Friday, 23 August 2013

Lumix G HD 14-140mm f/3.5-5.6 review

When I first bought into Micro Four Thirds, it was with the GH1 and the kit zoom lens, the Lumix G HD 14-140mm f/4-5.8. In the beginning, I was thrilled with the superzoom lens, my first, and it was also a lot better than the previous Pentax lenses that I used. However, after some time, I was quite disappointed with it, since it is not very sharp in the short and long ends, and it is very large and heavy. So it mostly sat unused.

It was not surprising for me, then, that Panasonic announced a new, revised version of the lens called Lumix G HD 14-140mm f/3.5-5.6. Then new lens comes at a smaller size, it is lighter, and has a faster aperture range. It even has a lower list price than the old version. So, I was very curious to see how they compare.

They are shown below, with the new version to the left:





LensLumix G HD 14-140mm f/3.5-5.6Lumix G HD 14-140mm f/4-5.8
AnnouncedApr 24, 2013Mar 3, 2009
Weight265g460g
Diameter67mm70mm
Length75mm84mm
Filter thread58mm62mm
Minimum focus0.3m0.5m
Maximum magnification0.25 x0.2 x
Lens elements/groups14/1217/13
Product codeH-FS014140H-VS014140



Physical


Both lenses are basically similar, except that the new one is smaller, obviously. However, there are differences. For one, the new one has a simpler extending zoom design. While the old lens had a duo cam design, with two segments extending when you zoom in, the new lens (left side) has only one:



The extending sections are made of plastic in both cases. While the old one looks more professional, with two zoom segments, the new design is simpler, and may very well be more solid. Both lenses are quite stable when extended, there is no significant wobbling.

The lens barrel segment closest to the camera is made of plastic for both lenses. However, the new lens has a glossy plastic appearance, while the old one has a matte surface. I can't say I like this development. The lens barrel is there for two purposes: To be solid, and to provide a good grip. And for the second purpose, I much prefer the old matte surface to the new slippery one.

A similar development can be seen with the zoom ring: The old lens has a rubberized zoom ring for better grip, while the new lens has a plastic zoom ring. The new one is still pretty grippy, with a corrugated surface, but the rubber ring is the best, no doubt about it. The zoom rings are not as well dampened as the premium Lumix X 12-35mm f/2.8, but the zoom action is still pretty smooth.

Physically, the focus rings are similar, but I like the feel of the new lens the best. The focus ring is better dampened.

From the rear, there is not much to notice:



You can see that the new lens (left side) has a slightly bigger exit pupil, and the construction appears slightly simpler with two less screws. Otherwise, both lenses have a steel lens mount, as you would expect from an expensive, fairly large lens like this.

Both lenses come with petal shaped hoods supplied. They both reverse over the lens for storage, and I would recommend to use the hoods:



Both lenses come with physical OIS switches, which is useful.

Size wise, the new 14-140mm lens is very similar to the Lumix X 12-35mm f/2.8. They also share the same 58mm front lens thread, very useful for sharing filters.

In use


Like indicated in the previous section, the new lens is less ergonomic, with a smooth plastic barrel, and non-rubberized zoom and focus rings. On the other hand, it is much lighter, which is mostly a good thing. Of course, some will say that the weight of the old one contributes to the stability, which is true, but in the long run, I prefer lightness.

Besides, when mounted to a camera with a proper grip, like the Panasonic GH3, it is easy to operate it. It does not work as well together with a smaller camera without an ergonomic grip, in my opinion.

In terms of zoom operation, I think I prefer the old lens, but the difference is fairly small. The old lens has a somewhat smoother feeling to it. Both lenses allow quite smooth zooming during video recording, with a bit of practice. In this example video, I'm zooming manually from around 70mm to 140mm during the capture:



The focus ring of the new lens is certainly the best. It is very nicely dampened. I guess most people don't use manual focus with a lens like this, though.

Focus


These lenses have typically been marketed as "video optimized", which is interpreted as having a fast and noiseless focus, as well as a precise aperture with near step-less and low noise changes. The focus is certainly very fast.

