Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by m43_user, May 2, 2012.
It's really quite good sometimes. It came with my E-M5.
The latest version of the kit lens is fine. Small, fast to focus, and light. IQ, for a "kit lens", is actually pretty good IMO.
Perhaps the bad reputation came from version 1 of the kit lens, which I do agree had a certain build quality ("junk" comes to mind).
First gen optically was fine and it could focus a lot closer. It's just that it didn't focus very fast and using the term "build" quality might stretching it.
Yeah the mk1 is actually decently sharp. It's not as good as the 14-45mm, but it's respectable imo.
From Kit lens on my EPL2
These are just adjusted in LR3 but still I love my Kit lens for outdoor shoots.
I got the first version, which came with m e-pl1. like its been said, it isnt no panny 14-45 but I found my copy to do just fine against the criticism it got when it was released.
The criticism of its plasticy feel and flimsy extension are fair..not so much regsrding IQ.
I dunno if its my screen but the photos of the lake and flowers look terrible, like someone colour blind edited them
The 14-42 is fine, it's just that the Panny 14-45 is a little bit better in terms of IQ, handles a lot better and has much better build quality IMO. I've kept mine even though the G1 it came with has long gone. I reckon this lens will make an ideal partner to the E-M5 if and when I eventually get one.
They are way too saturated for my taste, it's a sort of Velvia meets LSD moment, but it is a matter of individual taste and this style does seem to be enjoying popularity at the moment. It's down to the processing rather than the lens, of course, but the pictures do help demonstrate the quality and versatility of the kit lens.
My thoughts as well. And I actually am colourblind!
I was like "woah!!!"
I just sold mine for the 14 pana prime, and 24hours after playing with the new prime, im missing my kit lens (i'd never though i would say something like this about a kit lens)... im comparing some images on lightroom from my kit lens at 14mm and from the pana at 14mm and til now, i definitely love the color rendition and focus of the oly 14-42mm...can someone tell me im wrong?
My lightest travel kit is just my EPL2 and this lens by day, 20mm by night (although the 12mm has been competing with the 20 lately for that position). I can't imagine a better compromise between versatility, size, and IQ that this badboy...
That lense is obviously not sophisticated enough to correct the blaring spelling mistake in one of the boats!
Are you referring to the word 'licenced'? I'm afraid you'll find quite a dispute regarding what's correct and what's not...
I'm a big fan of the 14-42II kit lens, so much so that I got a second one when I bought my E-M5. Comparing the sharpness widgets in SLRgear, you'll find that the little zoom is:
--Sharper than the 14mm Pany and 17mm Oly primes
--Comparable to the 20mm f1.7 Pany prime
--Sharper throughout its range than the Oly Zuiko 14-54 f2.8-3.5 lens for 3/4
It takes something like the Oly 45mm to significantly best it in sharpness. Yeah it's slow and cheaply built, and it has something of a "hole" in its optical performance around 35mm, but otherwise, it's optically quite good, it's tiny and light (that cheap build again), and you get it almost for free when you buy the E-M5. I don't go anywhere without it.
SLRGear's tests are somewhat suspect. They use different bodies for the different lenses, which makes a huge difference.
The 14-42 is not comparable to the 20/1.7 or the 14-54 in my experience. It is pretty decent at the wide end though - close to the 14/2.5 and better than the 17/2.8.
SLRgear tested all of the MTF lenses mentioned in my original post on the EP-1. It's true that they tested the Zuiko 14-54 on a 4/3 camera (the e510), but it's not clear to me why that would disfavor that lens.
Other than the 14-42, the only lens among the ones I mentioned that I own is the 20mm 1.7. My tests (admittedly not super scientific) show that the 20mm has no meaningful sharpness advantage over the kit zoom at peak apertures.
Right the pics are a bit saturated, not uncommon esp. with OOC .jpegs (which I know these aren't). But the demonstration of quality is quite valid. My 14-42 has been used more as I've accumulated new (better?) lenses, not less as I found it to be versatile and holds it's own against my more expensive options.
With regard to color rendition, I'm a noob in regards to the topic of lens selection. I've read references to "signature Oly/Zuiko colors". Does this mean that other brands of lenses (e.g. Pany) tend to produce images with noticably blander looking colors when mounted on Oly cameras?