A couple of things. Note, I have no experience with any of the 3 Panasonic 14-140mm lenses. I have shot with the Olympus 14-150mm mark I for 5+ years. I then upgraded to the Olympus 14-150mm mark II (for splash resistance) and used it for 6+ years. For the last 3+ years I have been using the Olympus 12-200mm lens. I did shoot with the Olympus 12-100mm lens for a weekend, but I don't own it. In terms of f/5.6 and f/6.3, while they are different apertures, there are only 1/3 of a stop difference. In general, I tend to think you would need to have the lenses be a full stop different to really notice things. In terms of comparison, I suspect the Olympus 14-150mm mark II lens might be closer to the Panasonic 14-140mm. It is much cheaper than the 12-200mm and lighter. I find for an E-m5 style body (mark I or mark III, but also presumably E-m5 mark II and OM-5), the 14-150mm balances better than the 12-200mm or 12-100mm lenses. If I add a third party grip to the E-m5 mark III, I find the 12-200mm feels better, but the 12-100mm still is unbalanced. On an E-m1 or OM-1 style body with a deep hand grip, all of the lenses balance better. I did have an instance 2 years ago where I was having problems gripping things, and I downsized to the 14-150mm mark II instead of the 12-200mm. Presumably the 12-200mm is heavier and bigger than the 14-140mm and 14-150mm lenses due to the extra focal length. So it is a matter of choice of what you need. Do you want the smaller and lighter lens or do you want more focal length. Like everything else in life, it is a trade-off. Originally I didn't think the 12-200mm would add much over the 14-150mm. But at one point, I had a little extra money, and I decided to splurge on a refurbished 12-200mm. Since then, the 12-200mm is now my main lens for outdoor shooting. In addition to having the focal range of 151-200mm (which is great), I find in practice, the 12-13mm range also means I am swapping lenses out fewer times (for the 12-40mm lens). In particular, if you shoot for the decisive moments, not having to change lenses means you capture the moment more often. The Olympus 12-100mm is bigger and heavier than the 12-200mm, but it is faster at 100mm (f/4) than the other super-zooms. And the 12-100mm does have stabilization that work with some of the Olympus/OM bodies to do dual stabilization. IMHO, the stabilization is great for hand held movies. In theory it allows you to shoot hand held at 100mm than more than you could without the lens stabilization. But in general, I find since I'm mostly photographing things with people, that the extra IS that the 12-100mm gives you over the sensor shift stabilization doesn't add much. I.e. in theory you need a shutter speed of 1/200 second to not need any stablization at 100mm. With the sensor shift stabilization, you might be able to shoot at 1/60 seconds (this is a guess). However, in shots with people in them, I typically want at least 1/125 second shutter speed because IS doesn't stop subject movement. If I was photographing non-moving things at a distance, then having a better IS/OIS would be great. For me, I do use the 101-150mm and 101-200mm ranges quite a bit, so the 12-100mm is less interesting. Now for the Olympus or Panasonic 100-400mm, the OM 150-400mm lens, the Panasonic 100-300mm lens, or the Olympus 75-300mm lens, sure lens stabilization will help more due to the longer focal length of the lens. Unfortunately, since Olympus/OM and Panasonic don't share everything in terms of lens design, typically a lens with builtin OIS works best if the camera was made by the same company that made the lens. In this case, the camera sensor shift stablization combines with the lens' OIS. If you have mixed body/lens, then you generally have to choose one stabilization method. Like the Olympus 14-150mm, the Panasonic 14-140mm has had different versions of the lens. Unfortunately since the first 14-140mm has a different aperture from the second 14-140mm, the second 14-140mm is not labeled mark II, and the current version is labeled mark II, not mark III. I suspect you have the 2nd version of the lens (which generally people felt was really sharp). Like the Olympus 14-150mm mark II, the Panasonic 14-140mm mark II's changes is mostly adding splash resistance. For a travel lens, I find having splash resistant lenses with splash resistant bodies is quite useful, since rain does come up in many trips (at least for me). Even if I don't go out and shoot in the rain, not having to worry about your camera gear when rain comes up is useful.
I've seen a lot of photographers work with the 14-140 and it was quite good. One of my favorite youtube photography has used the 12-200 in some of his work and I thought that it was good because he is so accomplished but, not quite as sharp as the 14-140. Now, Im viewing this on RUclips so, that may present another variable. Great content Gary. Thank you for your production work and, I appreciate you beginning to introduce your guitar hero prowess in some of your videos, ha! Keep up the good work!!
