I'm not all that impressed by the Panasonic 14mm...am I the only one?

[Ulfric M Douglas]

Don't worry about it, a good sharp example of the Lumix 20mm can make almost everything seem a bit "meh"

However...when viewing the photos at home, I'm blown away by the 20's quality, but not really impressed with the 14.

Am I being too fussy?

Yeah you're being too fussy.
Try some of the milk-bottle-bottoms from certain other companys passed off as kit lenses ... you'll thank yourself for your existing lens quality.

 

[RichardB]

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Whoa, that's flare with flair! Beautiful shot, it should be in the 14mm sample thread.

 

[LowriderS10]

Whoa, that's flare with flair! Beautiful shot, it should be in the 14mm sample thread.

Thanks very much! I generally am a bit critical of how much both the 14 and 20 flare, but I looooove their sunstar renderings (they both beat the pants off the 9-18 in that respect!)...I think it already is in the 14 sample thread, if not, I'll remedy it when I get home.

 

[m43happy]

I loved the 14mm when I had it with my old E-M5 (sold both together as a combo when I picked up my E-M1). It served it's purpose very well. It was very small, and while it did not have the fastest aperture or AF all that quickly, it worked great for candids. I never expected it to be best in it's class since you can pick up one for fairly cheap (separated from kits) on Ebay. With the E-M5 it made for such a fun portable combo.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[bigboysdad]

I don't know if it's because of this thread or just a coincidence but there's currently some pretty good images coming out if the 14/2.5 thread ATM.

 

[EarthQuake]

I would say the most remarkable aspect of the 14mm is it's size, second, the price you can pick it up for used on eBay. Optically it is nothing special and a few of the better zooms will basically match (or exceed: 12-40 and 12-35) its image quality. But again those zooms are much larger, but at f2.5 its not much faster than the basic kit lenses even.

If you need an absolutely tiny 28mm-equiv lens its an easy recommendation, but its not a lens I would pick up sheerly for its optical characteristics.

Having owned all 4, I would rank it last in terms of image quality when compared to the 12/2, 17/1.8, and 20/1.7. I haven't used the 15/1.7 but I would assume that lens is better optically as well. Though again, all of these are bigger and more expensive.

 

[chipbutty]

Strange how this lens divides opinion so much. I recently sold mine as I just don't find this focal length useful for what I shoot. As for the lens itself I thought it was brilliant. Wonderful contrast and colour, very sharp. I pretty much agree with Steve Huff's assessment of this lens.

 

[pictor]

I have bought both the 20mm and the 14mm, too. However, I bought the 14mm, because it is so small and fits the GM1 very well. I need a very small bag to carry the GM1 with both pancakes and that's why I chose this one over the 15mm. It is a sharp lens in the middle (even wide open) and it isn't better than kit lenses at the right and left borders. Stopping down to f/5.6 improves the borders. At the corners the lens is weak at all apertures. All review sites I trust suggest exactly this behavior.

Although this lens is far from being perfect, I get quite good results. I have learned what I can do with this lens and I have learned what I should not do with that lens. My main lens for my GM1 is the 20mm, but the 14mm is a very welcome addition, which I have been using more and more these days.

 

[pictor]

As for the 9-18, I honestly thing I may have a freak copy...it's way sharper than what I hear most people talk about, and it definitely is right up there with my 14. The results are virtually indistinguishable.

There is surely sample variation which may be relevant here and different people are doing different kind of photographs, which may be relevant, too. However, I would like to suggest to not taking such opinions too seriously anyway. I own the Olympus 2.8/17mm and I always loved using it on my E-P1, although this lens should be awful according to forum wisdom.

 

[yakky]

Sounds like quite a few people have bought, sold and re-purchased the 14. I really, really love my second one. My first was attached to a GF3 and I think I hated the body and that transferred to the lens. I sold the set and then missed the FOV and bought another when I saw one for a great price. This one is glued to my PM1 and makes for a great outdoors pocket sized camera.

 

[pictor]

There must be wide range of sample variation. Check out my wide open night shot with my 14. It's sharp all the way to the corners. This is my favorite and most used lens among my collection of 14/17/25/45.

To be honest, I like your shot very much and I can see, why you love this little lens. However, although your shot shows that one can take good photographs with it, it cannot show how sharp the lens is.

I am with Robin:

It's a very good lens in an absolute sense. It's a stupendous lens considering its size and price.

And it is stupendous considering its weight, too.

All examples you and Robin show, are some of the situations for which this little lens is a gem. I wrote, that this lens is far from being perfect, because there are situations, in which this little lens is just decent. Depending on what one wants to use this lens for, one will either praise this lens or dislike it. I love this lens for what it can do so well. This is one of those lenses which make µ4/3 such a great system.

