[Toad]

Well, I went to a camera store and tried out the 14-140 on my GF1. It didn't feel too bad at all - much better than I was expecting given some of the comments I have read. Its not a perfect match balance-wise - but still totally useable and amazingly small given its zoom range. This kind of lens would have been impossible to imagine 3 years ago. It is a 2-hander experience - but that is how I shoot with zooms anyway. It is a much stronger contender for my next lens than it was yesterday.

There has been a lot of chatter online lately about modular camera systems. I like the idea and I actually think that this is what I could have with the GF1. The GF1 body and 20mm is the base module - a small take-anywhere rig that can still deliver the goods. Add the optional EVF for serious work when you are out and need it - but no need to have it on all the time. Next step up would be the GF1 body, 14-140 zoom and the EVF for the full SLR experience.

There you have it - a modular camera experience - from Point and shoot to full SLR - and the whole rig still fits in the smallest of camera bags. I got a strong feeling that this is the setup that I will be taking to Iceland. Anybody want to buy a Nikon?

[matthew]

I'm probably going to get a 30mm Macro next.
$175.
On my APS-C sensor that = 45mm, which is very "normal", and I like the macro aspect very much.

After buying the 50mm F1.8 almost a month ago and not taking it off the body ever since, you might say that I am enamored with primes.
75mm-e is a bit too much sometimes, so I want to get a bit wider without ever having to mount the kit lens again.

Sounds like a good set - Mike Johnson's recently been extolling the virtues of a prime set, with one being a little wide and the other being a little long. 45/75 is a good pair, and wide macros give a different look. (For my F100, I like the classic 35/85 pair; for my D700, I go more for the 50/1.8 and 105VR.)

Toad, I'm glad you liked the 14-140. That would be a tough one to leave behind for Iceland, but I'd want the 7-14 as well.

My most recent lens-related purchase - aside from a pack of Zeiss lens tissues from this morning - is a 46mm three-stop ND filter. It lets me keep the 20/1.7 at much wider apertures, and I like the look of it. Maybe I'm going a little lo-fi these days.

[shuttertalk]

Speaking of modular camera systems, has anyone taken a good look at the Samsung GXR system? I think I posted about it a while back, but instead of just swapping lenses, you swap modules, and these modules can contain the lens, sensor and processing engine in the single module.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/100223...odules.asp

[Toad]

Yeah - I saw that Jules. I am of 2 minds about it. While I truly like the idea of being able to upgrade the sensor as a module in a modular camera system, I find the idea of bundling a different sensor with each lens a bit bizarre. I want to upgrade my sensor once in a blue moon when technology had moved along sufficiently to rationalize it - not each time I buy a lens.

I get what they are trying to do - and applaud them for thinking outside of the box - but this bundling of lens and sensor just seems like the wrong approach to me - excessively expensive and not solving the problem in a practical way. Plus - the cameras are really ugly...

BTW: I think that you mean Ricoh not Samsung...

[matthew]

The GXR is an interesting idea - that way you only change and re-buy the most expensive part of the camera each time you want a new lens. Interesting, but maybe not a great idea. Its one big advantage is that you get the dust-sealed lens that's exactly matched to the sensor, but these days the status quo is so good that it's hard to have a new approach offer a definitive advantage.

I have this unreasonable, irrational desire to have my next lens be a Zeiss ZM-mount 35mm f/2 biogon... with a Zeiss Ikon rangefinder to attach it to.

[shuttertalk]

Ah sorry, I did mean Ricoh.

I had to read it a few times to make sense of it as well - it's a bit puzzling why you would want to change the lens + sensor each time - surely a modular system would make better sense if you could change the sensor and lens independently? That way you could upgrade the sensor every few years to keep up with technology.

However, I guess it might help in terms of design of the lens - for example if they made a smaller sensor for a big zoom lens, then the lens itself wouldn't have to be so big, which would help on weight and portability.

[Toad]

it's a bit puzzling why you would want to change the lens + sensor each time.

Well you wouldn't of course - but I can see why Ricoh might want you to...

