sold my 7d today - 14-42 or 14-140?

T

thegoldfi

Active member
I sold my 7d today and I am toying with the idea of getting a GH2. Is it worth the extra money to get the 14-140? Or should I spend that money on other stuff (like a faster prime or a longer telephoto)?
 
If I'm speaking from personal experience I rarely used my 14-140 when I first got my Gh1, and used my nikon primes instead. I ordered my new gh2 with the 14-42, so we'll see how that works out for me. But getting good fast sharp glass is never a bad investment.
 
14-140, great walk around lens, better sharpness, better build quality, and of course the long range and OIS.
 
I haven't got the 14-42mm but I have been thinking about getting it for it's lightweight, it does have OIS, just no switch on it, you have to turn it off within a menu. I have found the 14-140 great outside but indoors I could use a bit faster.

Also depends what sort of pictures and videos you want to take, if you're comfortable without autofocus and OIS you get alot more bang for your buck going with older lens
 
I'd say it depends how you plan to shoot. If you think you'll use a zoom a lot, then the 14-140 is better quality and has much better range, and I personally find the range from 42mm out to about 85mm or so extremely useful territory. So in that case I'd say it's definitely worth the money over the 14-42.

If you plan to shoot mostly with primes, which is probably the case for example if you plan to do narrative work, then I'd save my money on the zoom.

Another option would be to get the 14-42 and the 50-200, which goes for less than the difference between the 14-42 and the 14-140.
 
...I bought my GH-2 in early December with the 14-140 lens, which I have found to be way too slow for any type of available light indoor shooting.

Last weekend I sold the 14-140 and replaced it with the 14-45 lens as my quick'n'dirty compact zoom. If you take a look at DpReview's Studio Tests, the 14-45mm lens performs as well or better than the 14-140 over the same zoom range. The 14-42 performance is a bit of a dog in comparison.

Lumix G Vario 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 OIS lens

Lumix G 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 OIS lens

Lumix G HD 14-140mm F4-5.8 OIS lens

I also bought a Voightlander Nikon F M4/3 adapter along with a brand new Nikon 50mm f/1.8 D lens, which is fast and super-sharp, and quite cheap too.

Nikon 50mm f/1.8 D Review

...Later this Spring I plan on buying either the new Panasonic 12-50mm f/2.8 - 3.3 zoom or the Olympus equivalent depending on which turns out to be the better lens.
 
Congratulations on the sale of your 7D. I came over to the GH2 from the T2i. After shooting with the 14-140 for a month outdoors, and indoors with lighting, I believe that the 14-140 has no equal for the speed and absolute quiet of its autofocus in video mode. Indoors in ambient light, I'm using an inexpensive old Vivitar 24mm/f2.0 while I save up for Panasonic 14mm/f2.5 and 20mm/f1.7 primes.
 
without a doubt if zooms not important.

14-45mm or 14-42mm (has silent AF the 42mm is little difference to the 45mm. the 42mm seems to focus closer)
20mm f1.7
nikon nikkor 50mm f1.8D
Nikkon nikkor 35mm f1.8G DX

I got all the above for just under the price of the 14-140mm
 
I have the 14-45 and it's really sharp - the 14-42 is supposed to be less so. Only took delivery of 14-140mm today so can't advise on that one.
 
I sold my 7d a couple of months ago for a panasonic system, love the gh2! I'm a big fan of the 14-45, better than the 14-42 but the 14-42 is very good value. 20mm f1.7 is great, a must have. I've got several old primes which are great to have!
 
sorry to revive this thread.

i am still thinking of getting a GH2, but given the scarce availability and the fact that GH1s can be gotten for next to nothing, i am wondering if its worthwhile to get a GH1.

GH1 - $400
GH2 (with 14-140) - $1500
GH2 (with 14-42) - $1000

that leaves me with $600-1100 to get extra lenses, etc.

is the GH2 THAT much better, especially for a hobbyist?

for what its worth, i have also tossed around the idea of a G2 as well.
 
That depends greatly on what you plan on shooting and how much the extra features mean to you. For me, the ability to monitor the footage on an external monitor is reason enough and enough of an upgrade to warrant it. I shoot a lot of steadicam stuff so having that as an option is really a necessity when flying for me and or for an AC...
 
plz don't bought 14to140. Only good if you mostly shoot outdoor. Two things are suck about it is that too slow and too expensive. What kidding me? You could bought so mny nice prime that's already f1.4! Omg you will love it so much you could smole yourself!
 
14-140 is $$$.. I have one.. nice glass, but I got the gh2 for lens swappability and low light.. 14-140 is good with lotsa light, other than that- take it outside on a nice sunny day..
 
How are Nikon Primes working on the GH13? I´ve got a Nikkor 50mm 1.8/D. Any experience with that lens on the GH13?
Appreciate your answer :)
 
sorry to side step a bit, but is the 14-42 better than nothing at all, or rather no warrantee. It's not really an issue as there are none anywhere, but it appears that no Canadian dealers are listing the 14-42 package, It is 14-140 or nothing. The body only price is $999, same as B&H 14-42 package. I already have Nikon 24mm 2.8, 50mm 1.8 AF, and a crappy 70-210 zoom that took fine snaps so I'm sure would be fine for video. The 14-42 would cover the wide end until something better comes along. All I care is if the lens is sharp enough for video, the only pics would be family stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top