12-32 vs 14-42

[mmmartin]

Does anyone else who's handled both lenses feel that the 14-42 has a more useful range of focal lengths?

~65mm on the long end is fine, I guess, it's just that I find having an ~85mm eFOV within reach on your kit lens a lot more useful. I also found the 24mm eFOV just a touch too wide for daily use, and would end up using 28mm anyway.

I can't deny the sharpness difference, though. Kinda makes me wish Pany did a 14-42 to match the 12-32.

Edit: to clarify, I have the Oly 14-42 II R lens.

Some history: My 14-42 got the "check the status of a lens" error when zooming past 20mm, so I deemed it dead. For this reason, when I upgraded my body, I got it with the 12-32 kit lens. I tried out the broken 14-42 again after a while on my new body and miraculously, it started working! I have no idea why this would be so, as I hear the lens status error is because of flex cable issues.

 

[Mountain]

I think all the kit ranges have their uses. I started with the 14-42, moved to 12-32 after a scratched front element on 14-42 to get extra on the wide end. Upgraded to 12-40 Pro for IQ. I think the 12-32 and a 42.5 prime make a great combo. The 12-40 2.8 does double duty as a portrait lens, something the 14-42 is a little slow for. The new 12-60 and 12-100 are really appealing ranges, but probably bigger, heavier, and more expensive than the tiny zoom and small prime put together.

 

[twigboy]

No experience with the 12-32 -- but like the images I've seen from it. I wonder if the Olympus 14-42 EZ is more like the Panasonic 12-32, if only by size.

This doesn't help you but...
I do have the 14-42 II but it broke a while ago so I replaced it with another. But it does "work" again also. When it does conk out again, I reset with the lens release button when at wider angle. What I found is that the focusing at closer range or while going through the focusing task, including manual focusing, will trigger the error when above about 30mm. If focusing at a distance (10 feet or more?) at 42mm it works fine, usually.

I have the Panasonic 12-35 (for the wider aperture) and don't usually miss the extra range of the 14-42, although I do like the 42mm end. I might carry the light 40-150 with the Panasonic. I do carry the replacement 14-42 for size at times.

 

[mmmartin]

I think all the kit ranges have their uses. I started with the 14-42, moved to 12-32 after a scratched front element on 14-42 to get extra on the wide end. Upgraded to 12-40 Pro for IQ. I think the 12-32 and a 42.5 prime make a great combo. The 12-40 2.8 does double duty as a portrait lens, something the 14-42 is a little slow for. The new 12-60 and 12-100 are really appealing ranges, but probably bigger, heavier, and more expensive than the tiny zoom and small prime put together.

I'm definitely going for the 42.5/1.7 next, as I mostly shoot at night. As a walkaround during the day, though, I find the the 14-42 range more versatile. I tend to use longer focal lengths for compressing a scene more than specifically for portraits.

 

[mmmartin]

No experience with the 12-32 -- but like the images I've seen from it. I wonder if the Olympus 14-42 EZ is more like the Panasonic 12-32, if only by size.

This doesn't help you but...
I do have the 14-42 II but it broke a while ago so I replaced it with another. But it does "work" again also. When it does conk out again, I reset with the lens release button when at wider angle. What I found is that the focusing at closer range or while going through the focusing task, including manual focusing, will trigger the error when above about 30mm. If focusing at a distance (10 feet or more?) at 42mm it works fine, usually.

I have the Panasonic 12-35 (for the wider aperture) and don't usually miss the extra range of the 14-42, although I do like the 42mm end. I might carry the light 40-150 with the Panasonic. I do carry the replacement 14-42 for size at times.

The 14-42 EZ and PZ kits are closer in size, I just find them slower to use, especially with startup time.

My 14-42 used to do that for a while too, before completely giving up past 20mm no matter what I did. Makes you wonder what's really wrong with the lens now that it's working perfectly fine again.

 

[davidzvi]

I'd take the P12-32 over the O14-42 II R or O14-42EZ any and every day. Taking a quick look at my catalogue I had 900+ (it was the only lens I had for a while) images with my O14-42 II and now have over 700 with the P12-32.

 

[mmmartin]

@davidzvi, is there anything else besides sharpness that you prefer with the 12-32?

 

[davidzvi]

@davidzvi, is there anything else besides sharpness that you prefer with the 12-32?