[Kombisaurus]

A couple of days ago, I proposed that my ideal lens would be my Nikon 18-200 F3.5-F5.6 VR except shaper, smaller, and faster. We all laughed...

However, I can't help but notice that the Panasonic 14-140 F4-F5.8 that is fully compatible with my GF1 is a pretty close match for that description.
<SNIP>
I need to seriously consider it. Paired up with the 20mm F1.7 prime, it sounds like a wonderful street kit.

I'm thinking exactly the same thing Toad! I'm very interested to hear how you go with this.
And Matthew, I read your review of the 14-140 lens. Thanks for writing it, and well done on a nice review which actually covers stuff other reviews often miss.

I'm just about to give my Panasonic LX3 to my girlfriend and am shopping for something to replace it as a small, discreet alternative to lugging my DSLR kit around. I've pretty much decided on the Panasonic GF1 (with 20mm prime). This seems like a no-brainer for its combination of size and performance, and I love fast normal primes.

But I will sometimes need the flexibility of a zoom and I don't want to start a big MFT lens collection... I want to buy a zoom that will be my only zoom lens for this camera.
The Panasonic 14-140 is sitting on top of the list at the moment. I understand the compromises of a super-zoom, and the fact that when mounted to the GF1 it will no longer be as discreet as the 20mm. But I'll only really use it in daylight outdoors, and it will still be MUCH smaller than my DSLR alternative (Canon 5DMkII body with 24-105L and 70-200L lenses). Also I quickly adjust to different lens/body combinations and after a week of shooting the weird balance of a heavy lens on a light body won't even cross my mind.

The fact that the Panasonic 14-140 lens' IQ is regarded as "the best of the super-zooms" seems to say more about the poor IQ of the other manufacturers' super-zooms than any outstanding IQ of this lens. I'm not expecting it to compete with Canon L glass, but if it can edge out the IQ of the LX3 lens while managing 10x Zoom then I'll be happy. When I want great IQ I'll reach for the 20mm prime (or 5DMkII).

I really like the idea of a camera like the GF1 with a fast small prime and a flexible zoom. I'd probably keep the 20mm lens mounted most of the time, but if I kept the 14-140mm lens in the glovebox of my car or something then it's always nearby for the times I need it. Also the whole kit should fit in the storage under the pillion seat of my motorbike allowing me to take photos while out riding without a backpack full of gear.

ps: Chris, I can't believe you're selling your EF 135L! *sigh* Such a nice lens.... Actually I do understand it. You need to do a lot of walking around to get a good position when shooting a fixed 135mm focal length. During the pressure and mayhem of a wedding, it's much more convenient and safer to use a 70-200 zoom instead of risking lost shots from a long prime. The 135L is still my all-time favourite lens though.

[Toad]

Thanks Adrian - I needed that. I have been feeling a bit unsure about this pairing, but it is nice to see that someone else agrees.

If you buy the GF-1 - don't miss the 20mm F1.7 whatever you do - it is an absolute gem - the best m43 lens available.

[Kombisaurus]

Just placed my order for the GF1 + 20mm kit.

I'm still a bit undecided about the 14-140 or an alternative zoom, but I don't need to make a decision on that just yet. Maybe after living with the GF1 for a few weeks the answer will become clear, depending on how the camera fits into my life. Or maybe I'll just get impatient and end up ordering the 14-140 anyway!

Have you made a decision on the 14-140 yet Rob?

[Toad]

Not yet. I have the GF-1, 20mm and the EVF. I needed the EVF because my old eyes have a hard time reading the settings on the LCD in bright sunlight. I can frame with the LCD - but get all squinty in the sunshine trying to read the little icons.

Honestly, the 14-140 looks like the pick to click to me. On my Nikon, I very rarely remove the 18-200 - which is almost the identical range once you do all the conversions. However, I am not feeling tremendous urgency to run out and buy the 14-140 yet. I am still enjoying the street freedom that the GF-1 / 20mm combo brings to the dance. My Nikon is gathering dust in the drawer at the moment. I can afford to wait for a little while, and see what other lenses might be announced in the near future - but at the moment, the 14-140 gets the nod from me. I have tried it on the GF-1 twice now, and while it is not a perfect match balance-wise, it is totally usable. My advice would be to play with the GF-1 and 20 for a while before buying another lens.

