Previous page Next page

Design

When you first pick up the PZ 14-42mm, you'll probably do a quick double-take; it's so tiny it feels like it must surely be a prime. Mounting it on a camera and turning it on reveals its secret - the lens rapidly extends to almost twice its retracted length for shooting. It's actually at its longest at 14mm (shown above), but changes only slightly in length on zooming.

The lens also feels well-constructed for its size and weight (although Panasonic has never quite mastered the art of making its Micro Four Thirds lenses look or feel like 'premium' products). The outer barrel is made of high quality plastic, and the inner extending section is metal; it exhibits practically no 'play' even at full extension, which is pretty impressive. The two switches on the side of the barrel that control the zoom and manual focus are also high quality plastic; note though that there's no physical OIS switch (instead this is controlled via the camera's menu system). However the lens's upmarket leanings are confirmed by the metal mount.

Compared to other collapsing kit zooms

The composite image below illustrates the difference in size between the Panasonic PZ 14-42mm powerzoom and the other kit zooms for Micro Four Thirds, plus Samsung's collapsible 20-50mm for its NX system. All the lenses are retracted to their shortest length for carrying; clearly the motorized design allows the pancake zoom to be far more compact than any similarly-speced lens.

Left to right, top row then bottom:
Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS
Samsung NX 20-50mm F3.5-5.6 ED
Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6
Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS
Panasonic Lumix G X Vario PZ 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS
Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II

On the camera

On Panasonic's 'SLR-like' bodies such as the GH2, the PZ 14-42mm looks tiny even when extended for shooting. It's on the GF3, though, that the pancake zoom really comes into its own. It's very small indeed, and the combination will easily slip into a jacket pocket or small bag.

Lens body elements

The lens uses the Micro Four Thirds mount, making it compatible with Panasonic and Olympus cameras. The mount is metal, and the gold contacts are used for communication with the camera body.
The filter thread is 37mm, much smaller than the 52mm diameter of the extending barrel. It doesn't rotate on focusing, which is good for filter use.

Note that, in keeping with the 'pancake' ethos, there's no bayonet attachment for a lens hood.
A pair of (very similar) levers on the side of the lens barrel control the power zoom and manual focus. They're well-placed for use when the camera is held in landscape format, but can be a bit more awkward to use in portrait format.

They're also quite difficult to distinguish by feel alone.
Taking a leaf out of Olympus's book, Panasonic is supplying the lens with a rather natty slimline cap, complete with stylized 'X' logo. It's a small touch, but it helps make the package just that bit more portable.
Previous page Next page
136
I own it
18
I want it
33
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 181
12
Gabriele Sartori
By Gabriele Sartori (6 months ago)

Bought this lens because I do video clips as well and the PZ was interesting. I found to use this lens all the times. Very good lens the one I got, no issue at all, sharp. I normally use a D800E but with the GH3 and this lens I find myself with the smaller set almost all the times.

0 upvotes
Geodesiq
By Geodesiq (11 months ago)

It's unbelievable that at this late date Panny has not even acknowledged there's a problem! Has anyone sent in a problem lens under warranty?

0 upvotes
drxz
By drxz (Jun 21, 2013)

Has anyone tried upgrading the firmware to version 1.2? I tried a couple of shots at 1/60s 42mm and the blurriness issue seems to be solved!!! I will try at other speeds / focal lengths to confirm.

0 upvotes
26ACBB402B44442BB73DDBA0F7CF830C

Have you any news? Did the firmware upgrade solve the issue?

0 upvotes
vrb
By vrb (Mar 24, 2013)

hi - has anyone used this lens (Panasonic Lumix G X Vario PZ 14-42mm/F3.5-5.6 Lens) on a Lumix GF1 body? Does it work? Many thanks for guidance.