In my experience, the focus is usually the slowest in the long end. So to compare the lenses head to head, I decided to test them at 140mm. I mounted them to the Panasonic GH3 on a tripod, turned them on, and immediately pressed the shutter release to see how fast the focus before taking the picture. Here is a video representation of the results:



This test was taken in fairly dim light, corresponding to EV6. The results surprised me: The new lens was consistently a bit slower. I repeated the test at even dimmer light, EV5, and found the same results there, summarized by this table:

LensLumix G HD 14-140mm f/3.5-5.6Lumix G HD 14-140mm f/4-5.8
Focus delay, EV60.58s0.52s
Focus delay, EV50.70s0.60s

There could be a natural explanation to this: The new lens still has an immature firmware. Virtually all lenses are upgraded with a new firmware improving the autofocus after some months, and the old lens has been upgraded three times already. It's fair to say that the lenses have a comparable focus speed.

The minimum focus distance can be summarized like this:

Lens14-140mm f/3.5-5.614-140mm f/4-5.8
Stated minimum focus distance0.3m0.5m
Measured minimum focus distance at 14mm0.21m0.33m
Measured minimum focus distance at 50mm0.50m0.46m
Measured minimum focus distance at 140mm0.51m0.49m

So the difference in the specifications is big (0.3m vs 0.5m), but the measured difference is not so large.

Geometric distortion


Most Micro Four Thirds lenses feature some in camera distortion correction. And these lenses, with the wide zoom range, are no exception. To examine the geometric distortion characteristics, I have photographed a square tiled wall, and then overlaid the out of camera JPEG (in black) with the uncorrected image (in red). I used the third party RAW converter software UFraw to assess the uncorrected image.

Lumix G HD 14-140mm f/3.5-5.6 at 14mm (-16%)Lumix G HD 14-140mm f/4-5.8 at 14mm (-17%)
Lumix G HD 14-140mm f/3.5-5.6 at 50mm (0%)Lumix G HD 14-140mm f/4-5.8 at 50mm (-1%)

The percentage in brackets is the relative distortion correction applied in The Gimp image processing software to get a rectilinear image. Hence, the distortion characteristics of the two lenses is very similar. The new lens has slightly less geometric distortion though.

At 14mm, you see that both lenses still feature some barrel distortion, even after the in-camera image processing. This is not uncommon at short focus distances with wide angle lenses that feature internal focusing. The same can be seen also with the Lumix G 14mm f/2.5 at short focus distances.

Aperture range


With the smaller size, one might expect that the new lens more quickly stops down the aperture as you zoom in. That is how Panasonic have been shrinking their lenses lately. However, I was surprised to see that it is the other way around:



From the diagram, we see that both lenses reduce the aperture as you zoom in from wide to tele. But the old lens stops down more quickly, reaching f/5.8 already at 70mm. The new lens, on the other hand, does not reach f/5.6 until quite close to the longest focal length.

Sharpness


In my first impressions article, I compared the two lenses in terms of image sharpness at 14mm and 140mm. The test was probably not optimal, but it was still quite clear that the new lens is significantly better at 140mm, and slightly better at 14mm. According to my experience, the old lens had the biggest sharpness issues at the long and short ends.

Here is another comparison at 140mm:

14-140mm f/3.5-5.6 @ 140mm f/5.614-140mm f/4-5.8 @ 140mm f/5.8

To better evaluate the sharpness, here are 100% crops from the centre:



And from the lower right corner:



Based on this test, it is clear that the new lens is significantly better. When stopped down to f/8, the corners are impressively sharp.

Here is another test at 140mm, where I have compared this lens against four others. Again, the new 14-140mm lens performs well compared with the others.

Let's see how they compare at 50mm:

14-140mm f/3.5-5.6 @ 50mm f/4.914-140mm f/4-5.8 @ 50mm f/5.5

Here are some crops from the centre of the image:



The performance of the new lens is also a lot better in the corners. I don't provide the crops here, but if you don't trust me, click on the thumbnails above. Even if the images uploaded are scaled down a bit, you still see that the new lens performs better in the corners.

Finally, I've compared the new 14-140mm f/3.5-5.6 at 14mm with the basic kit zoom lens, the Lumix G 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6. Here are the full images at 14mm:

Lumix G HD 14-140mm f/3.5-5.6 @ 14mm f/3.5Lumix G 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 @ 14mm f/3.5

For comparison, crops from the centre:



And from the top left corner:



It may surprise some that the basic Lumix G 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens performs better than the expensive Lumix G HD 14-140mm f/3.5-5.6. However, I think there are two things to remark:

First, the basic Lumix G 14-42mm is a very under appreciated lens. It is much better than its reputation, in my experience. Second, as the 14-140mm lens is a superzoom, with a wide 10x zoom range, then it is much more challenging to design, and non-optimal performance in the short and long end can be expected. Still, it is clear that the new 14-140mm lens outperforms the predecessor.