Thank you very much for sharing! I really enjoy using both the 12-200 and the 14-140. Ha, thank you! I will try to make more content about guitar again in the near future.
Thanks Gary for your latest video. I have neither lens and since I have 10 lenses and 3 cameras in my mft kit, I would have to sell at least one lens to buy another. Certainly understand the convinience of both lenses not having to switch while travelling or just having a fun day out with one camera and one lens. Having watched your channel for several years I know that you swear by the Lumix 14-140 and it gets a lot of usage. It was nice toa see the comparison with the Olympus 12-200! Finally: great production value with all the photos you share combined with smooth short videos clipped in and the care taken with the choices of overlaid text. Very good way of combining the information with technical video quality!
Thank you very much for the kind comment Joe! Yes, when it comes to superzoom, the 14-140 is my preferred choice. And thank you for the kind words on the production, I am trying to improve by adding a bit of typography to the texts.
Just to put things in perspective, an f/6.3 is only 0.34 stops slower than f/5.6 (or 79% the amount of light), and f/7.1 is 0.68 stops slower than f/5.6 (or 68% the amount of light). To match the exposure of an ISO 800 in f/5.6, you'd need an ISO 1012 for an f/6.3 and an ISO 1285 for an f/7.1. You need to go up to f/7.9 to get a full stop slower than f/5.6, getting 50% of the light, and requiring ISO 1600 to match the exposure. I wish photographers had used a logarithmic scale, where you can easily match these figures much more intuitively. Also, why do people talk about X mm more or less, when they should be using multiplication instead of addition? If you are using 400 mm and you add 60mm, you are zooming an extra 15% (or 87% of the original framing), which is not very noticeable, but if you are at 8% and you add 60mm, you are zooming an extra 750% (or 12% of the original framing)! Addition makes no sense; multiplication does! The 12-200 is basically zooming 43% more than 14-140, or getting 70% of the framing. In any case, thanks for the review; I was considering the Olympus, but now I'm definitely keeping my Panasonic 14-140mm.
Hi Gary. Early on I decided that three of my Olympus cameras would get the most use, I wanted to minimize changing lenses too often. So I chose 2 for each kit. Since one of the lenses was the 14-45 kit lens (or a better equivalent) I needed something in a long zoom that overlapped those focal lengths. The M. Zuiko 14 - 150mm fit the bill nicely. Just grab ‘n’ go, with the only decision being which camera to take.., each of the bag contents was mostly the same. Little fear of missing the shot no matter what I chose. I will say that I’ve used a few Lumix lenses and have been pleasantly surprised at how good they turned out to be, especially the Leica versions. After all that, I just concentrate on shooting. BTW, I have both the Oly 12-200, and the Oly 12-100Pro, but use the 14-150 more often, even with the improved characteristics of these two. Overall a good review with great advise. Keep up the good work.
I think that something like a 12-100 f3.5 - 5.6 would be quite good. It would be a smaller lens than either is these. I prefer a little wider (12mm) at the wide end for landscape and don’t really need more than 100 mm at the long end. Aperture affects lens size quite a bit I think so some compromise on that also keeps the lens compact. I don’t really need f2.8 so 3.5 is adequate for most of my needs and also I suspect for most people. Thanks for the comparison, it was informative.
@@martindobos4835 Thanks for the info😄 Optically speaking that is true, the 12-100mm f4 would be really sharp and it has larger aperture as well; but the 12-100mm f4 is bigger and heavier than these two lenses. I think for a pro lens, it definitely fits the role, but for a travel lens, it's a bit too heavy for my preference.
Nice review, the 14-140 is hard to beat. It’s definitely been carefully considered in how it was engineered with a balance of performance and portability. Pana could have done a 12-200mm but they didn’t, probably because of what was all shown in this video. I really like Panasonics 12-35mm f2.8 lens though.
I use the old FT Leica 14-150/3.5-5.6 lens for my MFT systems in traveling aboard. This early FT standard zoom lens works perfectly and delivers excellent picture quality which is the best lens among the standard zoom lens in FT and MFT systems.