0 upvotes
IDDQD
By IDDQD (May 21, 2013)

Yes, I use it on GF1, and it works fine. Not Zeiss or Leica quality, though. The original GF1 pancake lens quality is much higher (in fact, I find the pancake really amaizing). But it is OK overall, just don't expect it to be your pride and joy. The main attraction is the size, so the camera becomes pocketable and can be taken when you'd leave it otherwise. It really widens the creative choices when you have both the tiny pancake and the tiny zoom with you))). but when you specifically go out for a serious fotosession better take a more serious lens and may be a better camera. Personally, the GF1 user interface has been killing me - I want hardware controls and dials for everything))) I am considering moving to Olympus OM-D E-M5 (MFT) or even Fuji X20 (which is more compact compared to Olympus and has the ergonomic controls that I have been dreaming about).
Anyway, if you plan to stay in MFT, IMHO this lens is a must. But if you have some MFT/camera doubts, then it is not so simple.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Rowland Scherman
By Rowland Scherman (Feb 6, 2013)

…or is this it, already?

0 upvotes
Rowland Scherman
By Rowland Scherman (Feb 6, 2013)

Does anyone know when the X version of the lens is due to be released?

0 upvotes
Geodesiq
By Geodesiq (Jan 13, 2013)

Is there any update on this lens? Have the bugs been worked out.

0 upvotes
Luego
By Luego (Oct 11, 2012)

I got this lens at Future Shop Canada a couple of days ago.
Images are horrible at 42mm FL with shutter speeds faster than 1/30sec.
O.I.S. seems to prevent the lens to focus properly.
So this one goes back.

It seems Kim Letkeman got the last good version...lucky fellow...:-(

0 upvotes
cmoetzing
By cmoetzing (Oct 5, 2012)

I got the PZ 14/42 with the G5 and it produces stunning images. My impression is that the images are MUCH sharper than with the old G Vario 14/42mm. I love it.

0 upvotes
David Clarke29
By David Clarke29 (Aug 23, 2012)

Well judging by the detractors of the PZ 14/42 my remarks may come as something of a shock. I recently purchased a 14/42 pz for my Oly OM-D and after a week of using it have found it is a little gem of a lens. It is tack sharp and even at the short end the distortion is minimal - nothing that PS cannot adjust.I've blown most of my images up to 100% and even wide open the sharpness of the edges is still very good. It has good contrast properties and is very quick to focus. A very handy standard zoom.

Dave. (UK)

2 upvotes
Kim Letkeman
By Kim Letkeman (Oct 4, 2012)

Yup, I got this lens and the GF3 for the unbelievable price of 429 new, and this lens is terrific. Small, quiet, and very sharp. So glad I went for it.

0 upvotes
carpandean
By carpandean (Jul 7, 2012)

I recently purchased a used 14-42mm PZ from another member over at mu-43, who had verified that the copy did not suffer from the double image problem. Once I received it, I double checked by shooting some quick shots at 42mm and 1/60-1/200 shutter speeds. No problems.

Next, I set up a tripod and ran some comparison shots with the standard Panny 14-42mm and the older 14-45mm. The PZ was on par with the 14-45mm for sharpness, while both were noticeably better than the standard 14-42mm. There was plenty of detail in the image, including text, so it was a pretty good measure. However, I would like to repeat with a little more detail near the corners, as I suspect the 14-45mm may win out there (though, what detail there was looked comparable with the two in my test shots.)

I definitely wouldn't say that the 14-42mm PZ should be purchased over the 14-45mm for image quality purposes alone, but it is a better choice for situations that require compact carrying (e.g., when traveling.)

0 upvotes
WhiteBeard
By WhiteBeard (Jun 4, 2012)

It would appear that, at least until we see full reviews on the new 12-35mm f2.8 Pana zoom (yum!), the best bet is still the "old" 14-45mm Pana f 3.5-5.6. Better built and having a much better center to corner resolution than the cheaper 14-42mm (non-collapsible) zoom. Of course, the 14-45 still needs to be handled with care regarding OIS; setting it to OFF when shutter speeds are higher than about 1/60 often yiels better (sharper) results than with OIS ON. Compactness and motorized zoom are a poor substitute for picture quality.

1 upvote
Pierre Moeremans Photography

Many thanks everybody for this info about the problems with this lens, wanted just to change my 14-45! Will wait!
Cheers!

