Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by snerkler, May 21, 2014.
Is there any difference between the all black, and the black/grey 14mm Panny's?
Nope, there is not.
Well, one is black, one is black and gray.
Yes...the black looks way cooler!
Right, I was all set to buy this lens but I've been advised by a couple of people in the know that for landscapes I'm not going to see any difference between the Panny 14mm and the Olly 14-42mm EZ (Pancake) that I already have. Aperture's not an issue as I'll be shooting at f8. What's folks thoughts on this? It was also mentioned that the 14-42mm is sharper in the corners.
Must say, this has surprised me as I've been disappointed in my 14-42mm at the long end when compared to my 45mm f1.8, so thought I might see the same with a 14mm prime. Apparently not though.
since when is there an all black version? like the new P20?
I've heard people say that a lot, but I still find the 14mm prime sharper than any of the kit zooms I've used especially stopped down.
At f/8 all lenses on m4/3 will be diffraction limited. Optimum sharpness is usually achieved at f/5.6, except for lenses where f/5.6 is wide open.
I also don't think you need to shoot f/8 for landscapes, as the deep depth of field of m4/3 means f/5.6 or sometimes even f/4 is more than sufficient. At 14mm and f/5.6 everything from 1.5m to infinity is in focus.
If compare the MTF charts for the kit zoom and the 14mm f/2.5:
You will see that at 14mm and f/5.6 the kit zoom is in fact sharper than the 14mm f/2.5
I am, however, not sure which version of the kit zoom you have as I don't have any kit zooms myself.
I wouldn't bother, save your money for some of the higher end primes, kit lens will be fine for landscapes at f5.6 to f10 etc
The only reason to buy the 14mm would be if you really need a small package.
Thanks for the responses, saves me some cash. Edmunds, in answer to your question it's the EZ as mentioned, which is the new pancake zoom.
Are lenses like the Panny 7-14mm and Olly 9-18mm significantly better in terms of IQ then, especially for landscapes? Other than FOV is one of these better than the other?
Lenses like the 7-14 and 9-18 add a whole another dimension to what you can take a picture of, a whole different perspective. They are only slightly sharper, but nobody buys a 7-14 to shoot at 14mm.
I pondered a long time over wide angle, I've never been great at composition with them, what fixed it for me was getting the 12-32 with GM1, fab little lens that does 12mm, so all widish angle needs taken care of.
Thanks. I'm surprised that the 14-42mm EZ is considered so good in that it's on par with primes. I'm actually going out on a landscape 'tutorial' around the Derbyshire Peak District soon and wanted to make sure I'd god a decent lens, but by the sounds of it I already do. I've still not decided to take my EM10 or my Sony A77 with 16-50mm f2.8 yet. I automatically assumed that the Sony set up would be better, but from what others have said I won't notice much difference between this and the Olly, in which case the Olly becomes more favourable due to the weight.
I have the 14mm, lots of 14-42's (both O&P) and a 12-50.
In terms of resolution there is very little difference between the P14 and the O14-42 Mk2 except in the very corners where the P14 is a tiny bit better. Kit lens has less vingnetting though.
I love the handing of the P14 though - almost gets lost on the front my EM-5.
However despite the bad press it gets the 12-50 is much much better than either at 12mm or 14mm (50mm not so hot).
Unless you want to go for O12, P15 or one of the F2.8 zooms this might be a lower cost option if you can get used the handling.
Sent from my iPhone using Mu-43
I've had one for ~ 12 months. I think they mainly (like mine) came from camera/lens kits that have been split by dealers. Bargain - new at £105 ($165)
Sent from my iPhone using Mu-43
I'd concur with that. The 14 is great for a small body like the EMP2 if you like to pocket the camera, but it's only essential based on size. IQ is very good, but not on par with the top tier primes. 12-50 on the wide end is better than the other kits.
Well, the 14mm is not quite like any other prime. Its just a really really small lens and that's its main advantage. It is also a kit lens, just like the 14-42mm.
Interesting, thanks. The size puts me off the 12-50mm tbh, the whole point of me getting the EM10 was the size advantage over my A77. How does the 14-42mm EZ compare with the 14-42mm II?
Ahh right, didn't realise this. Thanks.
Just thought I'd throw another one into the equation. What's the Panny 12-32mm like compared to all the above?
I have both the Panasonic Lumix 14 as well as the Oly 14-42 Mk 1 which Photozone.de rated as being sharper than the 14. Well, unless my eyes are defective, I found that the Lumix 14 to be a bit sharper than the 14-42 @ 14mm and at all apertures. In fact, it's just as sharp as my Lumix 35-100 which is weird because it is not supposed to according to Photozone.de. But I suspect that the previous owner was an anal measurebator as he owned many quality expensive lenses and stored them in pristine condition.
As Ming Thein had said before, sometimes you're lucky to get a good copy and most of the times you don't. By the way, my 14-42 Mk 1 copy is slightly sharper @14 compared to the latest 14-42 pancake zoom.
Having said that, that wasn't my purpose of buying the 14mm aside from paying 60% less retail. It was for a project to build a cheap UWA lens for Art Wolfe style wide landscape and astrophotography. I adapted a Nikon 0.75x wide angle converter to the Lumix to get a 10.5mm focal length which is equivalent to a 21mm f/2.5 FF lens. And it is sharp at the center with some slight corner smearing @ f/2.5. It is improved by f/5.6 which is where I shoot now. The by product of this conversion is that my blues and greens are greatly enhanced probably due to Nikon's coating and the lens flare is now green rather than purple.
Panasonic sells a wide angle converter that makes the Lumix 14 into an 11mm wide angle fast prime.
So, the only purpose I see getting the Lumix 14 prime are 3 things.
1, Compact pancake style
2, Fast aperture for indoor shots (about 1 stop faster than the kit zoom)
3, Conversion to 11mm to give you a somewhat ultra wide angle of view while maintaining decent sharpness
If you are printing on silver paper with 75 line pairs resolution, all modern lenses will be able to OUT-resolve print to give you a sharp print. It is just that some people here are so unrealistic and pixel peep 100 to 200% resulting in like print that has ultra-high resolution. Those prints are not cheap. In fact in my area, $150 for 300 line pairs 5x7 pro-corrected and up prints is something you would be worried about with your kit zoom or your Lumix 14 and the need to go for better lenses if it doesn't turn good. Otherwise, do not fall into the trap of hoarding expensive lenses with superior resolving resolution power that you won't able to exploit.
If aperture isn't an issue, go for the Panasonic 12-32 pancake.
Sharp enough, wide enough (12mm @ F3.5) and really portable.
Separate names with a comma.