 

[speedandstyle]

I love my 14mm! For the size and price it is very sharp and well corrected.

 

[T N Args]

Yet again, this thread is following other threads on the same topic, and drifting into a (wrong) consensus that the lens is only ordinary optically, and its merits are in size and weight. And that the 20mm f/1.7 is very good optically in a way the 14mm is not. This is completely wrong.

Check out the mu-43.com review for starters.

Lensrentals don't lie either, nor do they suffer the vagaries of sample variations, and they call the 14mm half of a prime lens dream team.

 

[xdayv]

I had the 14mm before, liked it while I had it, but my copy wasn't sharp to my liking, especially when it is paired with the 20 1.7, or is it fair to compare the two to begin with? Anyway, that's partly the reason I've ended up with the PL15 for the GM1. Sharp wide open. Renders nicely. Built like a tank. Aperture ring. But but, I lost the pancake size. I'll somehow try to sneak in a 14 next time? :tongue:

 

[T N Args]

my copy wasn't sharp to my liking, especially when it is paired with the 20 1.7, or is it fair to compare the two to begin with?

As I linked in post #33 (have a read), the 14 is sharper in the centre than the 20 -- wide open, and at f/2.8, and at f/4. As for the edges, the 20 is sharper, but the 14 is good when stopped down a bit.

So, I think the 14 certainly stands up to comparison with the 20.

 

[EarthQuake]

Yet again, this thread is following other threads on the same topic, and drifting into a (wrong) consensus that the lens is only ordinary optically, and its merits are in size and weight. And that the 20mm f/1.7 is very good optically in a way the 14mm is not. This is completely wrong.

Check out the mu-43.com review for starters.

Lensrentals don't lie either, nor do they suffer the vagaries of sample variations, and they call the 14mm half of a prime lens dream team.

What is the point of telling other people that their personal opinion of a lens is wrong? If you disagree, fine, then post your personal opinion, however there is no need to deride or devalue the opinion of others.

Personally, I couldn't care less about the MFT scores this lens gets. I know having owned and used extensively the 14/2.5, 12/2, 17/1.8, and 20/1.7, that I prefer the rendering, bokeh, and the faster aperture (which provides more control over DOF), with all the the other lenses mentioned more so than the 14.

Perhaps for your purposes the 14mm is better suited. I would love to hear why than simply be told my opinion is "wrong".

 

[LowriderS10]

As I linked in post #33 (have a read), the 14 is sharper in the centre than the 20 -- wide open, and at f/2.8, and at f/4. As for the edges, the 20 is sharper, but the 14 is good when stopped down a bit.

So, I think the 14 certainly stands up to comparison with the 20.

Hmm...I think it's time to compare my 14 with others...either my 20 and 9-18 are better than average (as the former blows the 14 out of the water and the latter matches it), or my 14 may be a weak copy. :/

EDIT: Though, to be fair, in most of my research, I've read that the 20 is far sharper than the 14. The 20 seems to be in the league of the PL 25, O45 and O75...while the P14 is considered by most to be great, but not quite top of the line...which would back up my findings.

 

[pictor]

Yet again, this thread is following other threads on the same topic, and drifting into a (wrong) consensus that the lens is only ordinary optically, and its merits are in size and weight. And that the 20mm f/1.7 is very good optically in a way the 14mm is not. This is completely wrong.

Not liking the consensus does not mean that the consensus is wrong. Just compare the reviews of the 14mm and the 20mm lenses at LensTip and one can see the difference immediately. All test sites which reviewed both lenses and nearly all owners of these two lenses come to the same conclusion. Yes, all of them say that both lenses are equally sharp at the center, but unfortunately that's not the only detail worth looking at.

Well, here is a comparison of the 14mm and the 14-42mm (the kit-lens of the GF2). Unfortunately, even that kit-lens performs better than the 14mm.

 

[BigMike]

I got the 14 first based on the cheap ebay pricing, then move on to a 20, in hindsight should of went straight for the 20. The best thing about the 14 aside from the price is the minute size and fast AF, but optically, it didn't wow me like the 20 did.

 

[pictor]

it didn't wow me like the 20 did.

Well, it happened that I accidentally used f/2.5 for a shot and redid it with f/5.6 immediately afterwards. At home the f/2.5 shot did wow me, because it was nearly equally good (technically) as the f/5.6 shot. However, it wasn't one of the relatively rare shots which need super sharp corners.

The major weakness of this lens seems to be its performance at infinity. I don't like to do landscape with that lens because of the just decent performance at the borders (not only at the extreme borders!). The 20mm is significantly better in that regard.

We should not call the 14mm bad or average because it is not as excellent as the 20mm in some regards, because it is neither bad nor average. You have to search for a long while until finding another lens of that focal length (or an equivalent one) being that sharp and contrasty wide open across a relatively large center area.