0 upvotes
jweider
By jweider (May 23, 2012)

Judging from my own experience and that of others on these lists this is indeed a problematic lens, and the company's (lack of) response raises broader concerns about its commitment to this market segment. I, too, had noted softness at mid-shutter speeds and documented it in a series of tests. After sending lens (and GX-1 body) with the files to the Panasonic facility in Texas, I got them back a couple of weeks later with the advice that the lens "Checks OK" and that I should use different ISOs to get sharp pictures. I have been shooting for pleasure and profit since the 1970s and owned many fine lenses that were manufactured, marketed and supported as tools, and the Lumix bodies work pretty well with them. But I am not spending any more money with the company.

0 upvotes
kayone
By kayone (May 22, 2012)

Sounds like the performance and IQ of this lens is pretty poor. Shame it would have been great to have a zoom that flat.

0 upvotes
michel gaugain
By michel gaugain (Apr 26, 2012)

I bought the lens for three weeks (Germany) in set with a pana G3 cam. I own already a Canon G6. I compared aprox 100 pictures I've took with both cameras in same conditions. The conclusion was horrible. The pictures with the old Canon G6 were better or much better as the pictures took with the new Pana G3 + 14-42 x. I didn't make other tests or other researces. I gave the lens back and I lost some money. I was pretty frustrated. As compensation I bought the 25 / 1,4. This was the beginning of a new life. I think Panasonic has a home-made problem to clear and has to find another signification for the "x".

0 upvotes
Anepo
By Anepo (Jun 16, 2012)

So your comparing a micro four thirds to a compact camera... That shows how much you know about photography & perhaps its not the camera but you that sucks?

0 upvotes
michel gaugain
By michel gaugain (Jun 21, 2012)

You seems to know a lot about photography. In this case you must know other reasons to change a compact camera for a mft one as to make better photos. Perhaps you like when people say "look, what a big camera the guy is carrying with"

0 upvotes
Macpics
By Macpics (Mar 1, 2012)

I have just bought the Lumix GX1 with 14-42 PZ and 45-175mm lenses. I conducted a test after initially disappointing results from the 14-42. The PZ 14-42 is poor even at the wide end and extremely poor at the 42mm end. I tried it on my Olympus E-P1 (which I was hoping to replace with the GX) and it works much better, but not great. I then tried my Olympus 14-42mm lens on the GX1, and it worked very well indeed despite the lack of IS. There is a clear problem with the PZ 14-42 on the GX1. Mine is going back to the shop tomorrow to exchange for the standard 14-42. For further info, the panasonic 45-175mm works very well on the GX1, but I'd advise against buying the PZ 14-45mm. In fact if you have an Olympus e_p1 or any Olympus, I'd suggest keeping it for a while yet or waiting for the OM D

0 upvotes
Oltenus
By Oltenus (Feb 28, 2012)

The Panasonic 14-42 PZ has a probleme on the stabilisation. It is a little soft at 42mm between speeds 1/60 and 1/200 second even with the last version of firmware (1.1). Curiously, it is more sharp at lower speed (for exemple at 1/4 second) !!! Don't buy this lens for the moment, wait the new firmware.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
AlbertSt2011
By AlbertSt2011 (Feb 24, 2012)

PROBLEM with the compact 14-42 mm lens from Panasonic creating a 2nd picture in 1 shot.
Here is the link to read, very credible comments:
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-14-42mm-F3-5-5-6-Digital-Cameras/product-reviews/B005J5TZVG/ref=sr_1_2_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Did someone on here experience the same?

I have not read all comments on this Blog site, so I may have missed it and my apologies if that happened.

0 upvotes
HGFGKM
By HGFGKM (Feb 24, 2012)

When Panasonic GX1 was reviewed with this lens, they found it to be fuzzy at the high zoom extension. Has anybody else noticed this?

0 upvotes
Snapshot7
By Snapshot7 (Feb 21, 2012)

I think I'll be picking up this lens to go with my upcoming Olympus OM-D EM-5.

I think this lens and that camera will make a very nice travel camera setup.

0 upvotes
mitrowsky SRB
By mitrowsky SRB (Mar 7, 2012)

Thinking exactly the same.

0 upvotes
Biggreydog
By Biggreydog (Feb 13, 2012)

"However the concept [motorized zoom] failed to gain widespread acceptance amongst enthusiast photographers, mainly because motorized zoom controls have historically been unable to match the speed, directness, and precision of composition offered by conventional mechanical zoom controls."

