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

Panasonic 14mm or 14-42mm X

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Anthonys, Dec 7, 2011.

  1. Anthonys

    Anthonys Mu-43 Regular

    167
    Nov 17, 2011
    Sydney
    Anthony
    I've been tempted lately to pick up one of the £150 14mm lens to compliment my 20mm 1.7 and eliminate the need to carry the kit Panasonic 14-42mm around (the only reason I take it now is for the wider FOV).

    However, I also planned to buy a GX1 body and now realise for an extra £150 I can get the 14-42mm X lens included as a kit (from January).

    So effectively the cost of the 14mm prime works out the same at the mini 14-42mm zoom for me.

    They both reduce the physical size of my bag with the same 14mm FOV, the prime is faster but the zoom has IS and obviously the option to zoom in.

    Is there any reason to not get it in the GX1 kit instead of buying the 14mm separately and just the GX1 body? I've heard there were some problems with the IS resulting in blurred images? But as it's also worth more figure if I didn't like it I could sell it and buy the 14mm and maybe even make some money..
     
  2. xdayv

    xdayv Color Blind

    Aug 26, 2011
    Tacloban City, Philippines
    Dave
    personally i will go for the prime over the kit lens. it pairs with the 20mm nicely.
     
  3. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    Having the 14mm and the 20mm I found the the FOV is very similar (like a step or two). I think the 12mm works better with the 20mm. Before you get the 14mm stop in a camera store and try it out with the 20mm. We all have different tastes and needs, for me I'd like a little more separation between my lenses.

    Gary

    PS- The 14mm is a great lens in a tight little package.
    G
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    The Lumix X 14-42mm is not going to be much better than your current Lumix 14-42mm, just more compact. If you like real zoom and focus rings, and a more reliable OIS system, then your old kit lens is going to be better.

    Without question, I would go for the Lumix 14mm f/2.5 over the kit zoom. It's faster, more compact, sharper... However, since you already have the Lumix 20mm/1.7. I agree that the 14mm would be a redundant purchase. Your money would be better spent or saved towards an m.Zuiko 45mm f/1.8 or m.Zuiko 12mm f/2.

    Especially to complement a prime, a zoom is kind of senseless. A zoom lens that covers the same range is a replacement for a prime, not a complement to it. Another prime to expand the focal range is a complement.
     
  5. Anthonys

    Anthonys Mu-43 Regular

    167
    Nov 17, 2011
    Sydney
    Anthony
    Thanks for the quick replies. I was hoping the 14mm would give me just that bit wider FOV to use along side the 20mm, but maybe you're right and going a bit further with a 12mm would actually make a noticeable difference.

    I was under the impression the new 14-42mm X lens was as sharp as the original 14-45mm kit and therefor pretty comparable to the 14mm prime, given it has it's nano coating etc. I travel quite a lot with my camera so having smaller lenses is appealing. I much prefer fast prime lenses to kit zooms.

    That 14mm is now down to £140 (US$220) on ebay, guess it's the price that I'm most drawn to as the Oly 12mm is significantly more expensive.
     
  6. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    Yes, the X lens is better than the non-X lens... but it's still an f/3.5-5.6 slow kit zoom, and isn't going to compare with a prime.
     
  7. Anthonys

    Anthonys Mu-43 Regular

    167
    Nov 17, 2011
    Sydney
    Anthony
    Yup, that sounds right. I have read people comment that the original kit 14-45mm Panasonic lens was comparable to the 14mm prime though, do you think that could be true? Thanks!
     
  8. shnitz

    shnitz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    989
    Aug 25, 2011
    Austin, TX
    The 14-45mm lens is a noticeable image improvement over the 14-42mm lenses, but it isn't worth buying if you already have a 14-42; you'd be taking baby steps and wasting your money in the process. Don't worry about upgrading, it sounds like you have a solid kit. Stop worrying about what lenses you COULD have, and just go out with what lenses you DO have and take some photos with your camera. Take 2 aspirin for the upgrade-itis and get some rest. If you really want to upgrade, wait until Panasonic and Olympus release their upscale midrange zooms, but until then enjoy what you have. Your 14-42mm lens at 14mm performs just fine, and if you really want that image quality, throw the 20mm lens on there and be happy.
     
  9. manju69

    manju69 Mu-43 Veteran

    493
    Jul 1, 2011
    Stroud, UK
    Pete
    I recently sold my 14-45mm to get the 14mm prime and do not regret it at all. It's a sweet lens; super small, better contrast and focuses way closer than the kit lens. Not as sharp as the 20 though. Primes really work for me. However I agree with others, 14mm would perhaps be a little too close to the 20mm in terms of FoV.
     