If you are still interested in reading more about the sharpness of this lens, see this comparison at 100mm.

Bokeh


With a lens like this, you generally get a quite deep depth of focus (DoF), and hence, not very selective focus. This is because of the relatively limited maximum aperture. To get the most selective focus, though, set the longest focal length, 140mm. So here is a comparison at 140mm, with a focus distance of around 2 meters, appropriate for a close head portrait.

14-140mm f/3.5-5.6 @ 140mm f/5.614-140mm f/4-5.8 @ 140mm f/5.8
14-140mm f/3.5-5.6 @ 140mm f/814-140mm f/4-5.8 @ 140mm f/8

In this respect, too, the new lens is the best. The old lens has bokeh which features some ringing and dirtyness, while the bokeh of the new lens is a lot clearer. You can see an example of this here, in the 100% crops:



As a bonus, you can also see from these pictures that the new lens has better contrast. The old lens loses some contrast in this situation, where a strong light source is in front of the lens. This is probably due to two differences: The new lens has a smaller number of lens elements (14, versus 17 for the old lens), which means less unwanted reflection between the lens elements. Also, one could guess that the new lens has better anti reflection treatment of the lens surfaces.

Noise during operation


The original lens was marketed as very silent during autofocus and aperture changes. However, in my tests and comparisons of the AF noise and aperture noise, I found that it didn't stand out at all.

Let's see how the lenses compare head to head. Here is a video showing both lenses being tested for aperture change noise and AF noise. To test the aperture noise, I engaged and disengaged the "DoF preview" three times, changing aperture from full to f/16 and back again. To test the AF noise, I set AF-C mode, and pressed and held the shutter button three times. The mobile phone with the decibel measurement app was placed at 2cm distance from the lens barrel in both cases.



Here is a summary of the results:

Lens14-140mm f/3.5-5.614-140mm f/4-5.8
Aperture change noise59dB63dB
Autofocus noise54dB56dB

We see that the new lens improves on the old on in both the case of aperture change and autofocus noise.

Optical Image Stabilisation (OIS)


As you would expect from premium Panasonic lenses, these feature Optical Image Stabilisation (OIS). Both lenses have a physical OIS switch on the lens barrel.

It is notoriously difficult to test the performance of an image stabilisation system. And even if I did test it, I would only be able to test how it works with my hand shake, which could be different from how other persons hold the camera. So I have not attempted to make any scientific test of the OIS system.

What I can say, is that the OIS appears to be adequate for both lenses. You shouldn't expect any miracles, but it will help you getting a more stable video recording. There is no noticable noise from the OIS, from either of the lenses.

Zoom creep


Zoom creep is when the camera is hanging from a strap, and the gravity pulls the front of the lens out, slowly extending the zoom as you walk along. This is not an issue with this lens, in my experience. There are three reasons:

1. The zoom ring is fairly stiff, and doesn't rotate very easily.

2. The front of the lens is not very heavy.

3. Most important: When zooming in from the widest position, the front of the lens extends very little from 14mm to about 18mm. This means that when zooming out to 14mm, the zoom is basically "parked", and doesn't easily change from pulling the front of the lens. You must essentially twist the zoom ring to change the zoom position from 14mm, which is very good.

Conclusion


While the new lens is certainly not perfect in terms of sharpness in the short and long end of the zoom range, it improves noticeably on the predecessor. Especially in the long, tele end, where the old lens had the most image quality problems. The new lens also has noticably better contrast when faced with a backlit subject, which is an important feature. To achieve this while also offering a faster aperture range, and a significantly lighter and smaller lens, is amazing. This shows how much experience Panasonic have gained in lens design over the recent years.

The the new version of the lens is improved in almost any conceivable way, with the exception of ergonomics, where it scores lower since it drops the rubber zoom ring, and adds the cheesy, glossy barrel.

The improved sharpness, and the more compact form factor makes the new lens much more useful as a walk around lens, just as the original was intended to be. It is my new favourite lens, no doubt about it.