So this is another piece of equipment with video inspired features that are inappropriate and inconvenient for still photographers.

Are the camcorder companies (actually the camcorder divisions of the same companies) just rolling over and allowing the video business to be stolen by these weird hybrids? Aren't there any high performance dedicated video cameras that don't cost $20,000?

I can see the future now: eventually still cameras will be so crapped up with video junk that the manufacturers will introduce "video-free" versions at a higher price.

2 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Feb 16, 2012)

How about (in this case) people who want a zoom that's the same physical size as a pancake lens?

3 upvotes
WASBA
By WASBA (Jan 20, 2012)

Personally, For the balance, pancake lens is only good for mobility. I used a Pentax 40mm pancake lens before and I just noticed that is too thin... Even for one-hand shooter, most of mirrorless camera's body is very compact so hard to handle by one hand. :D

0 upvotes
Keith
By Keith (Mar 12, 2012)

"Even for one-hand shooter, most of mirrorless camera's body is very compact so hard to handle by one hand."

Kind of find that hard to believe, unless you have the hands of a gorilla. I've been using a Panasonic G1, GF1, and G3 with great results. The pancake lenses couldn't be small enough!

0 upvotes
Lbr0805
By Lbr0805 (Jan 7, 2012)

I travel a lot and I have to travel light. I won't take a camera that won't fit in a jacket pocket. The NEXs are wonderful, but with the glass they are just too big. I might upgrade my Canon S95 to a micro 4/3rds with this lens instead of moving to the S100, or I might not. But if Sony made a similar lens, I would buy an NEX-5N with that glass in a heartbeat.

0 upvotes
Ralph M
By Ralph M (Jan 5, 2012)

Hey Panasonic, how about adding an external zoom controller for video work. Even a motorized zoom is a little hard to control without shaking the camera...

It seems that with the addition of a motorized zoom, it should be possible to add a wired or wireless control without a huge development effort.

1 upvote
OneGuy
By OneGuy (Nov 27, 2011)

Yesterday I read a brief "consumer-style" review on Amazon concerning this PZ X lens. The reviewer gave it a single star claiming its OIS does not work (makes the image fuzzy) at a particular zooming point. He got another copy of the lens and updated the Panasonic software on his GF3 body but the problem persists.
Amazon dropped the price on the GF3 / 14-42 X kit by $100. Also, preorder for FX1 / 14-42 X kit is no longer available for preorder.
Now, the real question is how good is this lens optically? I could not find a technical review (DPR has but a preview) but if it is good it still could be used by the Olympus 4:3 crowd (because of IBIS).

0 upvotes
OneGuy
By OneGuy (Nov 28, 2011)

Well, the GF3 / 14-42 X kit is up by $50 today (to around $700) and the FX1 / 14-42 X kit is being offered for preorders once again.
"Glitch in the Matrix?"

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Dec 14, 2011)

for 4/3 cameras, wait 3 months and get one for half price.

2 upvotes
Erik00
By Erik00 (Feb 23, 2012)

Panasonic is still (feb. 2012) shipping copies of this lens that are extremly soft at all settings if a shutterspeed betwen about 1/30 sec. and 1/300 sec. is used. The problem is the samme if stabilisation isn´t activated. It doesn´t matter if the lens is mounted on a Pana body or an Oly.
I don´t think that DPR will perform a full review, before they have got an explanation from Panasonic.

1 upvote
pkincy
By pkincy (Nov 25, 2011)

It will be interesting how the slow lens/bigger sensor works vis-a-vis the LX5 with smaller sensor and faster glass.

The bigger sensor will allow less noise at high iso but you will need higher iso given the slower lens.

I suspect that the GX1/Gx glass will be a bit better combo than the LX5. And hopefully we will see an x version of the smaller faster primes pretty quickly.

I plan to find out.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Dec 14, 2011)

simple and straight forward,
that when translated into 35mm full-frame equiv.,
LX5 has a lens of 24-90mm f/9.2-15.2, and
GXPZ will be 28-82mm f/6.9-11,
so GXPZ is the winner by near a stop,
slightly larger than between 4/3 and APS-C cameras.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
zkz5
By zkz5 (Dec 19, 2011)

No... aperture does not "translate" like that. f/3.5-5.6 is equally bright in every format.

