E-M10 with 14-42 EZ or 12-50 EZ

[Eigertje]

I'm about to switch from my Canon 40d DSLR to a more smaller and lightweight mirrorless. The M10 is now the top of my list.
I'm only hesitating if I should start with the 14-42 EZ pancake kit lens, or go for the 12-50?

I want to buy additional faster primes later on, if I'm happy with the M43 (which I probably will :smile.

The 14-42 pancake looks great on the M10, nice and small (one of my biggest reasons to ditch the DSLR). However, the 12-50 would give me more range (although I know the optics are not the best) and does have a macro function. On the other hand, it's quit big compared to 14-42 (maybe too big for the M10?). Weather sealing is a minor issue, since the M10 isn't sealed either.

Are the optics of the 12-50 better in the 14-42 range than the 14-42 EZ, and does this overcome the bigger size?
Any ideas?

I know there is also a great 12-40 2.8, but is too expensive for me right now without prior experience in the M43.

Thanks advance,

Arjen

 

[Art]

I use Pana 14-42 II on my E-M10. Small and lightweight w/ internal zooming (barely extends), balances nicely on E-M10. I find this lens incredibly sharp and comparable to the best of m43 primes (great colors and contrast). Very surprising finding considering the low price.

 

[DennisC]

Although I have used m4/3 cameras from the beginning with a G1 .GF1 and G3 I'm not a great fan as the results from APS-C sensors always look smoother to my eye and the m4/3 format hasn't met my expectations.
In part I've blamed the Lumix sensors but as m4/3 was ideal for air travel I've persevered.

Last week I bought the E-M10 with the EZ lens.
I had expected lots of compromises on IQ but in reality it performs beautifully when stopped down to 5.6 and generates a really nice out of focus background.
I have both the 14-42 and 14-45 lenses so if quality had fallen short of my hopes I could have fallen back to my old my lenses.

The reality is that when fitted with the auto lens hood this tiny lens is a thing of beauty and on my next long haul trip will only be accompanied by my 20mm prime.
Overall I'm delighted with the new camera and lens as the images from its Sony sensor are both sharp and of good colour.

 

[dechoder]

I use Pana 14-42 II on my E-M10. Small and lightweight w/ internal zooming (barely extends), balances nicely on E-M10. I find this lens incredibly sharp and comparable to the best of m43 primes (great colors and contrast). Very surprising finding considering the low price.

Have you compared the Pana 14-42 II to the Oly 14-42 EZ? I currently have the same Pana lens.. just wondering if it's worth getting the Oly EZ lens to use with the E-M10.

 

[LowriderS10]

It really depends on what you value...if you're getting into M4/3 for the size (as I imagine you are), the smaller lens makes more sense. I think your big deciding factor should be whether you want the macro or not (and, to a lesser extent, if you're happy with 28mm equiv being your widest). For me, I won't touch a walkaround zoom/compact camera unless it has 24mm equiv. Also, I love the macro mode on the 12-50, it's truly outstanding for a kit lens. I think those should be considerations before image quality, as the image quality of the 12-50 - while not perfect - is still very good. Take a look at the image threads or search on Flickr for 12-50 images, you'll see it's a very capable lens (I'll link you my thread on the lens in a minute, but I have to fix a bunch of broken image links first).

 

[LowriderS10]

Here's my thread on the 12-50...all images taken JPEG and run through an ancient copy of Photoshop CS2 with extremely minor adjustments.

https://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=59722

 

[Dan43]

I'd recommend getting the 20mm f1.7 first, in order to get the "full" m43 experience from the very beginning - i.e. consistently sharp pictures at f1.8 and below.

If you are currently using a decent standard zoom on your DSLR, you might end up being a bit dissappointed by both the 14-42 EZ and the 12-50, since neither is particularly sharp, and both are rather useless for low light photography.

I own both lenses. While the 14-42 EZ is amazingly small, the 12-50 is just more fun, and simply feels better. Also, I prefer the look of the 12-50 on my em-10.

However, what really makes me enjoy this system (over my previously owned Canon DSLR) is the 20mm f1.7.

 

[Eigertje]

One of my reasons to switch also is that my "decent" canon 17-85 IS USM died (bad flex cable, known problem), and wanted to go to faster lenses anyway. Therefore it is maybe not a bad idea to go to the 20 f1.8 immediately, and skip the zoom.

On the other hand, for travel I think I like to have a zoom in addition.
I agree that the 24mm equivalent is a big pro of the 12-50 compared to the Oly or Pana 14-42, and alsolike the macro function very much (nice shots LowriderS10).
Since I'm used at draging around the DLSR I think I can live with the "big" 12-50 :smile:

Thanks

 

[LowriderS10]

Thank you. And I think that's a great choice..I think the 12-50 will provide you with similar iQ as your old 17-85 did, maybe even a little better. In a smaller, more versatile package. And for sure...if you have the money, pick up a 20 1.7...they're great little lenses (mine should be here any day), and it'll give you not only an excellent low light alternative, but also a super light/super tiny combo option.

 

[Dan43]

So I finally got around doing some shooting with the 14-42 EZ, and I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. This doesn't make my decision between the 14-42 EZ and the 12-50 any easier (I'd like to sell one of the two).

Here is what I especially liked:

- The electric zoom, when set to "fast", is quite snappy.

- When the lens is retracted, the OM-D feels almost like a compact camera, and is very easy and convenient to carry.

I put the photos shot with the 14-42 EZ in a dedicated folder on flickr, below are a few samples:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/sets/72157644549825666/


P5100291 von dscanon auf Flickr

View attachment 360700
P5100356 von dscanon auf Flickr

View attachment 360701
P5100338 von dscanon auf Flickr


P5100285 von dscanon auf Flickr

 

[Swandy]

Glad to see you like the 14-42EZ. I had the 12-50 (when I first got the EM5) and was very satisfied with it. Ended up selling it when I got the EP5 because I liked the smaller lenses on it - it's kit lens was the 14-42IIR - and while I did miss the extra width, I was happy.
I now have the EM10 and while I still had the 14-42IIR, I decided to get the EZ because I wanted something smaller. (Previously had the Panasonic 20mm/1.7 - lovely IQ, too frustrating AF and the Panasonic 14mm/2.5 - much better AF than the 20mm and nice IQ for the size but felt that the EZ was more practical being a zoom and not too much slower at 14mm - 2.5 vs 3.5.) Have been using it and very happy with the quality. Took it on a recent trip to Memphis/Nashville and very satisfied.

 

[Lurch]

Either the 17, 20, or 25mm primes are fantastic lenses. I have both the 25mm 1.8 and the 14-42 EZ Pancake (and a "regular" 14-42 LRII).
As an option, get the 20mm (or which ever you choose) and then pick up a cheap, second hand 14-42 LRII? They can be had for next to nix (Currently have one I'm trying to get rid of and cant )

 

[DennisC]

I am now on my second copy of the EM10 and 14-42 pancake as I became unhappier with the IQ from my first combination as the week progressed.

One problem I've found is that at 42mm the EZ lens shifts focus.
The actual sharp area falls some distance beyond the focus square and gives rise to soft images.
Stopping down isn't the answer as the sharp point is always beyond the desired point.

This would certainly explain some of my hazy results with the first copy.
At other focal lengths things are normal.

 

[bomo]

I have the E-M10 with the 14-42 II R kit lens. I've used the lens a bit now and I can't really say that I have any complaints about its optical quality. I was wondering, is the disdain shown toward the kit lens just because it IS a kit lens? Sure, it has a plastic mount and typical of kit lenses, is not very fast but used within it's limitations (as all lenses) it seems to be just fine.

 

[SojiOkita]

I recently switch from a Canon 40D to micro four thirds.

I have an E-M10 with the 14-42 EZ zoom and a Pana GM1 with the 12-32 zoom.
None of them matches the quality of my Canon 17-55 IS lens, but the contrary would be quite surprising
I don't use much my 40D anyway.

I briefely tested the 12-50 that I didn't like (I didn't have a good feeling with it (especially the zoom ring) and I wasn't impressed by the image quality at both 12 & 50 mm).
It was also too big for my taste.

Concerning the 12-32 & the 14-42 EZ, in terms of image quality, both are very decent.
At the wide end, the 12-32 is sharper in the center at wide end, but I find the Olympus more consistent through the frame (12-32 is a little soft in the corners).
From 18 mm approx, the 12-32 is clearly better, but this probably won't make a big difference on a print.
The 12-32 has more purple fringing on my Oly body.

I haven't use much the 14-42 EZ as it has a big back focus issue. I just get it back from Olympus after a repair and it is even worse.
But there are a few things I don't like with it.
The fact that it extends automatically ever time you switch on/off the body.
The fact the MF ring is too close to the zoom ring.
The fact that the zoom ring is an electronic zoom ring.
The fact that when it is extended, it seems very very fragile.

All this makes me prefer much more my 12-32, despite it has no MF ring.
It's very small and light, it's a pleasure to use, 12 mm is very useful, and the IQ is good.
To my taste, it's the better companion to the E-M10.