Hi Gary, many thanks for your very helpful and inspiring videos. For at least 5 years my go-to lens when travelling has been the 14-140 mm, either on my GX8 (no sign of shutter shock BTW) or on the G9. It's small, light and in my humble opinion delivers great performance for the price. I also take with me the 50mm f1.4 for any low light work. I think the little 12-32 mm lens is also a good lens for popping in the bag when I'm doing some street photography..
Thank you for the kind words and for sharing! The 14-140 is definitely the best lens for travel! Good to hear you didn't get any shutter shock with your GX8!
The 14 140 range is definitely more flexible than the 12 60. So it makes it more useful in my opinion. But that really depends, for some people, having stricter focal length may be better because you can just focus on certain types of photography rather than having too much options when using more flexible lenses.
I can't compare my 14-140 with the 12-200 but compared to my 40-150 it's much sharper. So unless the 12-200 is better id say the 14-140. Many say the Olympus is a bit soft towards 200 but it's better than the Panasonic can do I guess if you want sharp go Panasonic and if you need the extra at both ends get the Olympus.
First camera I bought at an auction was a gh3 with the 14-140. Great lens for starting out and now use it on my gh6. I also got a 100-300 lumix lens. These 2 cover what I need right now. The 12-200 may be another good option. Nice review.
Considering a gx85 and instead of the two lenses (12-32) and 45-150 it comes with I’m thinking the 14-140 might be best for travel. Trying to decide between the original used here or the version released in 2019..only difference it seems is weather sealing, but the used prices have the latter at almost 2x the price. Also have a g9, so weather sealing an option, but rarely needed.
been using 12-100 for few days now, I think my ideal lens would be 10-100 tbh, always thinking need a bit more on wider end personally, and a bit smaller, with variable aperture as compromise. Still need to maintain waterproof too.
10-100 would definitely be my ideal focal length range too! I don't like switching between ultra wide to normal wide, I just want a lens that can go from ultra wide to moderate telephoto.
The advantage of MFT to me is small size and light weight. The 12-200mm is too big, too heavy, too slow and too expensive. I do own the 14-140 but rarely use it. I prefer small, fast primes like the Olympus 45mm f1.8 and the Panny 20mm f1.7. You aren't going to get it all from any 1 lens, regardless of focal range.
Agree with you, smaller prime lenses can produce better result. However, there are still some needs for superzoom lenses, especially for travel or any fast-paced run and gun situation where changing lenses could cause missing some shots.
You are always biased towards Panasonic. This comparison was not fair. You should have tested the Olympus 15mm-150mm lens instead of the 12mm-200mm. Of course the smaller Panasonic lens will perform better than the 12mm-200mm Olympus lens. You compared apples and oranges in my opinion. Thanks for the video though.
Noted, I don't have a bias toward Panasonic intentionally, it's just that they do happen to offer smaller lenses compared to their Olympus counter parts, and I do have a bias toward anything that's smaller and lighter for a similar performance or focal length, even if there are small compromises here and there. I do not mean to make the 12-200mm look like it's a less superior lens compared to the 14-140mm, it's just that the 12-200 doesn't match my requirements. I also mentioned that for people who need that extra reach on both ends of focal length, the 12-200mm might be a better choice.
Hallo ich habe Schuldgefühle weil ich mich scheiden lassen will.Ich werde nur noch als Versorger ausgenutzt ,ich möchte aus einer Narzistischen Beziehung raus.
12-200mm at 200mm will give more bokeh, even at f6.3, but to retain the same composition with shorter focal length, you might have to step back quite a bit.
It's been half a year since you've published this and I hope you as a dynamic young person have made some progress since. But for your feedback, my first impressions of my first visit to your channel: the video is too long, or better, you have too much stuff repeating itself. Understandably so if you don't use a teleprompter, but still. Don't reiterate things you've already stated. Secondly, the overall balance is not fine. The introduction is too long, and the conclusion is not concise and to-the-point enough. The nervous tension builds up as you as visitor keeps waiting for the real stuff to come and it isn't coming... There are too few casually scattered samples and actually no real sharpness comparison or just a few plates with a short duration and no relevant comments. If you slow down the tempo, perhaps you can clean up your contents and concentrate on the essence. That said, your channel is promising, but it's time to concentrate on the quality now and not so much on expressiveness. Good luck, Gary! P. S. My experience with the Pana 14-140: it has a strange turning point in quality and character somewhere around 25 mm (and not just my copy!). It is surprisingly sharp from ~35 mm all the way to 140 mm. But go wider than 25 mm and it becomes disappointingly soft. It's almost like two different lenses artificially glued together. It reminds on the Pana-Leica "wildlife" 100-400mm which is almost unusable at 100-150 mm (except for video), but gets better at 200 mm and further on. Not a great design, neither of them. Both fashion this flaw which is NOT nice. The other opposite of these two lenses are the zooms Pana-Leica 12-60 f/2.8-4 and especially Oly 12-40 f/2.8 which are both very even across the whole range. Pana-Leica a bit sharper, but Oly with a totally uniform character across the whole range. Which is a quality in a zoom lens that few reviewers mention.
A couple of things. Note, I have no experience with any of the 3 Panasonic 14-140mm lenses. I have shot with the Olympus 14-150mm mark I for 5+ years. I then upgraded to the Olympus 14-150mm mark II (for splash resistance) and used it for 6+ years. For the last 3+ years I have been using the Olympus 12-200mm lens. I did shoot with the Olympus 12-100mm lens for a weekend, but I don't own it.
In terms of f/5.6 and f/6.3, while they are different apertures, there are only 1/3 of a stop difference. In general, I tend to think you would need to have the lenses be a full stop different to really notice things.
In terms of comparison, I suspect the Olympus 14-150mm mark II lens might be closer to the Panasonic 14-140mm. It is much cheaper than the 12-200mm and lighter. I find for an E-m5 style body (mark I or mark III, but also presumably E-m5 mark II and OM-5), the 14-150mm balances better than the 12-200mm or 12-100mm lenses. If I add a third party grip to the E-m5 mark III, I find the 12-200mm feels better, but the 12-100mm still is unbalanced. On an E-m1 or OM-1 style body with a deep hand grip, all of the lenses balance better. I did have an instance 2 years ago where I was having problems gripping things, and I downsized to the 14-150mm mark II instead of the 12-200mm.
Presumably the 12-200mm is heavier and bigger than the 14-140mm and 14-150mm lenses due to the extra focal length. So it is a matter of choice of what you need. Do you want the smaller and lighter lens or do you want more focal length. Like everything else in life, it is a trade-off.
Originally I didn't think the 12-200mm would add much over the 14-150mm. But at one point, I had a little extra money, and I decided to splurge on a refurbished 12-200mm. Since then, the 12-200mm is now my main lens for outdoor shooting. In addition to having the focal range of 151-200mm (which is great), I find in practice, the 12-13mm range also means I am swapping lenses out fewer times (for the 12-40mm lens). In particular, if you shoot for the decisive moments, not having to change lenses means you capture the moment more often.
The Olympus 12-100mm is bigger and heavier than the 12-200mm, but it is faster at 100mm (f/4) than the other super-zooms. And the 12-100mm does have stabilization that work with some of the Olympus/OM bodies to do dual stabilization. IMHO, the stabilization is great for hand held movies. In theory it allows you to shoot hand held at 100mm than more than you could without the lens stabilization. But in general, I find since I'm mostly photographing things with people, that the extra IS that the 12-100mm gives you over the sensor shift stabilization doesn't add much. I.e. in theory you need a shutter speed of 1/200 second to not need any stablization at 100mm. With the sensor shift stabilization, you might be able to shoot at 1/60 seconds (this is a guess). However, in shots with people in them, I typically want at least 1/125 second shutter speed because IS doesn't stop subject movement. If I was photographing non-moving things at a distance, then having a better IS/OIS would be great. For me, I do use the 101-150mm and 101-200mm ranges quite a bit, so the 12-100mm is less interesting.
Now for the Olympus or Panasonic 100-400mm, the OM 150-400mm lens, the Panasonic 100-300mm lens, or the Olympus 75-300mm lens, sure lens stabilization will help more due to the longer focal length of the lens.
Unfortunately, since Olympus/OM and Panasonic don't share everything in terms of lens design, typically a lens with builtin OIS works best if the camera was made by the same company that made the lens. In this case, the camera sensor shift stablization combines with the lens' OIS. If you have mixed body/lens, then you generally have to choose one stabilization method.
Like the Olympus 14-150mm, the Panasonic 14-140mm has had different versions of the lens. Unfortunately since the first 14-140mm has a different aperture from the second 14-140mm, the second 14-140mm is not labeled mark II, and the current version is labeled mark II, not mark III. I suspect you have the 2nd version of the lens (which generally people felt was really sharp). Like the Olympus 14-150mm mark II, the Panasonic 14-140mm mark II's changes is mostly adding splash resistance.