1 upvote
CedricL1984
By CedricL1984 (Dec 22, 2011)

Zkz5 is right. It does not affect light quantity. But, it does affect DOF and his brother: Bokeh!

0 upvotes
Xellz
By Xellz (Dec 28, 2011)

yabokkie, it's only true for DOF calculation, but does not affect how bright the lens is, f1.4 is same bright on m3/4, APS-C or FF.

0 upvotes
photahmo
By photahmo (Feb 18, 2012)

I am as well hoping my GH2/14-42 lens combo will be a step up from my beloved LX5 ... I am about to find out, I will post again after the lens gets here

0 upvotes
Desertbilly
By Desertbilly (Nov 22, 2011)

Do any vendors have this lens in stock yet? If not, does anyone know when it is supposed to be in stock?

0 upvotes
w3ndz
By w3ndz (Nov 18, 2011)

hrmm...I'm new to this whole photography thing. I've inherited my sister's old GF-1 with the 20mm pancake lens. So I'm looking for a zoom lens. Can anyone confirm if the new version of the Panasonic 14-42mm works with the GF-1?

0 upvotes
jll35
By jll35 (Nov 19, 2011)

yes it does work it this lens but. better to update your software for your camera to have better control of the lens.
I suggest you take your camera to the retail store and try it out first. link below for software

http://panasonic.jp/support/global/cs/dsc/download/fts/index.html

0 upvotes
w3ndz
By w3ndz (Nov 21, 2011)

That's great to hear. Will definitely take it with me to the store. Regarding the software update...(sorry to be a bother)...but which updates would I download?

Thanks for your reply! :)

0 upvotes
mayogeezer
By mayogeezer (Nov 10, 2011)

Great,. Smaller carrying bag.

0 upvotes
ahson
By ahson (Nov 9, 2011)

Does this lens has constant aperture?

0 upvotes
jll35
By jll35 (Nov 19, 2011)

no,it's f3.5-F5.6. but is step less, means when the zoom move aperture change without you knowing or hearing it, smooth from large to small aperture.

1 upvote
N13L5
By N13L5 (Nov 9, 2011)

Panasonic wouldn't want to make a lens like this for Sony's Nex5n, would they?

Should do it just out of compassion for us poor Sony users who have either clunky lenses or a pancake that's not very good :(

1 upvote
jll35
By jll35 (Nov 19, 2011)

that's the advantage of the MTF sensor it's smaller. I did not get the nex 5N for that reason. the largest aperture prime they have is F 2.8 with pan. the 20mm F 1.7 make up lighting and lower the iso for IQ.
funny that sony came up with the smallest body and throw in all chunky lens , they make it worse, with one hand, the kit lens feel like it's going to fall off.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Dec 14, 2011)

in Leica and Zeiss brands (which means less quality but they are actually same as good as any from Japanese makers) Pana 25/1.4 and Sony 24/1.8 will translate into 49/2.7 and 37/2.8 (35mm full-frame equiv.), so they are almost same as fast lenses.

0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (Dec 17, 2011)

I think the f/ stays the same; because it's a function of the given focal length (at wide; if zoom), over (divided by) the max settable aperture *area*(not diameter) there. In other words, while the effective focal length (in 35mm terms) is x2 (crop factor), for 4/3rds sensors, the actual sensor, is also smaller; in concert, with the actual (not 35mm terms) focal length. So, the aperture (as f/) is the same; even when looking at the focal length, in 35mm terms. Now, your Bokeh will be different, for a different sensor, and matching lens mount, but that's another thing.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Dec 17, 2011)

like it or not, bokeh is linked to translated/equivalent f-stop which also decides the picture quality (S/N ratio). they always changes the same way and amount without exception. there is no way you can break the link. that's why the equivalent f-stop is so powerful and straight forward a tool to understand your camera.

1 upvote
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Feb 23, 2012)

Actually, it's not a direct translation. There's no math I've found that accurately describes what can be discovered with testing. It is definitely a little less than the focal length conversion. How much, I can't say for sure. But there's definitely not a stop difference in DOF between 130mm/f2.8 on DX and 200mm/2.8 on FX.

