1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Should I sell 14mm/f2.5?

Discussion in 'This or That? (MFT only)' started by sin77, Feb 28, 2012.

  1. sin77

    sin77 Mu-43 Veteran

    Dec 9, 2011
    Looking at my gears below, do you think I should sell 14mm and then buy a 14-42x lens?

    Reason: 14-42x is stablised, can zoom 3x and is a pancake lens.

    Having a 14mm/f2.5 means that I will roughly lose 2 stops of light as compared to 14-42x.

    However, I will have an extra 14-42 lens.
  2. xdayv

    xdayv Color Blind

    Aug 26, 2011
    Tacloban City, Philippines
    the 14-42x lens have been receiving a not good rating here in the forum. many have found it not to be performing good optically.

    keep the 14. i missed mine. :biggrin:
  3. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    Huh? The Lumix 14mm/2.5 is a much smaller pancake than the Lumix X 14-42mm/3.5-5.6! In fact, the X powerzoom lens is awfully big and beefy for a "pancake", even though it does collapse quite flat. That lens should have a new category for it called a "hotcake lens". It's not small like what I'm accustomed to in a "pancake".

    No, you won't lose 2 stops of light with the faster aperture, you will gain a stop. The stop you gain with the wide aperture is far more valuable than the 1 to 1.5 stops (I've never effectively seen an IS system give you 2 stops advantage, whatever the marketing says) gain from IS which ONLY gives you that advantage within a very limited frame of slow shutter speeds, which varies depending on the lens (particularly focal length) and shooter (how steady you are). Let's say for instance for me at 14mm, I might need IS between 1/4s to 1/15s (14mm is quite wide, letting me shoot with a slow shutter). At 1/2s the shot would be too shaky to use hand-held even with IS, and at 1/30s I won't need IS to counter the shake because my shutter speed will be fast enough. At 1/8s using IS, I can get a similar shot to what I would get at 1/15s to 1/20s without IS, so it's only a 1-1.5 stop advantage. The 1 stop advantage of a fast aperture is cut and clear. You can double your shutter speed, period. If you're at 1/60s on the kit zoom, you can now shoot at 1/125s and get a clear shot of that person or animal who won't stay still. Your only limitation is the requirement of broader DOF (though the wide aperture also gives you the advantage of shallow DOF when you want it, giving you personal control of the look you get).

    For any type of action, IS is useless. It will not stop action in any way so your shutter speed will have to be high, making IS unnecessary. The subject blur will require far greater shutter speed to freeze than the camera shake. IBIS is even worse because it will create unnecessary shutter lag which could make you miss that perfect moment. At least you don't have that problem with OIS, but you still gain no advantage with OIS.

    Besides which, you also have the Leica 45mm f/2.8 Macro-Elmarit. That is a wonderful pairing to the Lumix 14mm f/2.5, making your 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 fully redundant. The Macro-Elmarit gives you a healthy 2 full stops advantage at 45mm, which is better than the 1 stop of the 14mm Lumix.
    • Like Like x 2
  4. garfield_cz

    garfield_cz Mu-43 Veteran

    Jul 9, 2011
    Czech Republic
    In my humble opinion IS is worth only for telephoto lenses (45mm and above). I don't see any practical use on wide angle lenses.
  5. krugorg

    krugorg Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jul 18, 2011
    Minnesota USA
    The only time I find it handy on wides is on handheld indoor architecture shots... pretty crazy how long you can hold base ISO with an Oly body and the 14/2.5 or 12/2.
  6. WoodWorks

    WoodWorks Mu-43 Regular

    Oct 10, 2011
    Ashland, OR USA
    I sold my 14mm and kept the 14-42X. The 14mm is much softer in the corners in comparison, and the one stop advantage wasn't enough to tip the balance for me. There have been many complaints about the 14-42X, and I am one of those who has been very disappointed by its performance at full zoom. But it's a significantly better performer at 14mm. And as long as you keep the shutter speed above 1/320 sec., is sharp at 42mm too.