For a travel lens, I find having splash resistant lenses with splash resistant bodies is quite useful, since rain does come up in many trips (at least for me). Even if I don't go out and shoot in the rain, not having to worry about your camera gear when rain comes up is useful.
Thank you for this overview of the many super zoom options. I appreciate the points about stabilization, too.
Thank you for sharing this very detailed comparison and points! Really appreciate it!
I've seen a lot of photographers work with the 14-140 and it was quite good. One of my favorite youtube photography has used the 12-200 in some of his work and I thought that it was good because he is so accomplished but, not quite as sharp as the 14-140. Now, Im viewing this on RUclips so, that may present another variable. Great content Gary. Thank you for your production work and, I appreciate you beginning to introduce your guitar hero prowess in some of your videos, ha! Keep up the good work!!
Thank you very much for sharing! I really enjoy using both the 12-200 and the 14-140. Ha, thank you! I will try to make more content about guitar again in the near future.
Thanks Gary for your latest video. I have neither lens and since I have 10 lenses and 3 cameras in my mft kit, I would have to sell at least one lens to buy another.
Certainly understand the convinience of both lenses not having to switch while travelling or just having a fun day out with one camera and one lens.
Having watched your channel for several years I know that you swear by the Lumix 14-140 and it gets a lot of usage. It was nice toa see the comparison with the Olympus 12-200!
Finally: great production value with all the photos you share combined with smooth short videos clipped in and the care taken with the choices of overlaid text. Very good way of combining the information with technical video quality!
Thank you very much for the kind comment Joe! Yes, when it comes to superzoom, the 14-140 is my preferred choice. And thank you for the kind words on the production, I am trying to improve by adding a bit of typography to the texts.
Just to put things in perspective, an f/6.3 is only 0.34 stops slower than f/5.6 (or 79% the amount of light), and f/7.1 is 0.68 stops slower than f/5.6 (or 68% the amount of light). To match the exposure of an ISO 800 in f/5.6, you'd need an ISO 1012 for an f/6.3 and an ISO 1285 for an f/7.1.
You need to go up to f/7.9 to get a full stop slower than f/5.6, getting 50% of the light, and requiring ISO 1600 to match the exposure.
I wish photographers had used a logarithmic scale, where you can easily match these figures much more intuitively.
Also, why do people talk about X mm more or less, when they should be using multiplication instead of addition? If you are using 400 mm and you add 60mm, you are zooming an extra 15% (or 87% of the original framing), which is not very noticeable, but if you are at 8% and you add 60mm, you are zooming an extra 750% (or 12% of the original framing)! Addition makes no sense; multiplication does! The 12-200 is basically zooming 43% more than 14-140, or getting 70% of the framing.
In any case, thanks for the review; I was considering the Olympus, but now I'm definitely keeping my Panasonic 14-140mm.
Thank you for sharing. Interesting and useful points that I should definitely be more aware of. Thank you!
Thanks Gary, as usual, a great video with some beautiful images. Thank you. 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
Glad you liked the video, thank you! 😁
Next and not much heavier is the Lumix 100-300 mm f4.0-5.6. My first wildlife lens! I love this lens and gave it a place in my photobag.
Hi Gary. Early on I decided that three of my Olympus cameras would get the most use, I wanted to minimize changing lenses too often. So I chose 2 for each kit. Since one of the lenses was the 14-45 kit lens (or a better equivalent) I needed something in a long zoom that overlapped those focal lengths. The M. Zuiko 14 - 150mm fit the bill nicely. Just grab ‘n’ go, with the only decision being which camera to take.., each of the bag contents was mostly the same. Little fear of missing the shot no matter what I chose. I will say that I’ve used a few Lumix lenses and have been pleasantly surprised at how good they turned out to be, especially the Leica versions. After all that, I just concentrate on shooting. BTW, I have both the Oly 12-200, and the Oly 12-100Pro, but use the 14-150 more often, even with the improved characteristics of these two. Overall a good review with great advise. Keep up the good work.
Thank you for the kind words and for sharing your experience!
