1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Panasonic 14/2.5 vs Olympus 14-42/3.5-5.6 II

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Laurentiu Cristofor, Aug 12, 2012.

  1. Laurentiu Cristofor

    Laurentiu Cristofor Mu-43 Veteran

    200
    Mar 9, 2012
    Well, today I had a chance of using the Panasonic 14/2.5 and the Olympus 14-42/3.5-5.6 II in similar situations. I cannot say I found the Panasonic to have any advantage over the kit lens.

    Can you tell which lens was used for what image in each of the following three pairs of images? Click on each image for details:

    Pair #1:

    7761889606_c46c68be69.

    7761890522_64cf354d2d.

    Pair #2:

    7763486378_bee9c86203.

    7763485562_7e53e23f08.

    Pair #3:

    7763297456_1486aafeb1.

    7763297714_58e82cef79.
     
  2. littleMT

    littleMT Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 8, 2012
    Lucille Sanchez
    I find the opposite, I also did some side by side comparisions, but I did have the 14mm prime wideopen, as that is the way I tend to shoot cars.

    I find the 14mm to be sharper and show more color, and to be superior for indoor car shots and lowlight shots.

    I had a blast with the prime at the LeMay auto museum.

    however everbodys experiences are differen't and I surely can't discount yours, with that said, the 14mm prime is my goto lens for daytime, indoor and some lowlight settings.

    Also I shoot in pitch darkness, and found the 14mm to be noisy, but found the kit lens 14-42 images to be totally unusable.

    For what I do, the 14mm shines and the 14-42 is lacking.

    shot in pitch darkess, lit with a small led flashlight.

    vt-6.


    the 14-42 shots on that same night came out horrible.

    in bright sunlight, the lens are very close, as the lights get low and even go completely out, the 14mm prime has a big advantage.

    I highly recommend the 14mm prime, and for how cheap it can be had, I may buy another...as sometimes we fight over here on who gets to use it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. jloden

    jloden Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 15, 2012
    Hunterdon County, NJ
    Jay
    Interestingly, I was actually able to tell which lens was used for which shot. The 14mm f/2.5 looks a little sharper/crisper to me, more color, and overall look brighter to me - particularly noticeable in the two middle ferrari shots.

    That said, the important thing is if you don't see any advantage to the 14mm pancake, and you prefer the zoom range, then it works for you. And that means you get the best of both worlds :smile:
     
  4. HarryS

    HarryS Mu-43 Top Veteran

    918
    Jun 23, 2012
    Midwest, USA
    I've done the same testing between the 14 and 14-42 Mk I and for me, the most visible difference is away from the center, with the prime doing better. It wouldn't be apparent in web sized images, so I didn't strain my eyes on your pix, which are nice as they are,

    I'll use the 14mm because it's faster and smaller, and I like the focal length.
     
  5. Laurentiu Cristofor

    Laurentiu Cristofor Mu-43 Veteran

    200
    Mar 9, 2012
    I should have made it clear. The P14 has some clear advantages: it is smaller, f/2.5 vs f/3.5, and focuses down to 18cm vs. 25cm. These are obvious. This thread is born more from the question of whether the P14 offers anything else besides these advantages.

    These are not lenses that I will use often - I took them out just for the purpose of making this comparison. Previously, I used the kit lens mainly at the long end, so this was the first serious workout that I gave it at 14mm. I purchased the P14 on impulse and then I realized that it is rather redundant.

    Personally, I don't see much benefit from the obvious advantages. I did not buy into MFT for the compact size, f/2.5 is not fast enough for my available light scenarios, and I haven't had a chance yet to need the closer focusing distance of the P14. So what I was looking for is an advantage elsewhere.
     
  6. littleMT

    littleMT Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 8, 2012
    Lucille Sanchez
    And the obvious advantages of the 14mm prime at its price point makes it a wonderful bargain, I do wish it was a tad faster though as you mention, say f/1.8.

    But even at f/2.5, it can shoot in really dark situations and get usable images, where as the 14-42 has tons of noise and snowy colory artifacts, which again I found nightime car shooting (the under the stars pitch darkness shots) to be totally unuseable.

    (with that said the p20mm and pl25mm are my preferred pitch darkness lenses)

    But in good bright light/day light, I can get the kit OMD lens 12-50mm shot at 12mm to argueably be close in quality to the Oly 12mm, if one shoots in good light, the kit lenses are fine and often underated by many.

    I paid $167 for my 14mm, if only I could find such a option for my Sony A65.

    I also didn't buy into mft for its size, I personally find my Sony A65, Canon t4i very comfortable.

    I bought into it for two reasons, one of them being I read Steve Huff ranting and raving about the e-pl1, I then stumbled across Cameta Camera and found it very cheap as a refurb, and thought what the heck. Another reason was in a local car forum somebody suggested that the main reason for my quality car images was Sonys 24 megapixel sensor, and if he had it he could do the impossible. So, I went the reverse, and got
    the lean mean e-pl1 12 megapixel picture taking machine, and have been very pleased by this little 4/3rds camera's output.