12mm over 14mm and size. I use the O14-42EZ auto cap on my P12-32, it's a nice clean setup. I also prefer that Panasonic zoom action turns in the same direction as my Nikon gear does, Olympus turns in the opposite direction.

 

[mmmartin]

…

I also prefer that Panasonic zoom action turns in the same direction as my Nikon gear does, Olympus turns in the opposite direction.

This really gets to me. Why do they have different zoom directions?! Fully agree on this one, I wish they'd stay consistent with each other on at least that. You already have the same mount…

 

[davidzvi]

This is really gets to me. Why do they have different zoom directions?! Fully agree on this one, I wish they'd stay consistent with each other on at least that. You already have the same mount…

Nikon, Tamron, and Panasonic all turn one direction. Canon, Sigma, and Olympus turn the other if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Chris5107]

This depends on what you like to photograph. I agree that the long end of the 12-32 can be limiting at times but I find that I appreciate the 12mm end more than I miss the long end.

 

[Egregius V]

I've decided to sell my 14-42 II R and 14-45 zooms now that I have a 12-32 (came with my GX85). The 12-32 is tiny and tends to be sharper edge to edge (if you don't consider field curvature and decentering issues, which can be dealt with). I like the zoom range just fine, because I pair it with lenses like the 40-150 R, 14-150 II, and maybe some day a 35-100. Distortion at the wide end would be a concern if I didn't shoot RAW and process with DxO.

For what I like to photograph, I don't see the 12-32 range being much more restrictive than the 14-4x range. That's because I do a lot more telephoto shooting than I used to - for which none of these lenses is sufficient.

mmmartin - Just a guess: I suppose your lens status issue could have been due to the contacts between camera and lens. I seem to recall that being a known cause.

 

[mmmartin]

Whoops, it started conking out again when I took it out for the day. It's pretty inconsistent about it, though. Oh well. I do still have the Oly 40-150, and I'm having great fun with longer focal lengths—playing with compression is fantastic.

 

[BleedingGumsMurphy]

I value the difference between 12mm and 14mm more compared to the difference between 32mm and 45mm. The width is a deal breaker for me. Especially as I love the slow 35-100mm as a daytime kit with the 12-32mm. I am hoping for a mark II of the 12-32mm later this year with better build and a focus ring.

 

[Jan68]

12mm compared to 14mm makes a difference for me, on the long end - I don't care too much. So I'll stick with the 12-32 for travels, which actually looks and feels great on my E-M1. Have the 35-100 2.8 on the long side, so I'm covered. For walks and street I switch to primes, more challenge and more fun.

 

[JensM]

Whoops, it started conking out again when I took it out for the day. It's pretty inconsistent about it, though.

Have you tried cleaning the contacts on the lens?

 

[tkbslc]

12mm compared to 14mm makes a difference for me, on the long end - I don't care too much. So I'll stick with the 12-32 for travels, which actually looks and feels great on my E-M1. Have the 35-100 2.8 on the long side, so I'm covered. For walks and street I switch to primes, more challenge and more fun.

I would tend to agree. And you can crop for a little telephoto reach, but stitching for extra wide angle isn't always realistic. Not to mention, as you said above, most of use have a telephoto if we really need it.

The 12-32mm also is a pancake zoom, which offers obvious benefits to portability.

 

[RichDesmond]

I value the difference between 12mm and 14mm more compared to the difference between 32mm and 45mm. The width is a deal breaker for me. Especially as I love the slow 35-100mm as a daytime kit with the 12-32mm. I am hoping for a mark II of the 12-32mm later this year with better build and a focus ring.

Yep, 12mm vs 14mm is crucial difference for me. I typically carry the compact 35-100 also, so I'm covered if I need longer. Mostly, I don't.

 

[mmmartin]

Strong consensus for 24mm! I realize that my preference for 14-42 stems from a theoretical situation where it was my only lens, because in that case I'd still have 85mm within reach. Sharpness and size-wise, though, the 12-32 really is up there.

@JensM: yes, I did. Tried everything short of opening it up, really. If this goes on, I might as well do so. I could learn a thing or two about how they make these little marvels.

 

[saladin]

I dont find the 14-42's quick enough or long enough at the long end to make me want to loose the 12mm at the shorter end. I also much prefer the smaller form factor. But it really depends on how and what you like to shoot.