I think that something like a 12-100 f3.5 - 5.6 would be quite good. It would be a smaller lens than either is these. I prefer a little wider (12mm) at the wide end for landscape and don’t really need more than 100 mm at the long end. Aperture affects lens size quite a bit I think so some compromise on that also keeps the lens compact. I don’t really need f2.8 so 3.5 is adequate for most of my needs and also I suspect for most people. Thanks for the comparison, it was informative.
That is actually a good idea! Thanks for sharing, I'd love to see a 12-100mm f3.5-5.6 too!
Olympus 12-100 f4 constant is much better than any of these
@@martindobos4835 Thanks for the info😄 Optically speaking that is true, the 12-100mm f4 would be really sharp and it has larger aperture as well; but the 12-100mm f4 is bigger and heavier than these two lenses. I think for a pro lens, it definitely fits the role, but for a travel lens, it's a bit too heavy for my preference.
I shoot with the 12-200 all the time and it’s a fantastic lens.
It truly is a fantastic superzoom lens!
Nice review, the 14-140 is hard to beat. It’s definitely been carefully considered in how it was engineered with a balance of performance and portability.
Pana could have done a 12-200mm but they didn’t, probably because of what was all shown in this video.
I really like Panasonics 12-35mm f2.8 lens though.
Hey Gary have you used any adapter to connect the Olympus lens to the lumix g7 camera?
Thanks Garry, nice comparison, excellent presenter
Thank you for the kind words!
I use the old FT Leica 14-150/3.5-5.6 lens for my MFT systems in traveling aboard. This early FT standard zoom lens works perfectly and delivers excellent picture quality which is the best lens among the standard zoom lens in FT and MFT systems.
Thanks for sharing! 😁
What is FT?
@@deivytrajan FT = Four-Third camera system
Hi Gary, many thanks for your very helpful and inspiring videos. For at least 5 years my go-to lens when travelling has been the 14-140 mm, either on my GX8 (no sign of shutter shock BTW) or on the G9. It's small, light and in my humble opinion delivers great performance for the price. I also take with me the 50mm f1.4 for any low light work. I think the little 12-32 mm lens is also a good lens for popping in the bag when I'm doing some street photography..
Thank you for the kind words and for sharing! The 14-140 is definitely the best lens for travel! Good to hear you didn't get any shutter shock with your GX8!
So do you think 14-140mm is better than 20-60mm?
The 14 140 range is definitely more flexible than the 12 60. So it makes it more useful in my opinion. But that really depends, for some people, having stricter focal length may be better because you can just focus on certain types of photography rather than having too much options when using more flexible lenses.
I can't compare my 14-140 with the 12-200 but compared to my 40-150 it's much sharper.
So unless the 12-200 is better id say the 14-140.
Many say the Olympus is a bit soft towards 200 but it's better than the Panasonic can do
I guess if you want sharp go Panasonic and if you need the extra at both ends get the Olympus.
Good conclusion, that is very similar to my observation too, although I wasn't able to compare 14 140 with 40 150.
Great video. I know it wasn’t what you were going for in your video but the Olympus 14-150 would have been a good comparison too.
I agree, the 14-150 is a more direct comparison to the 14-140. Thanks!
Hi, I want to buy a zoom for my Olympus OMD ED 10 III and I'm hesitating between the 14-150 and the 12-100 Any advice?
Thanks
First camera I bought at an auction was a gh3 with the 14-140. Great lens for starting out and now use it on my gh6. I also got a 100-300 lumix lens. These 2 cover what I need right now. The 12-200 may be another good option. Nice review.
Nice, thank you for sharing!
Considering a gx85 and instead of the two lenses (12-32) and 45-150 it comes with I’m thinking the 14-140 might be best for travel. Trying to decide between the original used here or the version released in 2019..only difference it seems is weather sealing, but the used prices have the latter at almost 2x the price. Also have a g9, so weather sealing an option, but rarely needed.
I own the 14-140. i dont use anything else for street and travel photography. Its the best always on lense i can imagine
Nice video Gary - no "battle" when it comes to IG, 14-140 is fabulous for the coverage; I think they got too ambitious coverage wise with the 12-200
Definitely prefer the 14-140. But I still really appreciate the 12-200 for the ability to cover extreme focal lengths without compromising too much.
