–
Photoreview (Click here) posted the very first full test of the brand new Panasonic 14-140mm lens. And their conclusion contains also a negative finding: “While subjective assessments of test shots and video clips showed them to be acceptably detailed, with natural-looking colours and an adequate dynamic range in outdoor lighting, our Imatest tests revealed the new lens suffered from the same performance issues as most extended-range zoom lenses. At no point did the resolution recorded in our tests reach expectations for the 16-megapixel sensor in the GF6. Interestingly, corner and edge softening was less than we found with the original 14-140mm f/4.0-5.8 lens”
Gosh! Worse than the older lens? I just hope they got a non perfect prototype lens!
Panasonic PZ 45-175mm lens for $299 at Amazon (Click here).
New Panasonic 14-140mm lens links at Amazon (Click here), BHphoto (Click here) and at Wex UK (Click here).
85 Responses
“Interestingly, corner and edge softening was less than we found with the original 14-140mm f/4.0-5.8 lens”
Doesn’t that mean that the new one is better than the old, and not the other way round like you write?
That’s the way I read it!
Remember, English is not Admin’s primary language. Double negatives are pretty tough, even for native speakers.
Or maybe he did that on PURPOSE! Yeah, yeah, that’s it.
🙂
Where…is the double negative in that sentence?
less softening = more sharp
It sounds fine. The newer lens is slightly better than the older lens, plus more compact, and less expensive.
Still, it’s a 10x zoom and you can’t expect much.
Yes, in English, that means the new lens is better – the softening, which is a negative is less – in other words, less of a bad thing!
Sounds like the best explanation to me, quite sure this is also what admin meant.
Exactly. It sounds like it suffers from similar shortcomings as the previous 14-140 (and superzooms in general), but had BETTER corner and edge sharpness.
Yeah, the review sounds like it’s markedly better than the previous version, albeit its overall resolution is less than phenomenal. Still, this lens is smaller, lighter, faster, quieter, quicker focusing, and better stabilized than its predecessor, while still being less expensive. The fact that it covers a focal range most people tend to usemakes it possibly the best m43 option for casual go-anywhere photography.
I believe you are reading the review incorrectly Admin.
From the way I read the review, the new lens is surprisingly BETTER than the old one, at least better in terms of corner and edge sharpening.
I read it as – the new lens is SURPRISINGLY better than the old one, almost as if they didn’t expect it.
You sound like you have preordered and now are having to talk yourself into liking it.
No, it sounds like he read the sentence correctly and is trying to clarify it for everyone.
Something is wrong with the picture, I guess size is set too low.
Nothing in the review that makes me want to get my credit card out. I would have gladly paid for a higher quality, weather sealed X lens.
Less soft means good
“Less soft” means better, but not necessarily “good.”
Less soft also says ‘It’s still soft’.
It’s a good portrait lens for shooting aging divas. 😛
Aging divas prefer primes! 😉
The comments here have been much criticized for being too negatively subjective. I’m so happy to see that people here can be positively objective as well! 😀
I’m not native english either, but I understand the reviewer wrote that this new 14-140mm is 1/3 the cost of the the old model. How is that posible? How much was the original 14-140mm when it was released? AFAIK this new model will sell for usd 699.
According to Adam Riese and Eva Zwerg, the old lens cost $2,097.
Fred, it’s because the old 14-140 has 17 elements in 13 groups (4 aspherical lenses, 2 ED lenses), and the new one has 14 elements in 12 groups (3 aspherical lenses, 2 ED lenses) = less costs for production.
Probably 1/3 LESS.
The new lens is still a dog.
well that is a bit harsh , the lens is capable of very good results and it is in fact great fun for video. No 10x zoom is ever going to match the top zooms from any maker. It wins by being convenient I have not tried the new lens yet ,but I will be looking into it. It is smaller, lighter a tad faster,claimed better OIS and cheaper not the norm for replacement lenses . When on holiday with my family the 14-140 along with the 25mm f1.4 covers a very versatile range , and stops my Hubby moaning about all th camera gear I used to pack, it’s not just you guys who like photography lol
Sue
Fully agreed and Well said!
That sounds about right. I’m not a big fan of the original 14-140mm, but on vacation it’s handy and convenient and keeps partner remorse to a minimum. It’s really a much better lens than it ever gets credit for.
I’d consider selling the old one and getting the new one for the size/weight savings alone.
You prefer less hash? Let me wrap my sledge hammer in velvet: Considering its extended focal range and the comparable optical quality of similar lenses, the new 14-140 is quite good, even though it is incapable of letting the 16 MP sensor show its full potential . Happy? 😉
I don’t want any hash lol. This claim about not bein g good enough for a 16mp sensor is nonsense in anything other than shooting test targets. I have a number of 40×30 inch prints on my walls taken with the now old 14-140 on my GH2 and I now use it happily on my E-M5 . is it as good ad my 35-100 of course not and I would be a fool to expect it to be so.Even this test gave the lens a score of 8.5 the same as the 35-100 though they also gave the 75-300 mk2 a 9 (which goes against every review I have read about it) .They even score the 17mmf1.8 at 8.8 which I most certainly wouldn’t in fact I have been a little disappointed in mine.
Personsly , I prefer to judge a lens by the images it can deliver and in many situations the 14-140 can deliver excellent results http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=PANASONIC+14-140&s=int
Sue
I apologize for the hash. I was at the dentist (He just ordered two E-P5 bodies) earlier today and I am now on Vicodin. Can’t see or type well.
Ouch! , sorry about the dentist , never fun . As for your typo I am sitting in the sun using my Ipad so who knows what mistakes i am making , I thought it was funny maybe if there was some hash floating about the forum we would all be nicer to each other lol. He must be a poor dentist , I thought they all bought Leica,s
SUe
im a dentist, havent bought any ep-5s or leicas lately! just thought i should stick up for my profession. its hard when nobody likes you 🙁 !!
Sorry , everyone likes dentists when they take the pain away . I am also sorry about the Leica joke , you have to get your Mercedes first lol
Sue
Don’t mind. Every dentist may have a hobby. The one collects E-P5, mine collects old sports cars. 🙂
I suspect my dentist collects teeth…
If that hash was a hot plate of corned beef hash it would certainly be a friendlier place to be.
You wouldn’t even need teeth!
Hey, we could even liquidize it and drink it from one of those CaNikon mock up thermos mugs.
Wow! Such witty banter!
This feels like the olden days on 43rumors!
Thanks gang! 🙂
Perhaps we could take it on Stage Mr Reeeeeeeeeee
Sue–In clicking on your Flickr link, are all the photos shown taking with 14-140 lens? If not, how can we tell which are?
Great comeback, by the way.
TheEye, it’s a 10x zoom. Presumably anyone looking for a 10x zoom, has a reason to be looking at a 10x zoom, and hopefully understands the limitations of zooms in general (to the point that, it doesn’t have to be expounded on in every last review written about a lens).
A review is only helpful to a particular buyer if it compares to (and only to) other products that are a functional alternative to the item reviewed. Following your logic, a review of a pickup or delivery truck (lorrie) should say it sucks as a vehicle because ti does not have the acceleration or top speed of a sports car?
Why can’t Panasonic create for MFT what they already have for FT? Because then they’d have to admit that it would still need to be rather large and heavy? The Panasonic “Leica” 14-150 for FT is one of the reasons I don’t see myself inclined to embrace Micro FT yet (or any other DSLR system for that matter, since the only other decent 10-11x zoom lens around seems to be the huge Canon 28-300 L for full frame).
Here’s what I’m wondering: Is this the lens to buy if all your other lenses are primes? Primes, of course, are are generally regarded to be of higher optical quality due to their relative simplicity and precision to a single focal length. But if convenience is another quality desired, I am starting to believe this mediocre super-zoom might be the perfect complement to an arsenal of high-quality primes.
That’s kind of how I see it. I’m going to use a prime if I want top quality, but sometimes you just want a nice, convenient, all-purpose lens on your camera for when you’re out and about (on vacation, for example) and don’t want to be carrying a bunch of gear or fiddling around switching lenses and quality isn’t your top concern.
This lens is exactly what I want to cover that territory; the full range of anything I’d realistically want, good enough performance to handle “everyday” shooting, and it’s not much bigger than the 14-45 kit lens that came with my G1. f3.5 is even pretty good for a superzoom.
At that price, it’s on the spendy side, but realistically within reach once I’ve got all the primes I want.
But you shouldn’t be looking at it just as a 3.5, remember the 5.6 end of it
Well, yes, of course it’s f5.6 at the far end, but most reasonably priced zooms are, so I’m mostly interested in what it can do when I’d need to push it due to poor light–wide open at the widest angle possible.
Sure, if I could buy a compact 14-140 lens that could do constant f2.8 at a price that wouldn’t buy an OM-D E-M5 and a collection of nice primes, I’d buy it in a minute, but in the real world this looks like a pretty decent compromise.
That sounds right. I prefer my primes, but for vacation it’s all about convenience (and a contented GF) which means mostly zooms (7-14mm, 14-140mm and 100-300mm), plus my Voigtländer 25mm and a Nikon 105mm f2.8 AI-S macro.
“contented GF”. Why make her carry them?
It’s just to keep swapping to a minimum. 😉
My GF actually likes watching me make photos! I spent an afternoon in Puerto Rico shooting macros of bugs and flowers with my tripod and she enjoyed herself. She said watching me even helped her take iPhone pix. She’s a keeper! 😉
She enjoyed herself, and you took pictures of bugs? 😉
Strange wording in the review. So many silly conclusions when comparing the lens performance with their own tests of other lenses.
Why use “less softening” instead of sharper?
According to their tests:
-Looking at the numbers this lens is about 15% sharper then the old lens. The old lens was already considered cream of the crop among super zooms.
