Do you hate your Oly kit lens? You shouldn't & here is why :)

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Bhupinder2002, Jul 11, 2012.

  1. Bhupinder2002

    Bhupinder2002 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Hi Guys and Few Gals
    It was a cold and windy weather outside .I was in a mood to shoot something for the sake of shooting . I decided to give some due respect to Olympus 14-42 mm kit lens which came with my EPL2. All images are shot inside , ISO200 , Aperture Priority mode , IS off, camera on Tripod , remote shutter release with a cable and subject was my new Panny 20 mm 1.7 lens . These are SOOC JPEGS.Here are some sampla images and you people can decide what to say about this mediocre kit lens .
    Cheers
    Bhupinder
    :thumbup::thumbup:

    P7110421. P7110408. P7110413. P71104021. P7110404. P7110402.

    This is ISO 1000
    P7100359.
     
    • Like Like x 6
  2. pheaukus

    pheaukus Mu-43 Regular

    178
    Jun 22, 2012
    What are crop factor and focal length per picture?

    I think it may be much better at 14mm (count a bee's hair on a picture of their entire hive) than 42mm (a tad hazy / less sharp, to my eyes, from the few samples I got so far)
     
  3. Bhupinder2002

    Bhupinder2002 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    THese samples are between 14-20 mm focal length. I will shoot samples at different focal lengths and then post them during the weekend .
    Cheers
    Bhupinder
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Hyubie

    Hyubie Unique like everyone else

    Oct 15, 2010
    Massachusetts
    Herbert
    Someone's been busy with Happy Meals... :wink:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Bhupinder2002

    Bhupinder2002 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Lol .. :rofl::rofl:
    My daughter .. Who else will lol
    Cheers
     
  6. DeeJayK

    DeeJayK Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 8, 2011
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Keith
    We shouldn't hate the lens because Shrek endorses it? :confused:
     
    • Like Like x 2
  7. Bhupinder2002

    Bhupinder2002 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    That shot was composed and taken by my daughter ...
    Cheers
    Bhupinder
    :rofl:
     
  8. MikeR_GF1

    MikeR_GF1 Mu-43 Veteran

    Cute pictures!

    I bought an older 1st-gen version as the first lens on my used GF1. Took over a thousand nice pictures, no complaints. Then my reading informed me that the lens sucked. So?

    Right now, that Lumix 20mm lives on the camera, I carry the 14-42 as well, and looking at the Pany 45-200 for a trip to Italy later this year. When I can afford it, I'll probably upgrade the camera to the OMD. Meanwhile, I'm happy with what I've got.
     
  9. D@ne

    D@ne Mu-43 Top Veteran

    593
    Feb 23, 2012
    Toronto
    I couldn't wait to get rid of that lens...sure, if it comes with the camera, you can't really complain (although you did pay for it), but if I have the option (which I do), this lens won't be occupying my camera bag anytime soon! ;)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Hyubie

    Hyubie Unique like everyone else

    Oct 15, 2010
    Massachusetts
    Herbert
    Nothing against people who prefer primes (I know I do) - but a lot of people here have found out this lens serves its purpose. The new olympus kit lens usually sells in a few days when priced just right in this forum. :wink:

    In good light (since it's usually used as walk-around lens) and when posting to the internet or printing maybe up to 8x10, how bad really does it perform against primes? It probably won't do when you're printing images for museums or viewing the image at or close to 100%, but for a lot of us, this kit lens can really stand on its own.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  11. DHart

    DHart Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 7, 2010
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Don
    Nothing terribly wrong with the 14-42IIR especially at the price... It gets a job done reasonably well and meets the needs of many folks.

    Is it great? Certainly not. Are there better choices with better build quality, better IQ, better speed? Absolutely, at higher price.

    For some, this lens is good enough. That shouldn't come as a surprise.

    Others will want superior performance and speed and will be happy to spend extra to have it. There's something for everyone at all levels.
     
  12. D@ne

    D@ne Mu-43 Top Veteran

    593
    Feb 23, 2012
    Toronto
    I didn't say anything about primes(?) Either way, nothing wrong with the lens...but nothing right with it either.
     
  13. Hyubie

    Hyubie Unique like everyone else

    Oct 15, 2010
    Massachusetts
    Herbert
    Oops - my bad :biggrin:. I guess I just got used to people comparing this with primes. But the bigger point still stands though.
     
  14. Bhupinder2002

    Bhupinder2002 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I know what do u mean but I was just playing around and it did very well actually . I do have a soft corned for Primes but this lens isn't that and actually . My conclusion was that we don't value something which is very cheap or comes free with the camera. This subject was static and camera on tripod , so lens performed beyond my expectations actually .
    Cheers
    Bhupinder
     
  15. goldenlight

    goldenlight Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 30, 2010
    Essex
    John
    I think that the 14-42mm is an adequate but not great performer, which is precisely what you would expect. I prefer the Panny 14-45mm; I've no idea which is better optically but I prefer the feel and handling of the Panny.
     
  16. dcassat

    dcassat Mu-43 Veteran

    272
    Nov 16, 2011
    Cloverdale,CA
    I'm going to have to test the 14-42 II against my other lenses as it seems to do an excellent job overall. The focal length is very handy and the lens is so light. It's given me some good pics.

    This isn't a claim about it's absolute sharpness as much as it's utility and general quality.

    <a href="http://500px.com/photo/9122151"> 4. "Summer Eve by Dan Cassat (dcassat) on 500px.com" border="0" style="margin: 0 0 5px 0;"></a><br/><font style="font-size: 120%;"><a href="http://500px.com/photo/9122151">Summer Eve</a> by <a href="http://500px.com/dcassat">Dan Cassat</a></font>
     
  17. Lawrence A.

    Lawrence A. Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 14, 2012
    New Mexico
    Larry
    In Asia I depended on the 14-42II for any shots requiring a wider FOV than the Panasonic 20 would give me. I had no wider prime. It did the job reasonably well, and most reviewers consider the kit lens as sharp as the 17mm pancake. That is not sharp enough for me to buy as a prime, and I kept the 20mm and the 45mm on when I could, but if you need the versatility of the 14-42 it's not a bad lens. Below is a crop from a 50% version of a shot I took in Sukhothai, Thailand. I figure if my shots look ok at 50% on screen, then they're ok.

    PB080577_copy.
     
  18. Bhupinder2002

    Bhupinder2002 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

     
  19. boatman37210

    boatman37210 Mu-43 Regular

    104
    Jun 28, 2012
    Thailand
    From another resent thread about the process of lens selection, it seems that most in the discussion concluded that all m4/3 lens produce good quality photos. Therefore, lens selection should not be based on photo quality since all do well, but on the needed features of a lens.

    In that thread I quoted the following from another forum:

    "I had the zuiko 12-60 which is considered one of the best lenses in it's class. I have many photos taken with that lens; and many taken with the 14-42 with so called horrible resolution. You would not tell the difference between the two at any print size. I guarantee it. Unless, of course, you are shooting test charts and looking at the results on a computer screen at 200%. But surely you are not doing that sort of photographer are you?"

    I would also like to also quote from Mr Sabets review of the 14-42 II over in the review section of this forum:

    “...I've had a hard time justifying purchase of native primes within the range of this lens. For example, both the the Panny 14mm and Olympus 17mm pancakes test worse than the 14-42 at their respective focal lengths and those primes have only a limited speed advantage over the zoom. The Panny 20mm f/1.7 may make some sense because of its big speed advantage (although IQ doesn't seem that much better). Otherwise, my lens purchase will probably be primes outside the range of this little gem.”

    I understand some wanting to own the best. No problem. But please don't come out and classify a lens as unacceptable because it is not the best. I don't think Mercedes and Porsche owners tell that Ford and Chevrolet are a piece of crap and no one should buy. There are a number of people on this forum who could own the best lenses, but choose not too because they prefer the most bang for their buck. If a $500 lens will do as good or almost as good as the $1,000 lens, they had much rather have the $500 lens. It's not about owning the best.

    Part of me still thinks there should be a lens rating system to take the bias out. As I said in the other thread, the best lenses rise to the top of the reviews and conversations. When you buy those lens, you can pretty know you are getting a good lens. It's the lens that is not at the top, but is a good lens that is hard to know about. The system we have in place to determine those lenses does not work for me.

    I've gone through the 14-42 image thread and I do not see the problem. Could someone pick an image from that thread and point out the problem, because I do not see it. The purpose of a camera and lens is to take a good picture. That is it's primary function. Any thing else is secondary. IMO.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  20. Bhupinder2002

    Bhupinder2002 Mu-43 Hall of Famer



    Thanks for this . I was using more of primes and didn't use this lens for. Quite a while. But I tend to keep it my bag. If some one needs shallow DOF , fast speed and better low light performance then obvious this is not the first choice .
    Cheers
    Bhupinder