Maybe one day, I will also expand my lineup to include a wide prime or wide zoom - but not just now.

[matthew]

For what it's worth, there's a photographer who has caught my eye, and uses a GF1 and 14-140.

http://giannigalassi.typepad.com/

[Toad]

Good catch,. Matthew - although he also says - don't bother using RAW - so his opinion becomes suspect...

[Zig]

Have been following yous guys with great interest: Adrian, I do hope you can report back to us when the GF-1 is in your hot and clammies!
My local store is presently doing an excellent deal on it plus the 20mm, with the added wallet-stroker of the viewfinder a mere £65 GBP(c. $100??) if bought together.
However(and believe me, this is not a non-sequitur), I wonder if any of you can help me?....
I've been totally unsuccessful in trying to find an in-depth, head to head comparison/review of the Zeiss 21mm Distagon(ZE fit) v. Canon's 24mm f1.4 Mark2.
If any of you have come across one, could you possibly please direct me to the link?
[You can feel my dilemma, surely, as I writhe and contort in the throes of severe GAS(Gear Acquisition Syndrome)... :/ ]

[matthew]

That's not a bad deal on the GF1+viewfinder. Locally - probably across Canada - Panasonic has a $150 discount on the GF1+20/1.7 with the 45-200.

However(and believe me, this is not a non-sequitur), I wonder if any of you can help me?....
I've been totally unsuccessful in trying to find an in-depth, head to head comparison/review of the Zeiss 21mm Distagon(ZE fit) v. Canon's 24mm f1.4 Mark2.

That's not even close to what I thought your non-non-sequitur would be. I can't be terribly helpful, but with luck I might be able to do a quick side-by-side in a couple of weeks. I can't guarantee anything - a lot of the ZE lenses are backordered in North America - but hopefully it's on its way. Let me know if you can think of anything I can test in a camera store.

I'm in the process of putting a lot of my remaining Olympus gear, and some other odds-and-ends, up for sale. The proceeds are going to my Zeiss Ikon + 35/2 Biogon fund. Yes, it would be my third 35mm lens - not counting the very close 20/1.7 - but I'm really liking the idea of having a camera that I'll still be using decades from now. (And that it would lose about the same value in those twenty years than my Oly E-3 has in three.) My dream kit would add the 85/4, giving me three of that focal length, as well. What can I say? I have fairly established tastes.

[Zig]

.
What I should have explained is that each time my mind approaches the GF1+20mm scenario, the urge gets transmutated into Canon prime-lens fever. I fear this is in fact merely a projection of yet another Mid Life Crisis being outworked via a camera metaphor(change gear, thus change life )
My internal "logic" proceeds thus: given that I'm entertaining the notion to spend cash on a GF-1, then surely that cash is a sizeable part of the way to get a really neat Canon lens...which will of course mean that my pupating existence will immediately hatch into the butterfly of fulfillment.
:/
Thus far, my most outlandish conjecture a few days ago was the selling of my complete Canon gear, my Pentax 67Mk2 with AE prism and 3 primes, my Nikon FG, my 2002 Gibson Les Paul Standard along with my 1979 Yamaha SG2000, to get a Leica M9 and 35mm.
Today's scenario, backlash of almost pulling the trigger on the GF kit, was the thought as above of either the 21mm Distagon or the Canon 24mm. Though I did not find a head to header per se, even this play-off has been superseded in the Mind of Zig by now(for the past 4 hours at any rate) considering any GF1 cash as a stepping-stone towards the Canon TSE 24mm f3.5L Mk2. This has of course been followed already by the next "logical" step, on the grounds of my most used focal lengths, which is the Canon TSE 17mm f4.
That is a very kind offfer Matthew; I fear that my mind is too mercurial at present to ask you to test out a lens on my behalf...though IF you should happen to run a few pics through either of those Canon TSEs, then I'd be all ears!

[matthew]

Interesting summation - I know the process well, even if I go through it more slowly.

What I'm about to say isn't going to help you any.

I've owned the Olympus 35-100/2.0, and all brand wars aside, it is truly one of the best zoom lenses ever made. I sold it because I stopped using it. I get to play with the latest generation C and N 70-200 lenses, the 85/1.2 is in the window at work, and I've toyed with the Leica 50mm f/0.95 Noctilux on a GH1. That's a ten thousand dollar lens. I can use the 135/2, from either Canon or Nikon, whenever I want. A colleague has handed me his D3x with the 14-24 attached. I've even had the Zeiss 135/1.8 on an Alpha 900. I am completely, totally jaded.

When I take the Canon 17mm TS-E out of the box, I have to fight the urge to genuflect.

It's that awesome.

Sorry.

[matthew]

Okay, with that little bit out of my system, here's how it has gone for me.

The camera store where I work part-time (henceforth: TCSWIWPT) is bringing in Zeiss lenses, and I've been part of the process. That means that I've had to be reading reviews, checking out forums, and generally scoping out what's good and popular. Well, there's only so long that I can think about something without thinking about what I would like, and naturally I gravitated toward the 100mm f/2 macro. But it was never a 'gimme gimme' reaction - I'm thoroughly stocked already, and the idea of spending that much on a lens for my D700 seemed a little... excessive. It's a lot to invest, and while the lens is absolutely worth what it costs, I have too much tied up in Nikon already. And ultimately, I realized that I already have a really good manual focus lens that's about that same focal length that also does half-sized macro - the 100/2, no matter how good it is, doesn't give me anything new. And none of the regular lenses appeal to me because the D700 viewfinder, even as good as it is, simply isn't set up for manual focus.

(As an aside, you've got to know that the first thing I'll do is compare the sharpness of my Nikkor 85/2.8 PC-E micro to the Zeiss 100/2 makro.)

But the problem isn't that I'm against manual focus, I just can't do it with a DSLR. I know my eyesight isn't perfect, and the sharpest lens in the world won't make up for missed focus. But give me a rangefinder, and it's a whole new ballgame - my eyes are good enough for that. Seeing that the 35/2 has essentially zero optical distortion really got my attention. It has gone from a maybe to an eventually, and now it's at the point where it may be sooner rather than later. The tax collection system changes at the start of July, meaning that it could be a couple hundred dollars more up-front. And then, after that, I think that the price of the Ikon and 35/2 will be established as my spending cap for cameras and lenses, never to be exceeded.

(subject to inflation, of course. )

[Toad]

Its dangerous to confuse lens lust with the photographic experience. What do you think would actually improve your experience? Is it a much smaller / go-anywhere / always on-you camera rig? The GF-1/20mm will probably not satisfy that. It is still larger than you can fit in a pocket.

At the end of the day, size does count. It doesn't matter what size the camera rig is in action and at full extension - the only thing that counts is how big it is when you are carrying it and not taking pictures. Look at my Kata AP system review - 1st set of pictures - you see a guy with a Kata pouch on a shoulder strap. I use a smaller pouch than what is shown for my GF-1/20 and it works fine. I find that it is discrete - not obviously a camera bag - and a big help to the photographic experience - but not completely there. Still a bit large, and I *still* leave it at home sometimes - and that really isn't the idea is it?

My son has a Leica DLUX 4 (same as the Panny LX3) and that is really a carry everywhere camera - but it has a much smaller sensor.

One size doesn't fit all and m43 is a casebook study in compromises. The GH-1 is a better camera than the GF-1 full-stop - but once you get larger than the size of the GF-1 - what's the point? You are not longer miniaturized in any real sense of the word.