  7. ean10775

    ean10775 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 31, 2011
    Cleveland, Ohio
    ...or a 'short stack' lens
    • Like Like x 1
  8. troll

    troll Mu-43 Veteran

    Jan 25, 2012
    Shooting with a wide-angle lens usually means that the aperture is closed down to something like f/5.6-f/11 most of the time, and the required shutter speed quite often drops way below 1/focal length*2, especially when shooting inside. Also WA is rarely used for shooting people (or other moving things), it's mostly for streets, landscapes, interiors.. Having IS with WA means you can have ISO 200 instead of 800-1600, for example.

    And comparing the maximum aperture to having IS isn't completely fair, what's good in having f/2.5 if you'll get a blurry background with it because of shallower depth of field? If you need to have both foreground and background in focus (which is often the case with WA lenses), f/5.6 + IS is much better than f/2.5 and no IS.
  9. kenc

    kenc Mu-43 Regular

    Dec 18, 2011
    How does the shutter speed affect the sharpness of the lens?
  10. KVG

    KVG Banned User

    May 10, 2011
    yyc(Calgary, AB)
    Kelly Gibbons
    I wouldn't sell it. I think you gonna see a the used price for the 14 and 20 go up because it looks like Panasonic is moving away from putting fast primes in a kit because people will shell out for them regardless.
  11. Lili

    Lili Mu-43 Veteran

    Apr 24, 2009
    Dallas, TX
    I just got an open box 14 from a local store. Love it!
    Far prefer small, light and fast pancake
  12. shnitz

    shnitz Mu-43 All-Pro

    I think that most cases are the opposite. A 14mm lens, even at f/2.5, is conducive to a relatively large depth of field. Wide open, focused 15 feet away you have a 115 ft. At f/4 and sub-10 ft focus distances, you largely don't have to worry about too shallow of a DOF. And a $20, nonobtrusive monopod will give far superior results to IS anyway.

    People are saying that it is the image stabilization that is interfering with the sharpness, because it is not working correctly at certain settings. I haven't tested this myself, but if anyone in Austin has an X lens, I'd be up for meeting you with my older version to test them out. I also have tripods, so we can do an IS-off test and see if the optics here are really to blame.
    • Like Like x 1
  13. deodeo

    deodeo Mu-43 Regular

    Apr 13, 2011
    An added benefit of 14/2.5 is to be able to use Sony WA adapter. This is a x.72 adapter lens made for Sony Nex 16/2.8 but fit 14/2.5 perfectly. And the lens becomes 10.5mm (or 21mm in full frame equivalent).

    Attached Files:

  14. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    That looks really snazzy, Deodeo! :thumbup: Does the image quality look comparable to the bare lens?
  15. KVG

    KVG Banned User

    May 10, 2011
    yyc(Calgary, AB)
    Kelly Gibbons
    ^can you post a sample shot?
  16. WoodWorks

    WoodWorks Mu-43 Regular

    Oct 10, 2011
    Ashland, OR USA
    Perhaps you haven't been following the controversy with this lens. But there is definitely something with the design or QC that causes some sort of vibration or other kind of problem with this lens at 42mm in the ~1/60 sec. – ~1/250 sec. range. Do a search here or over at DPreview and you'll get plenty of info.

    Here's as good a place to start as any:


  17. deodeo

    deodeo Mu-43 Regular

    Apr 13, 2011
    Just a quick shot from my desk, and handheld with IS1 on. Both OOC jpeg resized so I can upload.

    First: 14/2.5 lens at f2.8
    Second: 14/2.5 + x.72 Sony Conversion Lens at f2.8

    Attached Files:

  18. Grinch

    Grinch Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jan 9, 2011
    So would the Sony WA fit the oly 12 as well? This would make it roughly an 8.5 f2.0 , would it not? 46mm thread?
  19. okinana

    okinana Mu-43 Veteran

    Sep 21, 2011
    Philadelphia, PA
    It should fit the 20mm too, right? Because they share the same cap and filters. They are both 46.

    20 x 0.72 = 14.4

    That means a 14mm f1.7 or ~28mm f1.7 in FF!!

  20. deodeo

    deodeo Mu-43 Regular

    Apr 13, 2011
    Fit or not depend on the outer diameter of the lens front rim because this is not a screw on adapter. I tried on my 20/1.7 and can not fit.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.