14-42 II r vs. 12-50 OMD kit lens

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by WT21, Jul 31, 2012.

  1. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Legend Subscribing Member

    Feb 19, 2010
    Ignoring size/weight issues, would I gain anything on my EPM1 (so, no weather sealing really) by moving from the 14-42 to the 12-50.

    I would love my kit lens to be a little wider (+1 for the 12-50), but the f/stop at max FL is smaller (6.3 is it???). The macro capability is nice.

    How about sharpness, contrast, distortion etc. etc. Any benefit from the 12-50 over the 14-42?
  2. M4/3

    M4/3 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Sep 24, 2011
    No benefit in sharpness, contrast, distortion etc. etc
  3. Promit

    Promit Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 6, 2011
    Baltimore, MD
    Promit Roy
    I am hearing mixed results on sharpness; most likely the answer is it is better, but not by a lot. I have the 12-50 for exactly one reason: I needed a native weather sealed standard zoom. It is getting sold the minute something better (12-60 2.8-4 please) arrives.

    It is not a bad lens, but even at $250 there are so many other things to be had...
  4. Pennington

    Pennington Mu-43 Regular

    Keep in mind that the "macro" capability isn't true macro - it's just the ability to get closer than usual focus, and only at a fixed focal length (43mm, IIRC).

    Having briefly played with a friends 12-60, I was happy I had chosen the 14-42 instead. The smaller size/weight alone made me happy.
  5. rwisem

    rwisem Mu-43 Regular

    Jun 20, 2012
    Sequim, Washington, USA
    Roger Wiseman
    Basically, M4/3 is correct, although the 12-50 may be a little better at the long end, but contrast is supposedly a small issue.

    Many new OMD owners are selling off new 12-50's that came with the kit. I got one for $270 on the auction site.

    It is very well built and the manual/power zoom is trick. There are 4 reasons you might want it.
    1. slightly wider and longer (obviously)
    2. An very usable macro function in my experience
    3. Power zoom is a boon if you shoot video.
    4. Weatherproofing.

    I bought for the first 2 reasons and am happy with it.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Legend Subscribing Member

    Feb 19, 2010
    Thanks everyone.

    At what FL does it go past f/5.6?
  7. strang

    strang Mu-43 Veteran

    May 7, 2012
    +1 for 12-50.

    But for OP the only benefits are macro and power zoom.

    I would rather keep 14-42 II R if I was in your shoes. You already have the 9-18 for wide situations.
  8. marygoround

    marygoround Mu-43 Regular

    Jul 19, 2012
    Having same thoughts with WT21. Wondering if it may be worth it or just invest the money with a good prime.
  9. zapatista

    zapatista Mu-43 Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    Mar 19, 2012
    Albuquerque, NM
    Mike Barber
    The 12-50mm in my experience is much sharper than the 14-42 IIR and the macro is surprisingly good.
  10. jeffryscott

    jeffryscott Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jul 2, 2010
    I love the 12-50, but wouldn't invest in it unless I had a weather sealed body (which I do). The 14-42 is a good, inexpensive lens.
  11. strang

    strang Mu-43 Veteran

    May 7, 2012
    Just double checked. At 35mm it reaches f/5.6. At 40mm it reaches f/5.8.
  12. kevwilfoto

    kevwilfoto Mu-43 Veteran

    Sep 23, 2011
    Ditto. If that rumored 12-60 doesn't happen, I'm gonna cry.
  13. bongestrella

    bongestrella Mu-43 Veteran

    Sep 2, 2011
    Mechanicsburg, PA
    Based on my 2 copies of 14-42 R and 1 copy 12-50, the 14-42's are actually a little sharper below 35mm. Beyond 35mm, 12-50 is only very slightly sharper. Pretty disappointing regardless of my low expectations. The 12mm is quite nice though, and the semi-macro is a bonus.
    • Like Like x 1