Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: 14-140 instead of 14-45 & 45-200?

  1. #1
    Senior Member back alley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    the frozen north
    Posts
    428
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    14-140 instead of 14-45 & 45-200?

    i'm thinking of using just the 14-140 instead of both the 14-45 and 45-200.
    i don't seem to use the 45-200 very much.
    and i also have the 20/1.7 and just bought a second g1 body.

    so, a 2 body, 2 lens kit, covering from 14-140 with a fast 20?

    any thoughts?

    (btw, i would have to sell the 2 kit lenses and buy the 14-140)

    joe

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    North Carolina western foothills
    Posts
    1,860
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 14-140 instead of 14-45 & 45-200?

    That's been my consideration also--I would likely sell both and buy the 14-140. But---I rarely shoot tele--above 45mm--so my travel solution is to carry the 9-18, 20, my new 45 f/2.8 (which covers my wide and mid range nicely)--and carry the 45-200--just in case. That means I'm not carrying a larger lens very often--usually just the 20 and 45 now for most shooting. I can still add either the 9-18 or the 45-200 if I anticipate needing the wide of the long end.

    Still--everytime I see a 14-140 come up for sale, I go through this thinking again LOL.

    Diane

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    776
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 14-140 instead of 14-45 & 45-200?

    A big consideration in getting the GH1 as my second m4/3 body instead of another G1 was the 14-140 lens. I don't find myself going much beyond 140mm right now, and I'd rather wait for the 100-300mm lens that's supposed to come out this year for the times when I do want to go out and reach further. The 14-140 is a nice compromise, and while it's not quite as fast as the 14-45mm, it's a very nice lens and does a lot of things well.

    If you don't use the 45-200 all that much, I'd consider selling that one for sure. What you get for that will offset another lens. The decision on which other lens to get I think has to be a personal one based on how you take photos, so other than telling you our personal preferences we won't be much help with that decision. You can certainly do a lot of things with a G1+14-45 and your other G1+20 to where you may not even need a third lens for now. If you don't use the 45-200 much, that means you're not going past 45 much, which makes keeping your 14-45 kind of a no-brainer, and the 14-45 is a nice lens after all.

  4. #4
    Contributing Editor ustein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 14-140 instead of 14-45 & 45-200?

    I think 14-140 is all I really need (with Canon I limit myself to 200mm (this is 280mm equivalent). Of course for birds 140mm is not good enough.
    Uwe Steinmueller
    -------------------

    Editor&Owner of Digital Outback Photo
    http://www.outbackphoto.com

  5. #5
    Member vincechu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    England - UK
    Posts
    213
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 14-140 instead of 14-45 & 45-200?

    Hi there, I recently got myself the 14-140mm and I think its a great all in one solution for me.

    I'm keeping the 14-45 as its much lighter and more compact compared to the 14-140 and because I'll have my original g1 kit not broken up -I think will sell better complete in future.

    When i bought my 14-140mm I did think about buying the 45-200 lens instead, to partner my 14-45, but 140mm is more than enough for me at the moment. So i bought the 14-140mm as its a very flexible lens, and thought if i ever need more than 140mm, I'll buy the planned Panasonic 100-300mm in future.

    Here's 2 images, one at 14, the other at 140mm I took today, both Jpegs straight from the G1-





    (don't mind the composition and exposure etc, I only got the lens yesterday and was getting a feel for how much zoom the 140mm was.) Have to say at 140mm hand held the image was suprisingly unblurred!

    Hope the images help you decide about the focal length, in my opinion the 140mm is plenty and I dont need the extra 60mm the 45-200mm would give - so I bought the 14-140mm as it would stop me from changing lens all the time - as I'm lazy ;-) and it would mean less lenses in my collection.

    I have to say my plan is to get the 20mm 1.7 as my second lens, with a GF-1 as it would be more discreet, so my plan is pretty much what you had in mind but with a GF-1 - I think that the 20mm + 14-140mm complement each other really well
    Last edited by vincechu; 6th January 2010 at 08:51. Reason: added more info

  6. #6
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: 14-140 instead of 14-45 & 45-200?