  10. Anthonys

    Anthonys Mu-43 Regular

    167
    Nov 17, 2011
    Sydney
    Anthony
    Yup, I guess I can always take a few steps back to get a wider FOV and leave the kit lens at home. I sort of have a feeling I'd miss the 28mm equiv as that's what I shot 90% of my photos over the past few years at, but maybe that's just the 'upgraditis!' and 40mm equiv is the new fad :)

    What other primes do you use?
     
  11. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    These days, you can call any modern lens "comparable" if you're only talking about image quality. The tiny differences we nitpick over these days are really unsubstantial to the perceived quality of an image.

    Rather than killing yourself over such subtle differences, look at the quantifiable differences between the lenses instead.

    1 stop of light is one stop of light, any way you look at it. That's approximately what you'll get with the 14mm prime over the 14-42mm kit zoom. This is very important to some people.

    On the other hand, the 14-42mm will give you essentially two lenses in one (no it's not 28 lenses in one - nobody has ever needed a different prime lens for every single mm). That's a convenience which will save you from walking forward more or swapping lenses to get those tighter crops that you would otherwise frame with another lens like the 45mm prime.

    Personally, I'll take the faster lens speed over the zoom any day. Zoom I can make up with my feet. A stop of light I can't make up with anything except to bump my ISO and degrade my image quality (and one stop can mean a lot to the image). Why should I be lazy about walking forward a bit or swapping lenses to save myself from a grainy image? I shot film cameras for decades with no zoom, and never thought it was a hassle. It was just how we took photos.
     
  12. Anthonys

    Anthonys Mu-43 Regular

    167
    Nov 17, 2011
    Sydney
    Anthony
    Very nicely put Ned, and I agree speed is much more valuable than zoom. You do seem to have a very large collection of lenses but I guess that comes from spending so many years in photography?

    I guess for general travel photography it's best to just have a fast modest wide angle lens that you can crop in to if you need to, and perhaps a telephoto lens for those times when you can't just walk closer?

    Standing in the street with a wide angle lens does let you include the buildings to your side more than a normal prime lens would though. Theoretically it should also allow you to get more of the ground and sky in your shot as it's not often you can move too much vertically within a space. There's also occasions indoors when you can't step back and a wide angle can be useful.

    I guess the traditional prime set up that's recommended isn't actually needed unless you really want to flex your subject variety? Since I've switched to mFT I've been told if I like small primes to go for the Pana 14, 20 and then the Oly 45. The more expensive, but perhaps more flexible, option was Oly 12, Pana 25 and Oly 45.
     
  13. hodad66

    hodad66 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    806
    Jan 27, 2010
    Indialantic, Florida
    Just got my 14mm and love the size, close focus & speed.......
    two, quick shots

    6472407779_91261999b2_b.

    6472407829_b1c4ddc57f_z.
     
  14. Anthonys

    Anthonys Mu-43 Regular

    167
    Nov 17, 2011
    Sydney
    Anthony
    Thanks guys, decided not to get the 14mm as I think it is in fact redundant as I already have the 20mm. It has got a slightly wider FOV but it's not as fast or sharp. Otherwise it's pretty similar and think my money would be better spent getting a lens with a bigger difference such as the Panasonic 7-14mm, 45-175mm X or even Olympus 12mm.

    Who would have thought a forum could talk you out of spending money on camera gear :p
     
  15. edawooda

    edawooda New to Mu-43

    7
    Nov 7, 2011
    I'm in a similar situation to you but I plan on getting the 14mm.

    Why you ask? You can attach the sony adapters for wide angle and fisheye. Gives it a lot of versatility IMO.
     
  16. manju69

    manju69 Mu-43 Veteran

    493
    Jul 1, 2011
    Stroud, UK
    Pete
    Can you post the details of those please?. I'd be curious about them. Thanks
     
  17. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    I think they work like the Olympus converter lenses made for the m.Zuiko 14-42mm retractable lens. Sony has had a long history of making these to fit their larger point-and-shoot lenses, which I'm assuming are the ones which will fit on the 14mm.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. edawooda

    edawooda New to Mu-43

    7
    Nov 7, 2011
    They originally suit the 16mm 2.8 e-mount.

    VCL-ECU1 and VCL-ECF1.

    Dzone2 on ebay is selling the whole lot as a bundle.

    ATM I'm not too sure on the image quality but should do in a pinch as a budget solution.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    Good call Anthonys. BTW, I found the difference in resolution between the 14mm and 20mm to be insignificant.

    Gary

    PS- Personally, I'd save and wait a bit longer for the 12mm. I think in the long run it would make you much happier.
    G
     
  20. Anthonys

    Anthonys Mu-43 Regular

    167
    Nov 17, 2011
    Sydney
    Anthony
    Can't you just get a wide angle adaptor for the 20mm?

    Surely adaptors have to make some sacrifice with IQ or speed, or both??