Do I regret my GF-1 purchase? Not at all. I plan to use it exclusively for my Iceland trip along with the 14-140 (or at least that is my current thinking) - and I wish with all my heart that I had owned it when I was in the souks of Marrakesh - it would have been *exactly* the right camera solution...but it falls short of my "with me 100% of the time when I am at home" target - it just ain't so. I think the GF-1 is an amazingly competent smaller rig that just screams to be used for vacations, hiking, candids, anything on the street - but not as a substitute for my big rig - just as a adjunct. If I was into video - I would own the GH-1 rather than a dedicated video rig without reservation.

Perfect world - starting over - knowing everything I know now???

2 rigs:

1. Full frame SLR with the best glass I can afford - 2 to 3 lenses max
2. GF-1 or LX3 as my street rig

...or if money is absolutely no object...

Leica M9 and lenses. Doesn't compromise on what woul dbe offered by the combination of the other 2 rigs - but frankly the 2 other rigs would likely be much cheaper.


My $.02

[matthew]

Its dangerous to confuse lens lust with the photographic experience. What do you think would actually improve your experience?

It's a good point - and I'm not under the illusion that any problem in my life could be resolved by the addition of camera gear.

Do I regret my GF-1 purchase? Not at all. I plan to use it exclusively for my Iceland trip along with the 14-140 (or at least that is my current thinking) - and I wish with all my heart that I had owned it when I was in the souks of Marrakesh - it would have been *exactly* the right camera solution...

Do you have the 14-140 yet? Because following my earlier point, I have to concede that I rarely use mine, and probably wouldn't miss it if it went away. On the other hand, I would probably use the ZM tele-tessar 85mm f/4, especially if there's a M-to-m43 adapter involved. Call me crazy - I've never really used standard zooms, and it turns out that I don't really use superzooms either. Of course, it would be handy to have for my trip to New York...

1. Full frame SLR with the best glass I can afford - 2 to 3 lenses max
2. GF-1 or LX3 as my street rig
...or if money is absolutely no object...
Leica M9 and lenses. Doesn't compromise on what woul dbe offered by the combination of the other 2 rigs - but frankly the 2 other rigs would likely be much cheaper.

I don't really 'get' the M9. It's certainly priced like a Leica, but with the early history the M8, I can't see it as being the same investment-grade camera as the film bodies are. I think your a/b mix is a better hypothetical choice.

[Zig]

No, Mathew, au contraire, you've helped greatly(in that I feel very mwahahahaha of course).
Toad, you're quite right of course; my in-role irony can become rather cozening, I think.
I continue to find this thread very educative.

[Kombisaurus]

I just stumbled across a 2nd-hand Lumix 14-140 lens for a good price today and couldn't resist. My GF1 hasn't even arrived yet and I've never handled this lens, but meh.. I'm pretty confident it'll do what I need and if not then I can sell it for what I paid for it. In fact I just checked the (rediculous) RRP's on Panasonic's website and realised I'm getting the GF1 camera + 20mm pancake + 14-140 zoom all for less than the RRP of the 14-140 lens alone! I thought Canon RRPs were bad compared to street prices, but Panasonic's are a joke.

My usual "travel light and do everything" daylight kit is a 5D2 body with a 24-105L zoom mounted on it and a fast prime (most often 50mm f/1.4) in a coat pocket, and my "night out" kit is to just mount the prime on the 5D2 and leave the zoom at home.
A GF1 body with 14-140 zoom and 20mm f/1.7 prime seems an ideal substitute. I plan to motorcycle through a few Asian countries for a few weeks later in the year, and this is as much photographic gear as I want to carry.

And Zig, I think the only solution to satisfy your gear-anguish without sending you bankrupt is to find a job in a camera store like Matthew!

[shuttertalk]

Wow, seems everyone here is jumping on the m43 bandwagon - maybe we should rename our forums to something more appropriate!!!

[Toad]

Adrian:

Please report back as soon as possible on how the 14-140 works with the GF-1. I have tried it on a couple of times - but there is a huge difference between that and using it in the field. Can't wait to hear - I am debating that exact purchase myself.

[matthew]

Don't worry, Jules - even though they don't have a mirror, the micro cameras still have shutters.

Adrian, believe me, working in a camera store is no way for a gearhead to avoid bankruptcy. :/