Whih version you use of 14-140mm ? Mark 1 or 2
Mine is the 14-140mm f/3.5-5.6 the first version.
been using 12-100 for few days now, I think my ideal lens would be 10-100 tbh, always thinking need a bit more on wider end personally, and a bit smaller, with variable aperture as compromise. Still need to maintain waterproof too.
10-100 would definitely be my ideal focal length range too! I don't like switching between ultra wide to normal wide, I just want a lens that can go from ultra wide to moderate telephoto.
@@Gary_W been travelling for a while, sorely miss uwa, I just grab my phone for some places
I think I will stay with my 14-140
Only the Olympus is weather resistant- that’s often important for a travel lens like this
Thanks for adding! The mark ii version of the Lumix 14-140mm also comes with weather sealing, but not my older version.
Danke!
Thank you very much for your support!
Too many ads
The only reason i dont buy the 12-200 is olympus lense Stabilisation does not work with lumix bodies
The 12-200 is the overall better Lens. The 14-140 is the better compact travel lens!
The advantage of MFT to me is small size and light weight. The 12-200mm is too big, too heavy, too slow and too expensive. I do own the 14-140 but rarely use it. I prefer small, fast primes like the Olympus 45mm f1.8 and the Panny 20mm f1.7. You aren't going to get it all from any 1 lens, regardless of focal range.
Agree with you, smaller prime lenses can produce better result. However, there are still some needs for superzoom lenses, especially for travel or any fast-paced run and gun situation where changing lenses could cause missing some shots.
I dont use any prime. I use 14-140 for everything outdor and to me it is very small for what it is. The range is unbeatable
You are always biased towards Panasonic. This comparison was not fair. You should have tested the Olympus 15mm-150mm lens instead of the 12mm-200mm. Of course the smaller Panasonic lens will perform better than the 12mm-200mm Olympus lens. You compared apples and oranges in my opinion. Thanks for the video though.
Noted, I don't have a bias toward Panasonic intentionally, it's just that they do happen to offer smaller lenses compared to their Olympus counter parts, and I do have a bias toward anything that's smaller and lighter for a similar performance or focal length, even if there are small compromises here and there.
I do not mean to make the 12-200mm look like it's a less superior lens compared to the 14-140mm, it's just that the 12-200 doesn't match my requirements. I also mentioned that for people who need that extra reach on both ends of focal length, the 12-200mm might be a better choice.
Review starts about 6 mins in. Bloody RUclipsrs!
Hallo ich habe Schuldgefühle weil ich mich scheiden lassen will.Ich werde nur noch als Versorger ausgenutzt ,ich möchte aus einer Narzistischen Beziehung raus.
Okay?
Hope things go well for you
Bokeh addict, which one is better?
12-200mm at 200mm will give more bokeh, even at f6.3, but to retain the same composition with shorter focal length, you might have to step back quite a bit.
It's been half a year since you've published this and I hope you as a dynamic young person have made some progress since. But for your feedback, my first impressions of my first visit to your channel: the video is too long, or better, you have too much stuff repeating itself. Understandably so if you don't use a teleprompter, but still. Don't reiterate things you've already stated. Secondly, the overall balance is not fine. The introduction is too long, and the conclusion is not concise and to-the-point enough. The nervous tension builds up as you as visitor keeps waiting for the real stuff to come and it isn't coming... There are too few casually scattered samples and actually no real sharpness comparison or just a few plates with a short duration and no relevant comments. If you slow down the tempo, perhaps you can clean up your contents and concentrate on the essence.
That said, your channel is promising, but it's time to concentrate on the quality now and not so much on expressiveness. Good luck, Gary!
P. S. My experience with the Pana 14-140: it has a strange turning point in quality and character somewhere around 25 mm (and not just my copy!). It is surprisingly sharp from ~35 mm all the way to 140 mm. But go wider than 25 mm and it becomes disappointingly soft. It's almost like two different lenses artificially glued together. It reminds on the Pana-Leica "wildlife" 100-400mm which is almost unusable at 100-150 mm (except for video), but gets better at 200 mm and further on. Not a great design, neither of them. Both fashion this flaw which is NOT nice. The other opposite of these two lenses are the zooms Pana-Leica 12-60 f/2.8-4 and especially Oly 12-40 f/2.8 which are both very even across the whole range. Pana-Leica a bit sharper, but Oly with a totally uniform character across the whole range. Which is a quality in a zoom lens that few reviewers mention.
I really appreciate your suggestion, thank you! And thanks for sharing too!