20 under low light). And for video recording (something I like to do a lot), the silent focusing motor on the 14-140 would be nice to have. My 14-45 may wind up seeing a lot less use when I have the 14-140 at my disposal.

I'm in for the 14-140 over the 45-200 myself.

 

[Jack]

I would probably only very occasionally use the 45-200, whereas the 14-140 would stay on the camera far longer (switching probably just for the 7-14mm or the 20 under low light).

Exactly what has happened --- the 14-140 is basically living on my GF1 as the norm, 20 comes out when I want small and fast, 7-14 for real wide. The 14-45 pretty much lives on the GF1 IR.

 

[DHart]

:thumbup: Following your well-blazed path, Jack!

And really jonesin' for the 7-14!