0 upvotes
ahson
By ahson (Nov 8, 2011)

I like how the new X series lens is lighter and smaller, but hate it for no focus ring. It's a love and hate thing to me.

2 upvotes
jll35
By jll35 (Nov 19, 2011)

by adding they have to make the len bigger. the full purpose is compact. if you like focusing manually go with the older lens and loose the compactness, they 45-175mm have the focusing ring due to larger larger lens.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Dec 14, 2011)

I would also want a focus ring on a PZ lens. but I need it most in low light, not a situation I would want to use a 4/3 camera.

0 upvotes
foto2021
By foto2021 (Nov 5, 2011)

JimHancock said:
>Panasonic doesn't have a micro 4/3 lens worth owning, besides being
>painfully slow, especially the zoom lenses, what possible use is a power
>zoom on a lens that doesn't have a constant aperture?

Jim, you are asking the impossible here. You can't expect a constant aperture f/2.8 zoom lens with pro quality optics at a consumer price. If this is the type of lens you need, you should be looking at Canon or Nikon full frame DSLRs and pro lenses, and $$$$.

If Micro Four Thirds isn't for you, then it isn't for you.

2 upvotes
JimHancock
By JimHancock (Nov 5, 2011)

Panasonic doesn't have a micro 4/3 lens worth owning, besides being painfully slow, especially the zoom lenses, what possible use is a power zoom on a lens that doesn't have a constant aperture? I bought the af-100, the video camera with the large sensor so you can have a nice shallow depth of field, but you aren't going to have it at f freakin 5.6! what a bunch of idiots, those panasonic boys. There is one lens that works on that camera, one that takes advantage of the other features of the camera.... and it's a F4-5.6! .... just give us an f-2.8 zoom, that stays 2.8 throughout the zoom, please.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Button Pusher
By Button Pusher (Nov 8, 2011)

They have four m43 primes that are all 2.8 or faster. 14, 20, 25, and 45. The 14-140 is a great all around 10X still and video shooter, the 7-14 is a well respected UWA lens, and they have two fast zooms on the horizon. What is the problem exactly? That doesn't even cover the newer Olympus 12 and 45 primes, any other Olympus lens, any 43 lens that you could use with an adapter, or any manual focus lens that you could also use.

Comment edited 47 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
jll35
By jll35 (Nov 19, 2011)

@ button, they are always a whiner out there that has something to complaint no matter what the company products

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Dec 14, 2011)

> just give us an f-2.8 zoom
f/2.8 zoom is quit dark on 4/3. it's the same as if you are asking for an f/5.6 zome on 35mm ff. that said, an f/2.8 dark zoom will make it smaller (just think of an f/5.6 zoom for 35mm ff, they should be about the same size and weight), and small size, not the image quality, is what 4/3 is about.

1 upvote
zkz5
By zkz5 (Dec 19, 2011)

yabokkie has no idea what he's talking about. f/2.8 is the same brightness regardless of sensor size.

1 upvote
johnparas11zenfoliodotcom
By johnparas11zenfoliodotcom (Oct 13, 2011)

I really just wish it manually zoomed..

0 upvotes
DaveOl
By DaveOl (Oct 1, 2011)

I'm glad to see they're coming out with a better IQ, smaller and cheaper lens than the original 14-45mm lens.

DaveO

2 upvotes
mayogeezer
By mayogeezer (Nov 10, 2011)

I don't think it's cheaper than the original 14-45. It's just that you can't find many 14-45 these days.
And I don't know if the IQ really is better.

0 upvotes
kscharf
By kscharf (Sep 29, 2011)

Using a Panny lens on an Olympus camera begs a question, do BOTH IS systems (the lens and the body) engage and work together or do they end up fighting each other unless you turn one of them off?

0 upvotes
jalywol
By jalywol (Oct 1, 2011)

You should only use one IS system at a time, otherwise they will argue with each other......

2 upvotes
vyx
By vyx (Sep 27, 2011)

if i say this lens is ugly i make a compliment...

1 upvote
mediokre
By mediokre (Oct 1, 2011)

the body is ugly too. well-matched.

2 upvotes
mediokre
By mediokre (Oct 1, 2011)

the body is ugly too. well-matched.