One could make a comment about the focal length range: Most superzoom lenses for DSLR cameras now extend to 11x zoom or more. For example the Nikon 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6 or the Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3. Considering that Micro Four Thirds has a smaller sensor and a shorter register distance, one would expect that a superzoom lens with a longer zoom range than 10x would be possible. With this in mind, the 10x zoom range of the Lumix G 14-140mm lens is not so impressive.




Example images


Taken at 140mm, f/5.6, 1/1300s, ISO 200:



Here are 100% crops from the image:



Example videos


This video is perhaps not the best example of what the lens can do, since it is recorded in a very dim and poorly lit concert venue. Perhaps you could say that it better demonstrates that even a slow zoom lens can be used for video recording, when combined with the Panasonic GH3. The exposure parameters were: 61mm, f/5.2, 1/25s, 25FPS, ISO 5000. I had autofocus enabled. I did not use a tripod, and no software image stabilizing was applied in post production.



This video was recorded outdoors. I used 25FPS and set the shutter speed to 1/50s for a 180° shutter, and better rendering of motion blur:



Further reading


Does the lens suffer from image stabilization jitter?

Image quality comparison at 140mm

Image quality comparison at 100mm

Compared with other kit zoom lenses

34 comments:

  1. "Fredrik Gløckner24 August 2013 20:40

    Yes, you are right. I thought about this myself, but ended up having the comparison images horizontally per lens, because some times there are three images per lens. That makes more sense to layout horizontally, since most screens are wider than tall."

    This may be true, mine is wide, too, but the tekst column only takes 40% of the screen width, so it really is a more tall column than wide. And since the number of 2 doesn't change for any which number of pictures (aperture variants, for instance) you take, I'd say that favors always only showing two images per line.

    "But I agree that it is inconsistent.

    Also, in the "First impressions" article, I have a different order of the new and old lens than in the main "Review" article. I guess most of the time, people will see only one of them at once, in which case it is no problem. But if you have both on the screen at the same time, it can be confusing.
    "

    I plead consistency and on most timelines it history progresses from left to right. So even if the aperture values of the new lens are smaller, it is the new one and in my opinion was best shown on the right side, right?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I notice you left out one important aspect of the new lens, stabilization. The new lens has the Power OIS, while the old had the Mega OIS. Can you explain how much better, if any, the new lens is with stabilization? Specifically during video recording handheld, that is one feature I'm interested in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that the words "Mega OIS" and "Power OIS" are just marketing terms. Panasonic comes up with a new word now and then, to confuse the market to think that the old products are obsolete. This is completely normal, nothing to worry about.

      To test the OIS is notoriously difficult, that is why I don't comment it. To demonstrate that one OIS solution is better than another is very hard, and I think that most review sites don't have a good, scientific approach to this. Besides, every person's hand shake is different, so even if I would be able to demonstrate that one camera is better (for me), it doesn't necessarily mean that it is better for another guy.

      Based on my use so far, I get the impression that the OIS is certainly adequate. My impressions indicate that the Lumix X 45-175mm has more effective OIS during video recording, but as I commented, this is hard to demonstrate scientifically.

      Delete
  3. Great comparisons. But you say the 14-42 is better? To my eyes the new 14-140mm looks better if you look at the complete image. Maybe a little softer in the corners but when i see the overall image, especially the bus stop, the 14-140mm is definitely clearer where the 14-42 seems to be soft with glowing edges. Are you sure they're labeled correctly ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I checked now, and the images are labelled correctly. When I said the 14-42mm is better at 14mm, I was thinking about the sharpness, especially in the corners.

      When looking at the whole image, I can agree that the one coming from the 14-140mm looks better. This may be partially due to the exposure, the 14-140mm image appears to have been exposed slightly brighter, even if the camera had exactly the same settings.

      Delete
    2. Doesn't look like any exposure difference to me at all, and i have a calibrated monitor and color-managed browser. ;)

      Looks like the 14-140 has better micro contrast, or it might be a difference in focus position and thus DoF, but don't think that's it, really seems the new 14-140 just performs better. :)

      Delete
  4. I have the Olympus 14-150 lens. Is the new Panasonic 14-140 better? Is it enough better that I should consider selling the Olympus and buying the Panasonic?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it depends on what camera you have. If you have a Panasonic camera, then you are better served using the Panasonic lens. That is the only way to get OIS, since the Panasonic cameras don't have image stabilization built in (with the exception of the GX7).

      If you have an Olympus camera, I would say keep the Olympus lens. While I haven't used it myself, I would doubt that the difference is significant enough to warrant the switch.

      Delete
  5. It seems that there is no zoom lock switch. Is there a zoom creep without that? especially with those straps that go in to tripod socket (like Joby sling strap)!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think zoom creep is a big issue here. When zooming from 14mm to around 18mm, there is little movement in the front lens barrel. Hence, putting the lens to 14mm sort of "locks" it there, preventing it from being moved by gravity.

      That said, I haven't used tripod socket straps.

      Delete
  6. Is better than The Leica Vario-Elmar 14-150mm f/3.5-5.6 Asph. Mega OIS?
    http://www.photozone.de/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/455-leica_14150_3856

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, I can't answer that. The new 14-140mm lens is certainly a lot smaller and lighter, though.

      Delete
  7. Interesting. I see a significant contrast difference, especially stopped down. But I do not see that translating into much of a sharpness difference. In fact, wide open, the old lens has less blur, and blut is really hard to deal with. Anyway, it looks like a much closer call than implied by the superlatives used in this article.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hey Fredrik- What iPhone app did you use for the sound measurements? It looks like something I could use.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The app is called Decibel Ultra. It is free.

      Delete
  9. I unfortunately notice that the image keeps going out of focus for a short time without any apparent reason. It is dramatically visible in the guitar footage at 0:55, but you can see it everywhere. Do you think it is an acceptable behaviour for a video lens?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is worth noticing that the concert video was recorded in very, very dark conditions. Also, one would normally not leave autofocus on with a video recording like this.

      Delete
  10. Hi, I'm a GH1 owner, using the original 14140 kit lens.
    I'm looking forward to replacing it with a GH4, and wonder if I should keep the original VSO14140 lens or get the new HF14140 version.
    I found your review VERY comprehensive and useful - Thanks!!!
    One of the main reasons for replacing the old lens is that I have discovered a strange behavior.
    I'm wondering if it's a malfunction or normal behavior and if I will see it on the new version as well! When using f stop of 8 and above the image becomes blurry. I will appreciate if you could provide an email address - so I can send the actual pictures. (I sent a "Hangout" message from google+ - we can communicate there).
    Thanks!!!!!!
    Arik.
    As far as my limited knowledge in photography goes, the higher the f stop number, the larger the depth of field should be, so I don't understand this problem. The problem is there for both 14mm and 140mm.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What you describe could be related to diffraction (read about it here). This phenomenon means that smaller apertures cause some blur on pixel level. On M4/3, this effect starts around f/8, and you will see a significant effect at around f/16 and smaller.

      I'll get back to you soon.

      Delete
    2. It could be diffraction. But it looks way more serious than on the link above (I can see it in the EVF - no 100% crops needed.I also see the image is significantly dimmer, as if the camera is setting one thing to the lens and getting another... the underexposure at f22 is about 1 f stop. I can "fix" it by applying +1 or even +1.5 EV correction.
      The reason I didn't see it until now is that I probably never used the lens with more than f8. This lens is slow enough as is...
      My lens is now updated to the latest firmware: 1.4 (it was on 1.2) but there is no change with this issue.

      Thanks for your time, get back to me when you can.
      Arik.

      Delete
    3. Most people would say that you shouldn't use a small aperture like f/22 on M4/3 anyway.

      It could be that the aperture mechanism is misaligned, causing you to get smaller apertures than what you expect when stopping down. Other than that, I don't know what could be wrong.

      You could check the aperture, to see if it looks uneven. You can stop down the lens, and then look through it to see if the aperture hole is round. Set a long shutter speed, and f/22, say, start the exposure, and then unmount the lens.This way, you can inspect the aperture, and see if it looks even.

      Delete
    4. OK, I tried that - it looked OK. Nothing uneven.
      I have no way of telling if the departure is smaller than it should be though.
      The facts are:
      1. Although AE should compensate for the small aperture by a longer exposure, keeping the image at the same brightness, the image is clearly dimmer at f22.
      2. The only mechanism I know of that will blur a lens with a small aperture is diffraction. the diffraction effect increases when the aperture decreases. I see more blurring than the example on your page.

      Conclusion: I agree with you that the only option here is the aperture being out of alignment - providing a smaller aperture than reported to the camera.
      To absolutely confirm this - I can take a picture of the tiny aperture at f22, and send it to you to compare to what you see on your lens.
      Is there a way I can send a picture of the aperture and some other pictures for you to look at - if its not too much of a bother?
      If you see something out of the ordinary, maybe you can try to duplicate this on the old / new lens, see if you get the same amount of de-focus as I do.

      It seems strange that Panasonic would sell a lens and allow an operation range that is well beyond its capabilities, so I believe its a malfunction. and it probably affects the whole range of apertures, making my exposure off by some amount. It could explain why I sometimes had a feeling I'm underexposing.

      Any idea how to calibrate a lens? (sending it to the Panasonic will most probably be more expensive then getting the new model...)

      Thanks!
      Arik.

      Delete
  11. Hi,

    do you know any good solution to turn this good lens to shoot birds?
    like teleconverter...
    i dont want to spend too much money on lenses and i'd like to shoot birds, but i can't get close enough.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only solution I can think of, is to get a longer lens, like the 45-200mm lens, which is quite inexpensive. There is also the 100-300mm lens, which is longer, but more expensive.

      Delete
    2. thanks, i have 45-200, but i wanted to avoid changing them all the time, plus the 200mm still not too effective for bird shooting. I need to learn how to hide :D

      Delete
    3. Sorry, but I don't see any other possibility than to use your longest lens (the 45-200mm) or get an even longer (100-300mm). To photograph objects far away, there are no other easy solutions.

      You could, of course, crop your pictures. So if the bird takes up a small part of the centre of the image, cut away the rest of the picture. That reduces the resolution, but otherwise it is a viable option.

      Delete
    4. You could add a TCON. I use two: Olympus TCON17 (1.7x) and a Ricoh TC200m (1.4x). I like them both, but I have gravitated more toward the Ricoh--much smaller and lighter, and better IQ (subjectively). Get the appropriate step ring. I've used both of these with a 100-300mm and also 45-175mm, and even with an FZ150 (being careful not to stress the zoom motor!). Especially the Ricoh is easy to pop on and off, and carry in your bag or even a pocket. Found mine used on Amazon.

      Delete
  12. Hi,

    Thanks for the testing and observations!

    I was interested in your article since I'm looking for a normal/long zoom. I'm a bit tired of switching prime lenses all time. I would have liked the 12-35 / 12-40 as an all around lens but they are a bit too expensive for me and also somewhat heavier and larger than I would like to. I have an E-M10 with Oly's external grip.

    So I'm considering the good old P 14-45, the new P 14-42 and the new P 14-140 (that you've just reviewed). How would you rank the Pany zooms lenses? I was a bit surprised to find out that the new P 14-42 is cheaper than the old P 14-45. [I had the O 14-42 II in the past and I didn't like its performance and construction so much so I'm interested in something better].

    Thanks!
    Assaf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have not used the Lumix 14-45mm or the Lumix 14-42mm II. But generally speaking, both get very good reviews. I would get the one which is most easily available.

      Delete
  13. Thank you so much for a great review it is very helpful. I am so disappointed with my old Mk1 lens that I have stopped using it for any critical work.

    Although not comprehensive like your 14-140 review above, I have recently completed a field test report of the Olympus 75-300 Mk2 lens fitted to a Panasonic GX7 which you or some of your readers might find helpful for those needing extra reach: http://www.t1000.co.uk/art-fotografia/articles/article1_iframe_oly75-300.html

    ReplyDelete
  14. This 14-140mm mk2 has video issues because it looses focus easily when zooming and has jittering and vibrating OIS in video. -Vesku

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, true. We did a shoot of the same soccer game from the sideline with a GH3 and the old 14-140 , a GH4 and the new 14-140 (mine) and a 70D with the 18-135 STM . The GH3 with the old lens was basically in the same league with the 70D (impressive AF tracking of the players where the 70D was the clear winner, but with the old 14-140 right there...not quite the same but VERY close) while the GH4 was far behind with the 70% of the footage useless. We didn't test the old 14-140 on GH4 but I did it in private and I can confirm that the new 14-140 is not really good tracking fast moving targets. So it wasn't the camera, it was the lens. But in terms of sharpness @140 the new lens is a little better (when it gets it in focus).

      Delete
  15. Wondering how the Leica 14-150mm would compare. I know it suffers from lens creep, and I would expect it to be better, but I'd still like to see a head to head comparison.

    ReplyDelete