    14-140: I just decided to replace my 45-200 with the 14-140. Main reason was there are/were only a few occasions when I wanted longer than 45, and usually it was for around the 100-150 anyway. Then, when the 45-200 was mounted, there were often times I wanted normal, or 25-ish and had to swap lenses to get it. So in the end, I opted to spring for the 14-140. I suspect it will live on my main body when the 20 isn't mounted.

    14-45: However, I kept my 14-45 since I have just had one of my GF-1's converted to IR and am planning on dedicating this lens to the IR cam. I had Precision Camera do the work, and opted for the 665nm conversion. I just got it back yesterday and am heading out to test it for a few days, so stay tuned for a report on it!

    Cheers,
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    111
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 14-140 instead of 14-45 & 45-200?

    Helpful thread -- I've been thinking, separately, (a) of buying a GH1 for a second body and then selling the 14-140mm lens to reduce the cost, and (b) buying a 45-200mm to go along with my other lenses (14-45mm, 7-14mm, 20mm).

    Jack's point in particular has me thinking I should keep the 14-140mm instead of the 45-200mm. . . .

    A few followups: (1) How much bigger/heavier does the 14-140mm seem compared to the 45-200mm on a G1/GH1? I've looked at the specs, but my question is, on the camera, in the hand, is there a noticeable difference? (2) What is the maximum aperture of the 14-140mm at around 45mm? (3) Is there a substantial difference in image quality at about 140mm (I'm thinking the 45-200mm is probably at least a bit better at that focal length)?

    An apparent benefit of the 14-140mm in this comparison is that the minimum focusing distance is 1.5 feet vs. 3 feet to the 45-200mm.

  8. #8
    Contributing Editor ustein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 14-140 instead of 14-45 & 45-200?

    I prefer the 14-140 because I need often more than 45mm but also like below 45mm. This means switching lenses all the time. The Olympus 12-60mm is kind of an ideal compromise between image quality, size, weight and range. Would love a m4/3 version.
    Uwe Steinmueller
    -------------------

    Editor&Owner of Digital Outback Photo
    http://www.outbackphoto.com

  9. #9
    Senior Member petermcwerner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Geneva, Switzerland
    Posts
    511
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 14-140 instead of 14-45 & 45-200?

    Quote Originally Posted by back alley View Post
    i'm thinking of using just the 14-140 instead of both the 14-45 and 45-200.i don't seem to use the 45-200 very much. and i also have the 20/1.7 and just bought a second g1 body.
    any thoughts?
    I just bought the 14-140 out of the same considerations and I regret it. It is quite (too) heavy and I do not want to continually carry the camera with that heavyweight attached. I think I shall sell it again and keep the 14-45, 45-200, 20/1.7, 9-18 Olympus + various third party primes. The lenses I use most are the 25mm/2.0 Kinoptik and the 20mm/1.7. For traveling light, the 14-45 will do.
    Cheers
    Peter
    Peter Werner
    Leica M8, R9+DMR & Digilux 2; Nikon D700; Panasonic FX01, FX150 & G1; Samsung TL350 (WB 2000)

  10. #10
    Senior Member Amin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA (USA)
    Posts
    1,809
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 14-140 instead of 14-45 & 45-200?

    So far, I haven't decided which, if any of these lenses to sell. The 14-140 is my go to lens for video, and it makes a good all-around lens for certain types of events where I'm shooting both long and wide.

    The 45-200 still has a place in my kit because the image stabilization seems to work better for stills than does the image stabilization of the 14-140, and also because of the extra reach. When the Panasonic 100-300mm lens comes out, the 45-200mm lens will probably get sold.

    The 14-45 is so much smaller and lighter than the other two and optically is great, so I still take it out sometimes, mainly if I'm going somewhere with the family where I really don't want to think about the camera at all.

    However, most times I just take the 20/1.7 with or without the 7-14. Those are the two lenses which make this system for me, and all of the standard and tele zooms are just occasional use.

  11. #11
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: 14-140 instead of 14-45 & 45-200?

    I've kept them all for right now as well. The 14-140 is a bit smaller than the 45-200 but it feels "more dense" - heavier for the size.
    Last edited by Terry; 7th January 2010 at 05:46.

