The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Panasonic 14-140 or 45-200?

L

lewis_levin

Guest
First, late me say that this is the most delightful photography forum I've seen. What a bresh of fresh air to see people sharing really amazing photos and being supportive and respectful of each other--in fact, beyond respectful you seem delighted.

So here is my question:

I have a GF1 with the 14-45mm. Loving it. For some of my outdoor and street photography I need more range. Would you recommend the 14-140 or the 45-200? My criteria are image quality and auto-focus speed and image stabilization. For my purposes the 140 (x2) is plenty of range.

Thanks,
Lewis
 

lmr

Member
Well... you have the 14-45, the next Zoom... 45 - 200. Now you have 14 - 200 or 4/2 term.. 28 - 400. You have the whole range covered. Next you need a couple of prime, a 20mm and a the 45(?) for Macro. U R set. :)

Hope this helps...

Robert.
 
L

lewis_levin

Guest
Thanks. I am not worried about some overlap in range covered. I am curious which tele provides the best image quality. Has anyone been able to compare (even just impressions) the 14-140 and the 45-200 for image quality?

Tx.
 

kwalsh

New member
Hard call. I'm not sure there is a big difference in IS performance or AF speed and the IQ is probably pretty close (perhaps slight nod to the 45-200). The 14-140 is of course a nice one lens solution, but it is pricey being a 10x zoom and having advanced video features. The 45-200 is cheaper and will give you wider apertures over most of the focal range, but you have to carry an extra lens and change lenses.

Ken
 

ggibson

Well-known member
Seems like the 45-200mm would suit you better, unless you want an all-in-one solution or constant AF for video. It's inexpensive and has lower apertures across the same range. Check out the reviews of both on slrgear.com though.
 
L

lewis_levin

Guest
SLRGear seems to have gotten a weird sample of the 45-200 that was considerably off-center. That said, it seems that CA is pretty noticeable but controllable, while the 14-140 seems to have negligible CA. On the sharpness front, the 14-140 is a tiny bit better, but the credible performance of the 45-200 requires stopping down--so the advantage of being 1/2 to 1 stop faster is negated in practical use.

I'm still left wondering here and wondering if any of you have practical experience--the real judge--with both lenses. Seems either is OK with the 14-140 being a bit more consistent.

I'll look at some reviews of the G1 and GH1 that provide the 14-140 as a kit lens--that seems to be how most people are obtaining this lens.

Thanks.
 

PeterB666

Member
Its funny but I would have thought that the 45-200 complented the base zoom quite well but frequently find that the lens just isn't convenient.

In full-frame 35mm cameras, the longest lens I had was 200mm but most of the time got by with 35mm and 85mm lenses. In compact cameras, I maxed out at 134mm or thereabouts so I thought 200mm would be good.

After living with the 45-200 to complement my Olympus 14-42, I simply find it inconvenient, neither being long enough or wide enough yet I am not a lover of long zooms.

I would be inclinded to advise getting the 14-140 as you can use this as a single lens for travelling (other than in low light hand held stuff where the 20mm f/1.7 would come into play) and then complement it with something going to 300mm later on if yo need that reach.

You are right that the 45-200 needs stopping down, expecially at 200mm. I find that the images are just not sharp enough when shot at full open aperture. In good light when the lens can be stopped down to f/8 or more, no real problem but f/5.6 leaves a lot to be desired.

Edit - I haven't found CA to be an issue but I don't think the buld quality of the Panasonic lens matches my Olympus lens. While the Olympus 14-42 is obviously built to a price, it doesn't feel it nor behave like it. Even though the Panasonic 45-200 costs considerably more, and appears a pleasant enough lens, its performance and build quality such as the very lightly made mount don't ooze the quality I would have expected.
 
Last edited:
Top