After the 20mm pancake DxO (Click here) also tested the new Panasonic 14-140mm lens. And in that case we have good news to report. The new version if the lens is not only lighter, faster and cheaper than its predecessor, it also deliver a clearly better optical performance. Nice!
19 Responses
It’s good to get another confirmation, but I believe it was already clear that it performs a little better.
Rubbish lens
Rubbish company
Rubbish system
Rubbish comment
Thanks for those special insights Genius.
I only wish you’d told me this before I invested in a hole bunch of lenses I am now stuck with.
yeh I hate it when a review just waffles on and on….
Hey Panacrapic, keep up that cheerful disposition:-) oddly enough, I have seen amazing photos taken with the older version of that lens. I wouldn’t mind a lighter version as I use the older version as a nice all around on my GX1. BTW, I like Panasonic AND Olympus (and Fuji and Nikon).
Andyb.
Could someone post photographs that prove a useful difference?
Here is a comparison report by Fredrik Gloeckner:
http://m43photo.blogspot.sg/2013/08/lumix-g-hd-14-140mm-f35-56-review.html
The comparison photos are in the category of “test shots”. It’s a fairly thorough comparison.
Thank you. That is exactly what I was looking for. Far more useful than the DxOMark technobabble.
DxO measure lense WITH body, the 14-140 score 8 on Pen EP2 and 13 on OMD E-M5.
It’s very confusing. For what i understood, the better the sensor, the better the result (Canon 24-70 score 9 on 350D and 21 on 5D MKII o_O ).
I prefer photozone or slrgear.
I agree. The results of SLRgear are easy to understand. Their lens test results are also normalised and can be compared with each other.
DXO needs to make it clearer and easier for people to understand what their scores are saying, esp for people who are comparing across systems like APSC and M43. Otherwise it will continue to be ignored due to its confusing scores.
But that’s the problem – DxOMark figures seem very exact, but they have no sensible meaning. How stupid is it to score “transmission” the way they’re doing it? For DxOMark, a f/2.8 gets a better transmission score than a f/4 lens, even if the former is f=25mm and the latter f=500mm. A much more sensible way to judge transmission would have been look at the difference between the F-stop numbers shown on the lens and the measured T-stop values.
There is similarly profound nonsense to be found in their sensor ratings, especially when it comes to ISO.
Yes, T / f stop would be a much better value to use for scoring.
It’s hard to standardize across systems. Especially if the results are to be understood by laymen. For resolution, for example, worldwide, lens designers’ metric for resolution is MTF, not “MP”. But overall I think DxO does a good job IN EACH CATEGORY. But this compound score, it’s completely useless. Each use scenario is drawing on different aspects of a lens, no way to put it all in one figure of merit.
clearly better but still poor 🙁
It’s not faster! Please take care of what it says at “Best at”, because that’s on what the score is based. Also, you can see that the new 14-140 is more inconsistent in its results.
Admin simply wrote “it’s faster”. And it IS. In f and in t-stops.
My opinion on this lens is quite a capable lens especially in bright light .
I have rented it to shoot with GF2, 4 years back since m43 system doesn’t have many lenses to opt for & this lens really impressed me .
Would like to share it here , my DMC GF2 benchmark shot .
http://s1324.photobucket.com/user/yuntayy/media/P1020346281013WST_zps37a6ff57.jpg.html