Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by xdayv, Dec 15, 2011.
kit lens over the panny 14-42 pancake lens at same price that goes with a GX1 kit?
I would. But then again I'm not as concerned about being able to carry the camera in my pocket as some people are.
I have to admit I haven't paid real close attention to test results for the x-lens, but my impression is that it's on par with the regualr 14-42, except that the OIS causes real problems at the long end (where you need it most). The 14-45 is noticeably sharper than than the old 14-42, especially at the edges, and OIS works fine.
But if having a small bundle that fits in a pocket is important, and you're willing to turn OIS off most of the time, then the X lens might be a better choice.
I would take the X lens. Both are said to deliver very good IQ. I'm not a fan of the slow speed, power-zoom, or focus-by-rocker-switch, but the slow speed is inherent in both lenses. Therefore, it wouldn't be my first pick of zooms, but if I'm going to pick a slow zoom like that then I'd want it to at least be portable. Otherwise, if you're going to bring a bigger lens anyways, then why not just bring along a compact fast zoom like the Zuiko 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 II instead? That would be my thought, anyways... I've never held onto an f/3.5-5.6 kit zoom though, so I'm not the best to ask.
I'd go w/ the pancake lens. The IQ difference isn't that much, and I'd much prefer the compactness of the pancake (it's why I gravitated toward m43 after all). I don't need to pocket it, but it's nice that it takes up less room in my bag.
The 14-45 is a stellar lens. Even wide open. I don't know about the pancake. But the 14-45 will not dissapoint, I am pretty sure of that...
I agree. And I prefer to use a zoom with a zoom ring that I can turn with my hand. The 14-45 is my most favorite of all Panasonic lenses - even above the 20, 14, and 45. It is sharp and well made.
I've only had the 14-45 for a short time, but I'm pretty impressed with it. The stabilization works great and it compares favorably to my Nikon 16-85, a $600 lens. As Gerald said above the 14-45 is still sharp wide open, which I can't say about the Nikon at 85mm. I too am interested in the pancake zoom, but canceled my order when I started reading about the issues with the stabilization. Until they get those problems fixed I'm sticking with the 14-45, even though I would value being able to carry a GF2/pancake zoom in a pocket.
I'm more than happy to swap my 14-45 for the X if anyone wants to.
The X looks like it would be pretty nice on a Panny GX/GF or Oly E-PL3/E-PM1. But on a G or GH body, which isn't going to get all that small anyway... 14-45 all the way.
The 14-45 is definitely the better lens, optically. Used, it goes for under $200.
That said, the convenience of the X 14-42 is that you have a kit that's 40% thinner. That's the difference between a camera that can fit comfortable in a coat pocket, and one that needs a bag. If it were my take-anywhere camera, I'd want that extra portability.
I've been seriously considering that lens to add to my kit, but holding off till after the new year, as rumors of a 12-35 and 35-100, possibly 2.8 apertures being released
Ned is the 14 54 a micro 4/3, or do you need an adapter does it af or manual focus.
Is the 14 42 & 45 larger than the 54 ?
i will certainly consider the 35-100 if it has a 2.8 or faster constant aperture.
The 14-54 f/2.8-3.5 ii is a 4/3 lens. It is fairly large, auto focuses a bit more slowly than the m4/3 lenses and requires a $100+ adapter to function correctly, further increasing the size and price. You can do much better for your money.
Please consider disabling your ad blocker for our website.
We rely on ad revenue to pay for image hosting and to keep the site speedy.
Or subscribe for $5 per year to remove all ads and support our efforts.