1 upvote
zapatista
By zapatista (Sep 21, 2011)

Mas que nada me gusta el tama~o de la lente, pero no se que el ruido durante el proceso a enfocar esta bien por video o no. What do you think?

0 upvotes
sidneySOMOZA
By sidneySOMOZA (Sep 19, 2011)

Justo cuando pensé que ya todo se había hecho!
Bien por Panasonic, ganando mercado y avanzando entre sus competidores
al principio era un tanto esceptico con Micro 4/3, pero al probarlo y ver los resultados promete un buen futuro a este formato, adiciones como este lente lo hacen mas atractivo
enhorabuena Panasonic, ideas for life : )

1 upvote
Steve oliphant
By Steve oliphant (Sep 16, 2011)

I like it, looks really cool hope it take good quality pictures.The cool thing with this lens on your camera is it will fit in a front pocket on a shirt .......

0 upvotes
mecca
By mecca (Sep 13, 2011)

compact zoom lens, very interested..

1 upvote
lowpine
By lowpine (Sep 10, 2011)

fyi....pics of the new lens mounted on the g3 (and gf3)

http://www.photographyblog.com/news/panasonic_14-42mm_x_lens_hands-on_photos/

0 upvotes
hammerheadfistpunch
By hammerheadfistpunch (Sep 26, 2011)

any of those taken with the lens? or just of the lens?

0 upvotes
frelwa
By frelwa (Sep 8, 2011)

I'm very interested. This lens can replace any M43 kit zoom for a camera as pocketable as one with a pancake at an affordable price. It may become my E-PL2's first Panny lens.

2 upvotes
bondmavn
By bondmavn (Sep 6, 2011)

How's this for an option: B&H is buying the old 14-42 kit lens for $75. The kit lens gets average reviews. But
this new PZ 14-42mm X lens gives you a small sized lens that promises excellent IQ compared to the old one, with power zoom to boot. I have a G3 and have been using the 14-140mm with unexpectedly good results. It only gets better with the new X lens. Betcha I'm not the only one to be selling the old 14-42 while I can. There will come a point where B&H and others won't want any more of the old ones at any price. Then you're stuck with it.

2 upvotes
davidodd
By davidodd (Aug 30, 2011)

The system is all about giving options for all types of shooter. IMO this is a fabulous option. I bought the GH1 (and then a GF1 on sale) so I could still take good photos: but could also take it out with my new-born son without annoying the wife with a load of kit. OK, if I'm off to photo something: I wouldn't take this.... (currently loving my 50mm Sigma OM macro lens!) but if I was off to the park I'd put this on, chuck the GF1 in the bag (I hope it will fit in the leather retro case for the GF1/20mm lens) and if I need it I've got it. In fact give me a small hard case for this and I'd take this and the 20mm out as my 'just in case' camera kit. I'm sure that will give you better pics than the wife's point-and-shoot......

2 upvotes
amscmu
By amscmu (Aug 29, 2011)

power zoom and power focus are crap esp power focus.

They cannot match with the precision from mechanical focus.

powerzoom is another story, if you don't mind with precision, PZ is ok. However, PF is unacceptable.

Long ago when I first bought my first AF SLR, the minolta 3xi was on my top list. however, when I tried power focus. I just put it down. Unacceptable.

However, if you mean to use AF all the time, i think this lens is great (for its size).

2 upvotes
Antonio Rojilla
By Antonio Rojilla (Aug 30, 2011)

Then don't buy this lens. Why should every camera or lens, or every product for that matter, suit your own specific needs??? There must be options, options make life better. Pass on this, plenty of lenses with manual controls to suit you already. This lens just makes M43 a better system.

14 upvotes
M_Hobart
By M_Hobart (Sep 8, 2011)

This lens has just been announced. Do you have access to pre-production samples as DPReview does? Or are your comments based on other lenses of much earlier vintage, as you suggest?

0 upvotes
sergueis
By sergueis (Sep 15, 2011)

Just to rephrase a bit...

