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!

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

back alley

New member
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
 

Diane B

New member
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
 

photoSmart42

New member
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.
 

ustein

Contributing Editor
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.
 

vincechu

New member
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:

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
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,
 

httivals

New member
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.
 

ustein

Contributing Editor
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.
 
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
 

Amin

Active member
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.
 

Terry

New member
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:

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
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 ;))
 

Amin

Active member
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.
 

back alley

New member
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...
 

henningw

Member
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.
 

back alley

New member
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.
 

JCT

Member
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
 

ggibson

Well-known member
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... >_<
 

RichA

New member
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.
 

Terry

New member
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.
 
Top