1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links to get to your favorite stores for holiday shopping!

Panasonic 14mm 2.5 ASPH vs. ASPH-II

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by exakta, Jun 2, 2015.

  1. exakta

    exakta Mu-43 Regular

    85
    Jun 2, 2015
    What is the difference between these two lenses? B&H in NYC has the original for under $300 right now (probably selling off remaining stock) and the II is almost $400.

    I will be using it with an OM-D E-M10. I have read that this camera now has CA correction, will that work with the Panasonic lens?

    I'd prefer the Zuiko 12/2.0 but it's twice the price for only a half stop faster and a few degrees wider angle.
     
  2. CaptureLights

    CaptureLights Mu-43 Rookie

    24
    Dec 4, 2014
    i dont know the differences between the two versions, but if you dont mind used, the original can be found for under 150$.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. agentlossing

    agentlossing Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jun 26, 2013
    Andrew Lossing
    I'm sure it's cosmetic. Panasonic has been updating their materials to a more metallic, matching black and silver to go with their recent cameras. Stick with buying the original used. $300 is still too much to pay!
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. davidzvi

    davidzvi Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    David
    Very minor cosmetic, especially when you consider there are actually all black versions of the original version out there as well. Panasonic should have made the same style changes to the 14 that they made to the 20 so you could more easily tell them apart.

    But I would get a used one for $150 before spending that much on a new one.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    The 20mm II got better coatings with the new version. Wouldn't be surprised if the 14mm did too.

    I also would not pay retail for this lens. Resale value is too poor.
     
  6. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 10, 2010
    Southport, OzTrailEYa
    pellicle
    I agree with the idea of a used one, and say also consider a GWC-1 to go with it (to get 11mm f2.5)

    From a blog post of mine a while back:
    A low priced alternative to get you into wide angle on your micro 4/3 camera. Of course if you already have the 12mm lens in your focal lengths its hardly worth it, but if you have instead the 14mm prime (as it came with your camera ... or even just the 14-42) this adapter will give you that extra width for minimal weight penalty and just a few bucks.

    For instance:
    • $800 for the 12mm f2 (130g)
    • $1000 for the Oly 12-40 f2.8 (382g)
    • $1300 for the 12-35 zoom f2.8 (300g)
    • $500 for the 12-50 zoom f3.5 ~ 6.3 (211g darker and quite a bit bigger too)
    • curve ball : $330 14mm f2.5 + $150 0.79 adapter = $480
    or just $120 to put this onto your existing pancake 14mm when you just want that wee bit wider than the 14 gives. The adapter only weighs 70g so including the 55g of the 14mm lens you have a total weight of 125g (which you don't have to keep on the camera at all times). This is lighter than anything in the zoom range and about on par with the 12mm f2 (and actually nearly exactly the same size too).

    Think of it as nearly the Olympus 12mm f2 but as a 2 for one lens but cheaper ;-)

    gf1+12mm.

    Here is a composite showing the GF with (left to right) the 12mm, the 14mm and the 14mm + the GWC-1

    12mmvs14mm0.

    Bugger all difference in size between the 12mm and the 14mm + 0.79 ... and you can take it off making it a "more compact lens" without taking the lens off the camera...
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. tjdean01

    tjdean01 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    842
    Feb 20, 2013
    I've had the 14, its wide-angle converter, and the 12-32. Hopefully my experience can help you make the best choice for you.

    14: as others have said, considering you can buy a used one for under $200, I wouldn't spend $400 for mkII. I have the black version of the old one which matches my black GM1 very nicely. The silver, however, isn't so pretty. I know this because I have old version of the 20 and I'm actually going to sell that and buy the all-black mkII of the 20. The 14, however, I won't: 1) the lens isn't a "go-to" and "optically flawless" like the 20 is, b) it's over double the price for a mkII, and 3) you can get the old version in all black. That said, I would NOT actually recommend buying a 14 for wide angle. Read on.

    14 @ f5.6
    ?temp_hash=eece3adc883b0bf3da3ee6d3d62974f9.

    11mm Wide Angle Converter: I've had this and while decent, I simply don't like it's performance. The 14 isn't fantastic across the frame anyway and this doesn't help it. It remains an f2.5, but I ended up selling mine.

    12/2: nice lens, although for me the price is too high for how often I'd use it. Another thing about 12mm is that I feel it's too wide if this is the only lens with you. For these price and width issues, I'd actually prefer the 14 (although inferior optically, but not by much).

    12-32: this is my #1 recommendation for you. I wish it were faster at say 25mm but for wide angle shots where I don't need to blur the background (12-18mm), this lens is the balls. If this were out before buying the 14, I would have never bought the 14. Fast pancake prime? Give me the 20 over the 14 any day. This lens is probably like $250 these days.

    12-32 @ 13mm, f3.5, Lens IS on, ISO 400
    ?temp_hash=eece3adc883b0bf3da3ee6d3d62974f9.

    Finally, check out the 12-50. Cheap, wide, splash proof, macro. The f2.8 zooms are too pricey for me to recommend if your financial situation is similar to mine. Finally, I have to add that ultimately, I decided to keep the 14. Why? It's noticeably smaller than any other lens and doesn't need to be expanded like the 12-32. The 14 is sharp enough wide open and I've got some decent shots blurring the background (when you do that, you don't see its distortion). Finally, believe it or not I use this when I'm with my GF and she's using her iPhone. We can take self-shots with it and she's always amazed how it blows her iPhone out of the water!
     

    Attached Files:

    • Useful Useful x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. rpringle

    rpringle Mu-43 Regular

    102
    Jan 9, 2014
    I bought my Oly 12mm f2 on the forums here with UV filter, JJC hood, and original box for $425. I'm sure if you look you can find it for about that price. My big thing with this is the focusing scale and larger aperture for astrophotography. For my purposes there are no alternatives except the Rokinon 12mm f2 which I have read has CA problems and generally not as good. For me I use the 12 f2 all the time for landscapes and night photos, so it has paid off for me. I do agree the retail price seems very high, especially with no hood included.
     
  9. exakta

    exakta Mu-43 Regular

    85
    Jun 2, 2015
    Any comments on the CA? Most online reviews mention that it's present when used on Olympus bodies but the E-M10 now has CA correction. Anyone with first hand experience that this works with this Panasonic lens?
     
  10. exakta

    exakta Mu-43 Regular

    85
    Jun 2, 2015
    Quick followup, I bit the bullet and bought the M Zuiko 12mm with the current $100 rebate.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1