Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Panasonic Micro Four Thirds

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 22, 2012, 10:57 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

The general consensus is that the retractable 14-42mm is optically not as good as the other models. There are plenty of posts on the internet comparing the two models and the retractable always seems to produce softer images especially around the corners.
__________________

Tullio
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2012, 8:07 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 297
Default

chiquito,

At current prices, you could have the conventional Panasonic 14-42 ($130) and the Sigma 30mm f/2.8 ($200) to complement the 14mm f/2.5 you already have for about the price of the 14-42 collapsible model ($350), and just a little bit more than the 14-45 Premium lens ($270).

That would make a very nice overall package.

As far as I know there is only one Panasonic collapsible 14-42 and one from Olympus, but it has no IS.
BBbuilder467 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2012, 8:20 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

There is actually 4 olympus kit lens metal base first gen, plastic base first gen, first run msc lens on the epl2 and the new msc lens.

Both the first gen do not focus as fast. But optically they are good.

But the issues is with the panny bodies you will not have IS on the lens, and if you shoot them in situations where IS is needed, you will have camera shake.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2012, 8:34 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

Olympus has two versions of the 14-42mm. The first came with the EP1/EP2 and EPL1 and the redesigned version (II) came with the EPL2 and other models thereafter.

Personally the new Sigma m4/3 lenses don't attract me at all. They would if they were faster (f2.0 or below) but buying them simply because they cost less than the Lumix and/or Zuiko lenses it does not cut for me. The 30mm FL is covered by all kit lenses and I think they all produce better IQ than the Sigma at 30mm. The only advantage of the Sigma over the kit is the speed but even that it is not that much (f2.8 vs. f3.5). I'd save the $200 and use it against the 45-200mm. That's a good lens for the money.
__________________

Tullio
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2012, 8:37 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoturtle View Post
...

But the issues is with the panny bodies you will not have IS on the lens, and if you shoot them in situations where IS is needed, you will have camera shake.
Unless one has very shaky hands, I don't see the lack of IS to be a problem when shooting with any 14-42mm lens. But, IS is always good to have and since the OP has a Panny body (no IBIS), the best option is to go with Lumix lenses.
__________________

Tullio
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2012, 8:59 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

if the lighting is not ideal, at 3.5-5.6 it can be an issue for some.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2012, 9:34 PM   #17
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 76
Default

Those were great suggestions. Do you think that the price difference between the 14-45mm and the 14-42mm is acceptable. I mean would I get that difference in performance with the 14-45mm over the 14-42mm? I ask cecause I've read that the 14-42mm kit lens is of inferior quality of the 14-45mm. And what about Auto Focus which one would be faster and/or accurate?
I also see some used 14-45mm lens for 200-250. Is that a good deal?
And also what about the 20mm pancake that has rave reviews? Is it really that much better than the 14mm?
As I told in my first post the main use of the camera would be for family and friends reunions witch one of the two focal lengths would be better for my use?
Right know I'm about to decide one overall lens, that would be either the 14-45mm or the 14-45mm depending on your suggestions and the price I get on an used one.

Last edited by chiquito3; May 22, 2012 at 10:36 PM.
chiquito3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2012, 11:51 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

Although the 14-45mm is one of the best kit lenses I've ever had, I'm not convinced that the price difference is fully justifiable. I think the 14-42mm is a great alternative for the price. The difference between the two lenses is not that huge in terms of IQ, AF speed, etc. The build quality of the 14-45 is better but not significantly better.

As for the 20mm, most people tend to like it a lot. I had it and was not too fond of it. In my experience, the lens has a tendency of over expose causing highlight clipping in high contrast conditions. Obviously the lens forte is its speed (f1.7 max aperture), which is great in low light situations. However, I liked the 14mm better because it exposes more accurately. The problem with using wide angle lenses to photograph people is that it tends to distort the image a bit having a negative effect on people but as long as you are not taking portrait (close up) shots of people, it's OK. It is a better fit for small enclosed places than the 20mm. Now if you like to shoot portraits, than the Zuiko 45mm is a much better choice but it is way too tight for group photos.
__________________

Tullio
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23, 2012, 12:05 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 297
Default

chiquito,

I have both the 14-45 and the 14-42 Panasonic lenses. If your budget allows for it, I would definitely go for the 14-45. It's as good as it gets in that range.

There's nothing wrong with the 14-42 if you're on a tighter budget, but it's just not the same as the 14-45. The 14-45 is just a better quality lens overall.

$200-$250 used sounds ok, but they are @$270 new at the moment.
BBbuilder467 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23, 2012, 6:33 AM   #20
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 76
Default

Guys I read somewhere that to take good pictures with the 14mm on the GF-3, a tripod would be needed because the GF-3 body has no Is and neither does the lens. Is this true? For my the tripod is not an option. I though that I could take good pictures with this lens using only my hands.
chiquito3 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:56 PM.