PL 12-32mm compare to the 14mm 2.5?

I've used both, but haven't done any sort of scientific testing as I owned them at different times. The 12-32mm is surprisingly good optically, and only a hair slower than the 14mm at the wide end, plus it goes wider, and has the extra reach on the tele end all while not being any bigger or heavier. I would say you could easily replace the 14mm with the 12-32mm zoom. The 14mm isn't really exceptional in any one area other than its size/weight and price, so I can't see that you would give up much by switching.

 

Just to be clear, the 14mm f/2.5 and 12-32mm lenses are not PanaLeica lenses.

The only Panaleica lenses are:
- 15mm f/1.7
- 25mm f/1.4
- 42.5mm f/1.2
- 45mm f/2.8 Macro

Having said that, the 12-32 lens gets very good reviews, is extremely compact, and offers a 12mm FoV, something that no other kit lens in m43 does. Having said that, 32mm is not substantially longer than the 25mm FoV, and with the sharpness of the PL 25mm, you'll likely get better results cropping an image shot with that lens over a full res image with the 12-32 at 32mm. Also, the bokeh quality of the 12-32 is going to leave a lot to be desired if you like the output of the 25 f/1.4.

Another though would be to look at picking up a GWC1 wide angle converter for your 14mm, and an Olympus 45mm prime, which would leave you with 11mm, 14mm, 25mm, and 45mm FoV. Also, the bokeh from the 45mm is fantastic, and picking up a GWC1 and 45mm should only run you about $400 or so, which isn't that much more than getting a 12-32 (yet you'll achieve far better images in terms of sharpness, and subject isolation).

 

Well, there is Oly's 12-50 kit zoom for the E-M5. But that's in a different class simply because of its size and I'm sure the OP isn't talking about something like that.

 

There will be some negative effects in terms of IQ (corners won't be as sharp, some additional CA that won't be corrected in-camera), however nothing that is a deal breaker (not much can be done for the corners, not that they're terrible, but the CA can be dealt with in software like Lightroom very easily). In all honestly, if you're searching for the pinnacle of image quality, the 12-32 won't get you there (although it is indeed very good).

 

I've had the 14/2.5 for years and recently got a 12-32. At the wide end, the 12-32 is better: less distortion, smearing and purple fringing at the edges and corners. It may even be a bit sharper (it's very sharp). The long end isn't as good as the wide, but still very good. I find the OIS to be better than IBIS in the 1/15 - 1/60 sec. range using an E-M10, which can be configured to use one or the other. The 12-32 isn't far behind the 25/1.4 in good light, but will never give you the out of focus look or control of the 1.4 aperture. I would swap the 12-32 for the 14, but hold onto the 25/1.4.

 

Based on the response from the user above me, it sounds like you may be better off selling the 14mm and picking up a 12-32. If you still need more reach, then it may be a good idea to look at something like the Olympus 45mm, which is a stellar lens.

 

I am curious , What body are you using this lens on?

 

Yeah I also agree with everyone saying that if you need more reach, the 45/1.8 is a very good choice. Its really an excellent lens, and you can buy a used one for about the same cost as the 12-32, maybe slightly more. So if you like shooting primes, the 14/25/45 would be a very good kit. Doesn't help you if you want a zoom though.

 

For those of us who already own the 12-32 kit lens, am I right in thinking the 14mm doesn't offer much? I was tempted by the used price, but the speed and size of the 14mm isn't that different. If the performance isn't significantly different I'm better off putting the money towards something else (torn between a used 12-50 for a similar price and making do with the close performance on that or saving up for a true macro).

 

I'm really impressed with the 45mm - a touch 'clinical' in the transitions from razor-sharp to OOF but both the OOF areas and in-focus areas are lovely.and amazingly good value used.

 

Yeah, if you already own the 12-32mm, the 14mm would be not be lens I would recommend, its hard to think of a reason to own both. I would definitely put the money towards a lens that will allow you to do something significantly different, like one of the fast (faster than F2) primes for low light shooting/narrow DOF, or zoom lens that covers a range that you don't have, like an ultra wide or telephoto.

 

What about those of us who own neither 14 nor 12-32?
Too many words here . Does anyone have any actual images we can pixel peep?
I'm torn between these. I like the price and "speed" on the 14 and the range on the zoom. What about sharpness and bokeh?

 

Reviews of both here, results should be comparable.
http://www.photozone.de/m43/873_pana1232f3556?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/613-pana1425?start=1

Looks like the 12-32 is sharper. Both have extreme distortion that is corrected automatically. Bokeh? Good luck getting any background blur with either of these lenses, you've gotta be very close to a relatively small object to do so. If bokeh and subject isolation is a concern, get one of the 25s or the 45, all of which have lovely out of focus rendering and will be significantly easier to use to blur the BG.