  12. #12
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: 14-140 instead of 14-45 & 45-200?

    Quote Originally Posted by httivals View Post

    A few followups: (1) How much bigger/heavier does the 14-140mm seem compared to the 45-200mm on a G1/GH1? I've looked at the specs, but my question is, on the camera, in the hand, is there a noticeable difference?
    Perhaps a bit smaller and a bit heavier, so it feels just about the same on the camera.


    (2) What is the maximum aperture of the 14-140mm at around 45mm?
    About f5.5 ...

    (3) Is there a substantial difference in image quality at about 140mm (I'm thinking the 45-200mm is probably at least a bit better at that focal length)?
    I would say a bit. I would say the 14-140 at 140 is pretty equivalent to the 45-200 at 200.

    An apparent benefit of the 14-140mm in this comparison is that the minimum focusing distance is 1.5 feet vs. 3 feet to the 45-200mm.
    Indeed, but in reality I never noticed the 45-200 presenting me any issues in the close focus department -- I just zoomed in a bit more.

    I can say that after one day of using it, the 14-140 seems more versatile for my uses than the 45-200. It is a lens I would leave on the camera for regular shooting. A however on the downside, is the fact that 140 is not as long as 200 and it's a noticeable difference in use. (And probably why folks keep both of them )
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  13. #13
    Senior Member Amin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA (USA)
    Posts
    1,809
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 14-140 instead of 14-45 & 45-200?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    A however on the downside, is the fact that 140 is not as long as 200 and it's a noticeable difference in use. (And probably why folks keep both of them )
    This may change when the Panasonic 100-300 is released. Those with the 14-140 and 100-300 may then find the 45-200 to be dispensable.

  14. #14
    Senior Member back alley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    the frozen north
    Posts
    428
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: 14-140 instead of 14-45 & 45-200?

    i have little need for the 200 end of the 45-200, it's just not part of how i shoot so i'm thinking the 140 end of the 14-140 will be more than long enough for my needs. i can never see me needing a 100-300.
    a slightly heavier lens is ok for me also. i might miss the 14-45 as it is a perfect range for me, so i just might keep that and just sell the 45-200 - have not yet decded.
    so many options...

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    221
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: 14-140 instead of 14-45 & 45-200?

    At present I have the 14-45, 45-200 and the 14-140 (plus the other two and various adapted non-Panasonics). I still use the 14-45 a lot as it's so much smaller and lighter, and that's why I got the system. The 45-200 doesn't get as much use as the 14-45, but it gets more use than the 14-140. It feels a lot bigger (in diameter) and heavier to me than the 45-200, and it's of slightly lower performance than the other two lenses.

    I'll probably hang on to it until the 100-300 comes out and make a decision on what to sell then. At present of the autofocus lenses I mostly use the 20/1.7 on the GF-1 (with V/C mini 28/35 finder), the 7-14 on the EP1, the 14-45 on the G1, the 45-200 on the G1 and least, the 14-140 on the G1.

  16. #16
    Senior Member back alley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    the frozen north
    Posts
    428
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: 14-140 instead of 14-45 & 45-200?

    i'd love the 7-14 but i can't justfy the expense.
    in terms of the number of lenses, having the 20 plus the 14-140 seems ideal with a 2 body kit.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    157
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: 14-140 instead of 14-45 & 45-200?

    Quote Originally Posted by back alley View Post
    i'd love the 7-14 but i can't justfy the expense.
    in terms of the number of lenses, having the 20 plus the 14-140 seems ideal with a 2 body kit.
    This is the combo I'm seriously considering. It just seems like a great pairing.

    Eventually the 7-14....

    JT

  18. #18
    Senior Member ggibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    743
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 14-140 instead of 14-45 & 45-200?

    It's a tough choice since you can get the 14-45mm + 45-200mm for less than the 14-140mm alone and still have a couple hundred left over. The 2-lens combo probably performs slightly better over the same range of coverage. There's something to be said for having an all-in-one solution, but then again, if you decide to choose a single lens for your outing, the 14-140mm would be larger than either of the other two. Don't forget that the 2-lens combo also covers a larger effective range on the long end (280mm-400mm).

    Personally, I have the 20mm and 45-200mm. I'm hoping to add the 7-14mm at some point, if Panasonic.com would ever carry it... >_<

  19. #19
    Senior Member RichA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    544
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 14-140 instead of 14-45 & 45-200?

    Quote Originally Posted by back alley View Post
    i'm thinking of using just the 14-140 instead of both the 14-45 and 45-200.
    i don't seem to use the 45-200 very much.
    and i also have the 20/1.7 and just bought a second g1 body.

    so, a 2 body, 2 lens kit, covering from 14-140 with a fast 20?

    any thoughts?

    (btw, i would have to sell the 2 kit lenses and buy the 14-140)

    joe
    I'd rather have Nikon's 18-200mm converted to the 4/3rds sensor format than the overpriced Panasonic stuff.

  20. #20
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: 14-140 instead of 14-45 & 45-200?

    Quote Originally Posted by RichA View Post
    I'd rather have Nikon's 18-200mm converted to the 4/3rds sensor format than the overpriced Panasonic stuff.
    Interesting take on the subject as all the reviews I've seen say the Panasonic lens outperforms the Nikon version and corrects for the distortion.

  21. #21
    Member Roel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    134
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 14-140 instead of 14-45 & 45-200?

    Quote Originally Posted by RichA View Post
    I'd rather have Nikon's 18-200mm converted to the 4/3rds sensor format than the overpriced Panasonic stuff.
    I own both the Nikon and the Panny superzooms... the Panny 14-140mm is *much* better (sharper, faster to focus). I was suprised to find that out, but it is true.

  22. #22
    Contributing Editor ustein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 14-140 instead of 14-45 & 45-200?

    First I thought to sell the 45-200mm but will now keep it (we have a G1 and GH1 and both may want to use a tele zoom).

    G1 + 45-200mm (1/9/2010)

    Uwe Steinmueller
    -------------------

    Editor&Owner of Digital Outback Photo
    http://www.outbackphoto.com

  23. #23
    Member slau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    AB, Canada
    Posts
    185
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 14-140 instead of 14-45 & 45-200?

    I was thinking to get the 45-200 with my G1 + 14-45. After I got my GH1 + 14-140, I no longer want the 45-200. Actually my 14-45 does not even see too much daylight after I got my 20f1.7 and started using my Zeiss 50f1.4 & Minolta M-Rokkor 40f2 with my G1. But, the most used lens on my G1/GH1 is no doubt the 14-140 by a big margin. The relative smaller form factor of the G1/GH1 and the convenience of using one super zoom lens fits me to have a back up to my Canon system.

    If I have the 14-140, 20f1.7, Zeiss 50f1.5 & the Minolta 40f2, I will have no need for the other two Panasonic zoom lenses, which are actually very decent lenses.

    Especially when you are doing video, the 14-140 is very nice and quiet.
    Stephen Lau
    Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    http://www.pbase.com/stephenl

  24. #24
    Senior Member apicius9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Posts
    329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 14-140 instead of 14-45 & 45-200?

    Oh man, just when I thought I was done spending money on equipment for a while. I had the same thoughts and my rationalization always was that the 14-140 is just a bit slow to justify the cost. And while I appreciate the video option in the GH1, it is only a minor criterium in my decision-making. Now, reading all this and seeing the thread with great pictures from this lens, I am wondering again... Some years ago, I really loved my little Pana FZ7 for its versatility at the time, and getting the 14-140 would bring that back, just on a higher level. I always saw myself as someone who loves tele shots, but I find myself using the 45-200 very rarely since I got it - may have to do with the fact that I am too lazy to switch lenses enough... . I do like the 14-45 very much but keeping them all AND getting the 14-140 is just not an option right now.

    Sorry, just indecisive rambling. Right now, I mostly carry around the 14-45, 45-200, 20, Summicron 50 and the c-mount lens of the day. Cutting it back to 4 instead of 5 lenses for the 'small' outfit does certainly have some appeal.

    Stefan

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •