Need Advice: 14-42 or 14-45 Lumix Lens

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by st3v4nt, Jan 17, 2012.

  1. st3v4nt

    st3v4nt Mu-43 Veteran

    317
    May 26, 2011
    Jakarta, Indonesia
    I know that this probably being ask so many times...but I'd like to know
    wether buying second hand Lumix 14-45 is better than buying 14-42 almost new...

    besides the metal mount, OIS switch, and more robust construction what else 14-45 offer?

    I see that minimal focusing distance of 14-45 is a bit longer than 14-42. And I'm not really buying it that the 14-45 is a bit sharper unless the 14-45 quality glass is near ZD 14-54 :)

    The offer I currently have is 14-45 second hand for about US$ 260 - 320 (they sell new 14-45 for about US$ 369)

    While 14-42 second hand for about US$ 152 - 173
    (they sell new 14-42 for about US$ 213)

    All m4/3 stuff always too pricey here.... tough I get 14mm for US$ 250.

    I already got Lumix 14, 20, and mZD 45 for prime, and mZD 14-42 that I get with my EPL-1. While using GF-1 is great I miss the IS in GF-1 that's way I may need 14-45 or 14-42 and beside I may have to sell my EPL-1+14-42 in anticipation of OM-D :)
     
  2. MrDoug

    MrDoug Mu-43 Top Veteran

    985
    Sep 5, 2011
    Boise, Idaho
    from what I hear the 14-45 is a superior lens over the 14-42 . that is why it costs more.. I would hope that is true and accurate .. I have been thinking about buying the 14-45 myself to just compare to the 14-42.. just to see for myself.. :smile:
     
  3. dayou14

    dayou14 Mu-43 Regular

    59
    Jul 6, 2011
    I have a 14-45 and have shot a 14-42 and compared the pics. There is no practical difference. Really, it comes down to the metal lens mount. Save a bunch of dollars and just buy the 14-42.

    Above comment is valid if there's same light, same subject, and same M43 camera. You will then see... no difference.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. StephenL

    StephenL Mu-43 Regular

    78
    Sep 1, 2010
    The image out of the 14-45 is slightly better - if you pixel-peep. Nothing in it really if you're a normal human being. But the zoom action of the 14-45 is definitely smoother, less of a plastic-on-plastic feel to it. And don't forget the extra 3mm!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Biro

    Biro Mu-43 All-Pro

    May 8, 2011
    Jersey Shore
    Steve
    Between the two, the 14-45 - definitely.
     
  6. sin77

    sin77 Mu-43 Veteran

    243
    Dec 9, 2011
    Singapore
    Sorry, may I side track?

    How does 14-42x compare to 14-45 in term of image quality?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. MrDoug

    MrDoug Mu-43 Top Veteran

    985
    Sep 5, 2011
    Boise, Idaho
    I have the G3 and 14-42 standard kit lens.. nice .. but after reading and seeing all posted photos etc.. . I just ordered the 14-45 .. many tell me the 14-45 is better and sharper.. but we shall see.. :smile: the 14-42 is way less money.. there must be for a reason..
     
  8. meyerweb

    meyerweb Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 5, 2011
    In the center, there's little to choose from. At the edges the 14-45 is definitely sharper. MANY people tend to put the main subject near the middle of the photo and the edges rarely contain important detail. Does that describe you?

    Other wise, one difference I haven't seen mentioned is that the 14-45 has a switch to turn OIS on and off. I think the 14-42 lacks this switch, forcing you to use the menus to turn OIS on and off.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. xdayv

    xdayv Color Blind

    Aug 26, 2011
    Tacloban City, Philippines
    Dave
    dpreview has indicated the 14-45 is superior than the 14-42.
     
  10. st3v4nt

    st3v4nt Mu-43 Veteran

    317
    May 26, 2011
    Jakarta, Indonesia
    I will wait for your result then...:)
     
  11. st3v4nt

    st3v4nt Mu-43 Veteran

    317
    May 26, 2011
    Jakarta, Indonesia
    Yes the only concern I have left is the plastic mount, that's what makes me rarely use my mZD 14-42.
     