-It is about the same sharpness as the PL25mm.
-The performance is better then the well regarded 14-45mm
I would say this is magnificent results for a superzoom. Combined with small size i dont see why not a more positive wording is used.
“Based on JPEG files from the Lumix DMC-GH6”
Ohh pany speed up gear and where is GH5?
meant GF6
In Europe the price reduction from the old to the new 14-140 mm superzoom is 200 euro, i.e. H-VS014140E have a suggested Retail price of euro 899,- while the new H-FS14140 is euro 699,-. Hardly a third of the original cost :-p
Speaking of numbers:
New 14-140mm roughly: 2200 – 2400 (on GF6)
Old 14-140mm roughly: 1800 – 2000 (on GH1)
For comparison:
2,8/35-100mm roughly: 2200 – 2600 (on GH3, center not going below 2400)
So, the new 14-140mm is far better!
Lars
nice & well said !
thanks. sometimes I wonder why the beat the bush so much in the “summary” parting sentences of reviews.. It is a great achievement, this new lens. Cheaper, Better, simpler built, etc!
The comment on chromatic aberration seems quite positive (all things considered) but that is on a Pana’ body, I wonder how it will fare on an Oly’ body, where Pana’ lenses have a far from good reputation in regards the chromatic aberration they produce.
did they bundle this lens with some Pana body ?
599pounds is quite big price
Yes, search for DMC-G6H.
wav ..this combo ….in Germany €1089,– ….thats pretty cool vs EP5 €999 …if you consider there is inbuilt viewfinder & 14-140 lens ..which is almost as sharp as 35-100mm
Two years ago I read a comparison of super-zooms, both APS-C and m43. The Panasonic and Olympus m43 where the sharpest.
For these kind of use, the new 14-140 in the size of a 3x APS-C Kit-Zoom and more sharpnes in corners is a real improvement.
sorry “were” the sharpest 🙂
Guys, sorry for my OFF, but my new G5 has a little pincushion distorsion at the viewfinder (G3 hasn’t, the image is perfectly rectangular) and the grip has a very slight crackle (crunch) near the battery door. Is that normal for a japanese product?!
I still believe that “Made in Japan” products are still far better and live longer than having “Made in China” products 🙂 My opinion is that it’s not normal if it’s Made in Japan.
Well, it’s Made in China (as all G5 copies) but still Japanese product, isn’t it?
Yes. I’m just sceptical based on my experience. For me Made in China is always a sign of less output quality.
Faster, sharper, smaller, more inexpensive – what would you like more?
Perhaps a tamron 14-150mm f/3.5-5.8 – but where is it? Announce in january – Nothing new about it 🙁 Will it be still better?
“More inexpensive” will cause further confusion. How about “less expensive”? Wait, I have a better idea:
“Inverse proportionately priced according to its middling optical performance and inexpensive yet adequate build quality,” or as the unfortunate copy from the Japanese marketing department may read: “Nothing bangs the buck better.” I bid thee farewell! 😛
Half a day later, the post has not been fixed yet. The review clearly says its better
And at the bottom of the 14-140 test is a link to a test of the new Oly 75-300 😉
The reviewer is from Australia, so the “Roughly one third of the original’s price” comment, though a bit exaggerated, is not that far off the mark. Panasonic products are an absolute rippoff in Australia, especially the m4/3 cameras and lenses; often costing double the US price. When the original 14-140 HD was launched, some places were listing it for around $1800 AUD. The 7-14 was a similar price as well. Other lenses, like the 20/1.7, 25/1.4, 14/2.5 and various other zooms continue to be much more highly priced compared to other markets.
For some reason, Panasonic Lumix Australia seems to to think their products are luxury items here. Some items even appreciate, rather than depreciate as is most often the case. While the North American market considers their goods as consumable and disposable. Due to these price discrepancies relative to the strong Australian Dollar and for other reasons like the ability to grey import same or similar stock from HK for significantly less cost, Panasonic has very little presence here and stores have little interest in promoting them. Most big chain and department stores are promoting Olympus and Sony more, while the traditional camera specialist stores are also promoting Fujifilm. Canon still dominates the retail presence here because of its strong brand and its kickback schemes. Nothing surprising there. It will be interesting to see how much the new 14-140 will actually sell for at retail street level in Australia. My guess is that the gouging will continue. I suspect a lot of potential users will be grey importing this lens instead. Business as usual.
ADMIN, are you going to correct your negative comments about the lens in comparison with the older 14-140 in your post or are you just going to leave them here? It seems responsible to update them.
This is a pro-Oly site, just like the Aussie site that did the review for this lens.
I mean look at the other reviews, 12-35/35-100 gets the same score, yet the Oly lens gets a 90?
I call suspect.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
You a bee?
Great comeback!
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ…………
A talkative bee?
Admin are Chinese I heard
2 days later the post has not been corrected
Nooooo this isnt a oly fanboy site…not at all