...Digital cameras are crap, especially digital cameras with not full frame sensor. They cannot match the image quality of film cameras. Long ago (in 1999) I bought my first 1.5M pixel digital camera. However, when I tried to shoot I just put it down. Unacceptable.
;)

5 upvotes
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (Apr 13, 2012)

> However, if you mean to use AF all the time, i think this lens is great (for its size).

Somebody still uses MF "all the time"???

Man, get real. I'm pretty sure you yourself use AF most of the time.

0 upvotes
kongor
By kongor (Aug 29, 2011)

So much for the stories about how "it cannot be done because of physical laws, optical laws, blah-blah-blah..." that we have been offered all these years. And now, the next step in the de-idiotization of the masses: small lens/large aperture. I actually have some (C-mount) zoom lenses that are 1.8/24-85 that are minuscule and weigh next to nothing. Of course "it cannot be done because of physical laws, optical laws, blah-blah-blah..."

2 upvotes
FlashInThePan
By FlashInThePan (Aug 29, 2011)

As long as we're concerned with de-idiotization, it is worthwhile considering c-mount lenses cover a frame that is ONE THIRD the size of the 4/3 sensor, and have a shorter flange distance.

0 upvotes
kongor
By kongor (Aug 31, 2011)

Same old blah-blah-blah. Come next year, it's suddenly there, all the old blah-blah-blah is deleted and new one started all over again, much like in the Groundhog Day movie!

2 upvotes
zxaar
By zxaar (Sep 16, 2011)

This can not be done is still true. This lens is of crap quality.

This is F3.5 lens , too slow.
There are no controls like manual focus , aperture ring etc on the lens. If someone wants to beat physics try a F2.0 lens with manual focus + aperture ring on it.

This is just a point and shoot lens sold separately. A lot of point and shoots have zoom lenses this small. Nothing special about it.

1 upvote
allenrob108
By allenrob108 (Aug 28, 2011)

I hope this camera is really good at higher ISO's, 400 and up. With glass this slow you will be shooting with small apertures, higher ISO's and slow shutter speeds a lot. It just appears that SMALL is THEE most important goal with these designs. I don't know maybe I'm wrong but I thought image quality was THEE most important goal of any camera. I want to see the prints with this lens and the m4/3 Panny's & Oly's at ISO 400 and up. If the camera does well at higher ISO's then Panny has itself a real winner.
I get the feeling that m4/3 manufacturers are painting themselves into a corner trying to go smaller and smaller. You've got smallish sensors which struggle somewhat at higher ISO's and they're trying to put small, slow lenses on them that require exceptional performance from the sensor.
I vaguely remember, way back when, small rangefinder cameras with full frame 35mm film in them. Hey maybe digital manufacturers could do that too. I must be genius coming up that one.

0 upvotes
Corros
By Corros (Aug 28, 2011)

Haven't you read the reviews here about the m43 camera's? The GH2 and the G3 are having really great results at high iso.

0 upvotes
Ben Ramsey
By Ben Ramsey (Aug 30, 2011)

You actually are wrong. Image quality is not the most important goal with all cameras. If it were, we would all be shooting large format from very heavy but stable tripods exclusively. But there is no absolute most important, but only a series of compromises and trade offs we all need to make to try to be happy with our gear. As individuals we require different things. Some want ultimate sharpness, some want huge apertures or perfect bokeh, others compact size or lenses optimized for video or a wide zoom range and so on. There is no best for everyone, and while this my not appeal to you or I, it is just what some have been waiting for.

4 upvotes
probert500
By probert500 (Sep 6, 2011)

m4/3 struggles at base iso let alone high iso. It's not that good especially compared to any aps sensor.

0 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Sep 8, 2011)

This lens is as "slow" as the standard kit zoom, but smaller and of higher glass quality.
If you need a brighter lens, you need to choose another one.

Besides, image quality is NOT the first criterion for every lens and system. If it was, more than 90% of all lenses would not be on the market.

0 upvotes
Entropius
By Entropius (Sep 19, 2011)

@Robert:

I have a plain old 4/3 camera, with a sensor more primitive than the m4/3 ones.

I have made poster prints from it that look fantastic, even one at ISO 800; although there is grain visible in the latter, it is not intrusive and does not detract from the shot. It most definitely does not "struggle at base ISO", even though it's not as good as the better APS-C sensors.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 181
12