  12. leonberdi

    leonberdi Mu-43 Regular

    133
    Apr 15, 2011
    Montreal
    Not all 14-42 m.zuikos have plastic mounts
     
  13. meyerweb

    meyerweb Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 5, 2011
    Canon has made plastic mount lenses for EOS cameras for at least a decade, probably two decades. I have yet to hear of one wearing out or breaking.

    The 14-42 is so light that you simply don't have to worry about the strength of the plastic, unless you're going to hang a 10 pound spotting scope on the front of it. (Even then, you'd likely hold the scope, not the camera).

    Wear? I think that unless you're taking that lens on and off 50 times a day, you'll never wear out the plastic. Even at 50 changes a day, you'd probably wear out your patience before you wear out the lens. But yes, if you're a professional photojournalist who changes lenses while running between shots, tosses the lenses around like they were rocks, and generally abuses the equipment, then a plastic mount kit lens probably isn't for you. For most of us, there's no reason to sweat it.

    The plastic used in modern lenses are plenty strong for their intended use.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Jermonic

    Jermonic Mu-43 Veteran

    228
    Jan 14, 2012
    Denmark
    One thing I noticed about the 14-45 vs the 14-42, is that the 14-45 seems to have a bit more lens flare compared to the 14-42. Anyone else noticed this?

    EDIT: I was wrong, the flare seems quite identical in the two lenses.
     
  15. moccaman

    moccaman Mu-43 Veteran

    283
    Jan 4, 2012
    Australia
    One was made in Japan and one is made in China, that would account for some cost differences too. The 14-42 seems to be practically given away at a lot of sellers, of course its all you can get on a new kit camera. I opted to buy the 14-45 new from Adorama, but am wondering if I should have gone with the 14-140 as shooting stuff even at moderate distance is not much chop with the 45mm.

    I am really tossing up on this right now, the difference in size is not that much, if I am going to carry a 14-45 round might as well carry a 14-140 and have the 20 on the body. Thoughts on this idea?

    Might have a BNIB 14-45 up for sale :wink:
     
  16. st3v4nt

    st3v4nt Mu-43 Veteran

    317
    May 26, 2011
    Jakarta, Indonesia
    14-140 much more expensive and only f4...?
     
  17. PointZero

    PointZero Mu-43 Regular

    31
    Apr 28, 2011
    California
    I've actually owned both the 14-45mm and 14-42mm. If you're just shooting JPEG out of the camera, you won't notice a difference. Shooting RAW, the difference only becomes noticeable when you view at 1:1. The 14-45mm has a slight edge, but it's greater than 10% difference. Glass elements on the 14-45mm are also larger, so take that as you may.
     
  18. I remember doing a bit of research on the topic of the longevity of plastic lens mounts a little while ago. You'll get lots of search results for "I'm worried about plastic lens mounts wearing out", but I don't remember finding any "My plastic lens mount just wore out". I think it is a non-issue, particulary on something as small as a m4/3 lens. However, a plastic lens mount is usually an indication that the lens has been built down to a price, which may extend to the optics as much as what material the lens mount is made from.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Markb

    Markb Mu-43 Top Veteran

    532
    Jun 9, 2011
    Kent, UK
    Mark
    I'm much more concerned by plastic filter threads than plastic mounts when it comes down to it. A plastic bayonet has quite a positive fitting while threads are easily chewed up by careless use.
     
  20. garfield_cz

    garfield_cz Mu-43 Veteran

    218
    Jul 9, 2011
    Czech Republic
    Pavel
    Plastic mounts are perfectly fine when received (for free) as a kit lens with body, but I don't understand why I should buy it as additional lens. If I am paying extra money for additional lens I want top class build and quality. Imagine Leica DG Summilux 25mm F1.4 with plastic mount. :confused: Would you buy it? :rofl: