I got the OM-D but I've kept my G1 and the 14-45mm. It's a great kit lens. For lower light shots where you want maximum definition and speed, the 12mm f2.0 (despite the $800 tag) is a good idea.
The shot here is the frame edge with the lenses wide open at f3.5.

Wow, that's quite a difference, and the Panny 14-45 vastly improves when stopped down to f/5.6. That does it, if I buy an E-M5, it'll be the body-only option.

__________________
Best regards, Ad.

Pictures | Equipment | Minolta collection | All lenses

Considering Panasonic no longer has the 14-45 as a kit lens...I'm inclined to disagree. That said, I feel that both the P14-45 and 14-42 miss the point of the system entirely, and are a damaging factor to the Panasonic line-up by being stupidly huge. What really pushed it over the edge for me was the discovery that the NEX 18-55 kit lens is smaller than the P14-42. Faaaaaiiiil.

Not that the 12-50 seems like a nice lens to me, mind you.

__________________
Olympus E-M5, Sony A65, lenses.

there's a few things that are omitted which are also important in evaluating a lens. Which focal length is the Oly at for this shot. It will obviously be softer if it's at it's widest setting (and 12mm isn't even an option with the Panasonic).

Also, how do they compare when stopped down? Would you like to be able to focus closely....sorry the Panasonic won't do it even half as well as the Oly.

It's truly like comparing apples and oranges. And to me the sharpness at the edge of the frame is the least important part, but everyone else focuses on different performance metrics. One just needs to consider them all.

Just checked, the Panny 14-45 is still in the program shown on the Panasonic site and stores in The Netherlands carry it. I think the OP was referring to IQ specifically in the corners, which I also deem as important for my landscape and architecture shots. Size is another matter and personal preferences will come into play here; for me, the size of the 14-45 never bothered me.

__________________
Best regards, Ad.

Pictures | Equipment | Minolta collection | All lenses

Shoot the Oly at 14 and see how it fairs. I'm not saying it is better, but you are comparing a width on the Oly that doesn't exist on the Panny.

If one is interested in these lenses for landscape purposes, compare them at apertures appropriate for those type shots. For landscape, I am not concerned with what a lens does wide open. I am more concerned with what it does at F5.6 to F8 for a micro 4/3.

The Oly may be as good or better than the Panny in the range of 14-45. It may not be as good. If it is, it has other features such as weather sealing, smaller size and less weight, and a macro feature that may or may not lead one to choose Oly over Panny.

I've never used the Panny, so I have no basis for comparison. Just saying that comparing them both at their widest setting wide open may not tell the whole story.

The Panasonic 14-45mm is no longer offered as a kit lens because it is no longer manufactured. The remaining stocks will probably last many months, or several years, but once they're gone, they're gone for good.

Used examples are available quite cheaply on eBay, Craigslist etc., and this is a well made and durable lens. I think every m4/3 user should own one.

__________________
Cub
Panasonic G3, 14-45mm, 20mm, 45-200mm, Olympus E-PL1, 9-18mm, 45mm

Stupidly huge?? Drastic overstatement don't you think.

As far as the Nex lens goes its a whole 1.6mm shorter but 50g heavier than the p14-42 and again based on couple reviews I quickly scanned has poorer edges and CA performance, so perhaps sony should have made it a little bigger.

Stopping down is kind of...cheating. All even marginal lenses perform well enough stopped down to f5.6 or f8. Also, it's not a portrait lens at 12mm or 14mm so expect it to be used across the frame.

Both at 14mm: