didn't read it that the 14-54 was part of the 'gear swap' at all - more that the OP was trying to position a 14-42's capabilities (which was on offer).
--
- enjoy your camera equipment -
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Is the 14-42 a good lens?
- Thread starter farrellfoto
- Start date
--
olyflyer
Forum Pro
But he says it's "part of a gear swap".
If it is a 1:1 gear swap then I agree with you, but unless we have a full list of what is included in the swap I just assume he knows about the value differences.
--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/
farrellfoto
Active member
Well. thanks everyone. Quite a range of opinions on the 14-42, but I have a better idea now.
About the gear swap: I'm looking to upgrade from my E1 (which I love, but...) and 14-54 to, say, an E3 and 12-60. The 12-60 intrigues me because it goes that much wider and gets rave reviews.
I offered the E1 w. 14-54 up for sale on craigslist as a way of raising money for the new combo. (Sad to say, in these times, my funds are limited.) The only serious buyer is a guy who keeps emailing me to buy the 14-54 only. I said no, it's a package deal, he raises his offer, I say what am I supposed to do with just the body?, he raises his price again and says he'll throw in a 14-42, I say I'll think about it. Which is where I'm at now.
So I came here to ask opinions. Could I live with this deal? It doesn't really fit my plans, so I'm inclined to say no.
--
Cheers from Canada. Travelogues posted regularly.
http://www.shadowdetail.typepad.com/curves_and_levels/
About the gear swap: I'm looking to upgrade from my E1 (which I love, but...) and 14-54 to, say, an E3 and 12-60. The 12-60 intrigues me because it goes that much wider and gets rave reviews.
I offered the E1 w. 14-54 up for sale on craigslist as a way of raising money for the new combo. (Sad to say, in these times, my funds are limited.) The only serious buyer is a guy who keeps emailing me to buy the 14-54 only. I said no, it's a package deal, he raises his offer, I say what am I supposed to do with just the body?, he raises his price again and says he'll throw in a 14-42, I say I'll think about it. Which is where I'm at now.
So I came here to ask opinions. Could I live with this deal? It doesn't really fit my plans, so I'm inclined to say no.
--
Cheers from Canada. Travelogues posted regularly.
http://www.shadowdetail.typepad.com/curves_and_levels/
however I was clearly wrong..........although I don't think the OP was ever tempted!
--
- enjoy your camera equipment -
olyflyer
Forum Pro
That lens has always, for some strange reason, raised quite hot opinions. It's a kit lens which replaced the 14-45 because it is cheaper to make. As simple as that.
I say go for it, if the price offered for the 14-54 is acceptable. Then after that, put the E-1 body up for sale and throw in a memory card at a certain price level and the 14-42 if another certain price level is reached. That way I think you get more money then selling the E-1 + 14-54. Anyway, selling the E-1 (body only) should not be a problem, but I don't really know, just guessing.
If I wanted the E-3 + 12-60 I'd do as I said. Another option is to get the E-3 body only and keep the 14-54. It is a nice lens and it has it's advantages over the 12-60. It's smaller, lighter and faster. The 12-60 is wider and a bit longer, but on the other hand it is heavier, larger and it is slower, but it has SWD motor.
--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/
J
jkrumm
Guest
From what I remember people saying the 14-45 is not as good as the 14-42.
I have plenty of 14-42 photos that are as sharp as you'd want them to be. I prefer the 12-60 overall, but of course the difference between wide angle lenses is sometimes hard to discern when looking at a photo, even if one scores higher on the charts.
--
John Krumm
Juneau, AK
I have plenty of 14-42 photos that are as sharp as you'd want them to be. I prefer the 12-60 overall, but of course the difference between wide angle lenses is sometimes hard to discern when looking at a photo, even if one scores higher on the charts.
--
John Krumm
Juneau, AK
I should have said ZD 14-42 and not 14-45mm... -Norm
Skeeterbytes
Forum Pro
If I might reframe the question a bit: Could you get by with the 14-42 instead of the 14-54 while waiting to leapfrog to the 12-60?
Yes. It's not an ideal substitute but in anything but low light shooting it should be an adequate stand-in.
Is this horse-trading (sorry for the mixed metaphor) worth it to eventually replace the 14-54 with the 12-60?
Yes! The 12-60 is worth a bit of struggle--it's a special lens.
Cheers,
Rick
Yes. It's not an ideal substitute but in anything but low light shooting it should be an adequate stand-in.
Is this horse-trading (sorry for the mixed metaphor) worth it to eventually replace the 14-54 with the 12-60?
Yes! The 12-60 is worth a bit of struggle--it's a special lens.
Cheers,
Rick
AnandaSim
Forum Pro
You didn't actually.
But I found the undue emphasis and over absolutes / extremes in describing aspects of the lens were way over the top. Reading that description, one felt that the lens was suitable for a beggar and was not fit to have a Zuiko label.
It's not what you said, it's how you said it.
--
Ananda
http://anandasim.blogspot.com/
Yes, it is for what it was designed for and that is an affordable "kit" lens with very good qualities.
Is it as "good" as the 14-54?; of course not. One would not expect it to be but it is a very good lens for its intended purpose.
--
Bill Turner
Eschew Obfuscation, Espouse Elucidation
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
Infrared Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/wmdt131/ir_photos
Is it as "good" as the 14-54?; of course not. One would not expect it to be but it is a very good lens for its intended purpose.
--
Bill Turner
Eschew Obfuscation, Espouse Elucidation
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
Infrared Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/wmdt131/ir_photos
olyflyer
Forum Pro
Well, sorry, I still say:
It doesn't stand up in that comparision at all because:
1. It is not as sharp and the resolution worse.
2. It does not show as much detail as the 14-54.
3. There is a terrible barrel distortion, especially at 14mm, which of course does not disturb everybody, but it disturbs me a lot.
4. It is really very slow focusing compared with the 14-54.
5. Also the aperture speed is not comparable, f/5.6 at 42mm is not really what you may wish for, especially not indoors or cloudy days.
6. It has plastic bayonet, which is not as good as metal.
7. The focus motor is really noisy.
All of this is no surprise, it is much cheaper and is aimed a kit zoom for the consumer models. Some people say it is better then the competition, I have no idea, I refuse to bash a brand I don't know enough about. It is a nice lens if you need a small, light and cheap lens, but it is a compromise.
I know there are people who say that "their" sample is better then the 14-54, but this is just BS, or they have a dud 14-54. Then we have some people who compare the two lenses wide open, a totally pointless comparision IMHO, becuase one is f/4.5 at 14mm the other is f/2.8 and the one is f/5.6 at 42mm the other is
If it is compared with something, it should be compared with similar lenses, like the 14-45 or the 17.5-45.
Is it better now? Anyway, regardless what you think, it can't be compared with any of the pro lenses, and in a comparision between the 14-54 and the 14-42 the 14-42 is losing because of my seven points (and maybe more), but as I said, it is not fair. I never said it is a bad lens, but it is of course not comparable with the pro line.
--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/
AnandaSim
Forum Pro
I think we should re-read the OP's original post, I will do that after I write this. I don't think he was asking about an A vs B comparison, he was just asking whether the lens was "ok" or not. He knew that the more expensive lens has advantages and a price.
True but I'm not checking. That's an absolute statement. These lenses have aperture range from max to min. They have a zoom range. Do the MTF values cross somewhere between the f/no and the focal lengths? I haven't checked.
Repeat of 1. Stating a point 2x makes people count it double.
I haven't noticed obvious barrel distortion to the extent that I look at a photo of a field or a face and say "whoa! gotta hurl this lens as far as I can throw". I have add-on Nikon lenses that fit on a Nikon point and shoot and I can very clearly see distortions - if they disturb me, I can touch up with a slider in my PP program. But a lens like any of the kits from all lenses - it hasn't been obvious to me unless I am shooting vertical and horizontal buildings. Some people are sensitive and I saw one fellow get upset with a Canon (I think) kit. If one is so picky, kit lenses are out.
I have held my friend's SWD 50-200. Yeah, it goes tuk, tuk very fast. I have the kit lens. I have shot the 50mm macro. Yeah - I can see if you are trying to catch trapeze you want the speed. But normal use? Below shot at 250mm manual focus. My friend's E3 with AF lens certainly got lots more shots. But I was too close to get full body length jumping down to the net anyway.
I think the OP knows that.
Yes. But it works so far.
The focus motor on all the AF lenses that I have used does not bother me. It's the zzip, chak of the shutter and the mirror that is loud to my ears.
Of course. That last sentence is to me the big one and should be at the top of the comments.
Haveagoodday
--
Ananda
http://anandasim.blogspot.com/
Kurt Petersen
Senior Member
It is not "As simple as that" at all. The 14-42 may be cheaper to make, or may not (I would guess the ED glass is more expensive to produce than a metal mount), but that is far from the end of the differences. Compared to the 14-45 the 14-42 is considerably lighter and more compact and sharper all round, especially in the corners and wide open. The 14-42 has less distortion and CA than the 14-45, the only area that the 14-45 is optically better is vignetting wide open at widest angle. Additionaly it is my opinion that the 14-42 is slightly faster and quieter foicusing than the 14-45.
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1087/cat/15
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/32/cat/15
My copy of the 14-45 also exhibited some quite funky 'rainbow flare' when the sun was just out of the frame which is not present in my 14-42.
farrellfoto
Active member
Just to be clear.
I was never expecting the kit lens to be equal to the 14-54, however naive I sounded in the original post; just trying to determine whether I could live with the difference.
Thanks to everyone who posted.
--
Cheers from Canada. Travelogues posted regularly. Costa Rica next.
http://www.shadowdetail.typepad.com/curves_and_levels/
I was never expecting the kit lens to be equal to the 14-54, however naive I sounded in the original post; just trying to determine whether I could live with the difference.
Thanks to everyone who posted.
--
Cheers from Canada. Travelogues posted regularly. Costa Rica next.
http://www.shadowdetail.typepad.com/curves_and_levels/
Ingrid M
Senior Member
I have had the 14-54, 14-45 and now have the 14-42 and 12-60.
Firstly, my copy of the 14-45 was a poor one and I was quite happy to offload it. My 14-42 is a far better lens, more portable and I think has better contrast and certainly out-resolves my copy of the 14-45.
My copy of the 14-42 has noticable barrel distortion, particularly on door frames and architectural shots when used at the widest end.
If you are concerned about using it as a stepping stone, it is certainly good enough for that. I don't plan to sell mine because coupled with the E420 makes a perfect lightweight and small semi-wide kit. (I also have the 7-14 on the E-3 for seriously wide stuff).
If you are concerned about barrel distortion, I would lean towards the 14-54 before the 12-60. The 12-60 (from my experience) is sharper and has better contrast than the 14-54 but gives a little more reach either end. It's really horses for courses.
I haven't noticed that the 14-42 is noticably slow to focus but then again, when I want fast focusing/fast burst rate/low light work I use the E-3 and SWD lenses.
The 14-42 was never designed as a top of the range, heavy duty performer but it is a very good quality little kit lens - particularly if you compare it to the likes of the canon kit lenses which I'm sure come fully equipped with built in sandpaper!!
--
Ingrid
If the grass is greener on the other side of the fence ....
WATER YOUR OWN LAWN !!!
http://ingridmatschke.smugmug.com
Firstly, my copy of the 14-45 was a poor one and I was quite happy to offload it. My 14-42 is a far better lens, more portable and I think has better contrast and certainly out-resolves my copy of the 14-45.
My copy of the 14-42 has noticable barrel distortion, particularly on door frames and architectural shots when used at the widest end.
If you are concerned about using it as a stepping stone, it is certainly good enough for that. I don't plan to sell mine because coupled with the E420 makes a perfect lightweight and small semi-wide kit. (I also have the 7-14 on the E-3 for seriously wide stuff).
If you are concerned about barrel distortion, I would lean towards the 14-54 before the 12-60. The 12-60 (from my experience) is sharper and has better contrast than the 14-54 but gives a little more reach either end. It's really horses for courses.
I haven't noticed that the 14-42 is noticably slow to focus but then again, when I want fast focusing/fast burst rate/low light work I use the E-3 and SWD lenses.
The 14-42 was never designed as a top of the range, heavy duty performer but it is a very good quality little kit lens - particularly if you compare it to the likes of the canon kit lenses which I'm sure come fully equipped with built in sandpaper!!
--
Ingrid
If the grass is greener on the other side of the fence ....
WATER YOUR OWN LAWN !!!
http://ingridmatschke.smugmug.com
knoblock
Senior Member
I am much happier with the results from the PL than the kit zoom. The out of focus areas and transitions are smoother, highlights are more controlled, the color is nice.
On the other hand, if you were to have the average person compare images from the two lenses for sharpness I believe they would not see much difference. I made a simple test indoors. On first glance, the ZD was very close. It is a matter of opinion, some might say the extra sharpness is not worth the price difference. I am not sure whether the ZD may actually be sharper or if it just has a digital look. It is possible my PL could be less sharp. I would like to do a controlled comparison.
The differences can be small but important, for example, the 14-54 is not that much sharper in the tests I have seen, for example, being able to read letters on a distant sign with the 14-54, but not the 14-42, which would be significant to me.
--
Steve
http://www.flickr.com/photos/knoblock/
http://picasaweb.google.com/steve.knoblock
Film will only become art when its materials are as inexpensive as pencil and paper. -- Jean Cocteau
Just to show some extraordinary results that can be achieved with the 14-42, if you are a good photographer...
http: dingobearfoto.blogspot.com/search/label/zd%2014-42mm
Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
http: dingobearfoto.blogspot.com/search/label/zd%2014-42mm
Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
AnandaSim
Forum Pro
Hi Am,
Really lovely photos. With apologies to dingobear for embedding his images for discussion and light hearted comment - they are really lovely photos....
Never saw so much terrible barrel distortion in my life. Dingobear must be a really skilled photographer to overcome them to produce such shots.
LOL
Ananda
http://anandasim.blogspot.com/
Really lovely photos. With apologies to dingobear for embedding his images for discussion and light hearted comment - they are really lovely photos....
Never saw so much terrible barrel distortion in my life. Dingobear must be a really skilled photographer to overcome them to produce such shots.
LOL
--
Ananda
http://anandasim.blogspot.com/
olyflyer
Forum Pro
I agree, "we" (i.e. YOU should have read the OP's post before typing this, because...
…and then later:
No, I only rarely look at charts actually, I look at the images people post and my own results in similar situations, so I really don't care much about MTF charts.
To me it's not a repeat, but OK, just bundle 1 and 2 if you like. It changes nothing.
Well, start taking interiors or architecture. Picky or not is totally uninteresting if you are stating facts.
Here is my classical example:
You might say I am picky, but this is terrible as far as I am concerned. The image is taken with the 14-45, but before you say anything, I assure you the 14-42 is not better. Here the lens is at 20mm f/3.9. At this focal length and aperture the barrel distortion is indeed terrible; at 14mm it is even worse. In case you don't know what it is, it is the bent lines at the top and the bottom of the image.
The same image taken with the 14-54 wide open at almost the same focal length. 19mm f/2.9. I know I am picky, but apart from my cleaned up kitchen, you also see the straight lines, even though my comparison is actually wrong because I both had wider focal length and a whole lot more opened aperture. This is just to demonstrate the superiority of the 14-54 in this respect.
Well, again, the comparison was between two wide angle zooms, not the 50-200, or the 50/2. I think we should at least keep us in the similar range of lenses.
I have tested the 14-42 several times, but admittedly never had one in my possession. Every time I tested the lens I felt it was as fast as the 14-45 I had, or the 17.5-45 I have now. It is considerably slower then the 14-54, but again, most people don't care and can live with it. Still, once again, fact is fact; the 14-54 is very fast. Anyway, you can't really compare the 14-42 with a long zoom or a macro lens.
It's a comparison, I have no idea what the OP knows and what not. Again...
...is not really saying how much he is aware of.
I never said it does not, although I don't really see Olympus mentioning this important fact. When I first heard about it I thought they are crazy, but yes, it works. Why shouldn't? Regardless of which, it is a budget solution and again, a fact, which I have no idea if the OP knows or not. In a comparison it is indeed important to know this.
But again, it is not a question of what is bothering you or me. Just stating the observation I made. The 14-54 is very quiet, which is important for some people, not for others. All depends on the environment you use the camera and how much you care.
The last sentence is where I thought it supposed to be. If you don't care to read the whole then it's a waste of time typing the rest. The OP asked about the 14-42 and the 14-54, I stated what I thought was the important points. I never said one is weather sealed, the other is not, or one is very light the other is not because those were the facts I was sure the OP knows about.
Regardless of which, I never said the 14-42 is bad, only if it is compared with the wrong class of lenses it is becoming a low quality lens. It is indeed very good, fits the needs of many people and if I could not afford anything else I would still be happy.
--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/
olyflyer
Forum Pro
What you can live with or not is only you can answer. I posted my opinion and some facts most people don't care about, or don't care to mention. Personally I could live with a lens like the 14-42 on the consumer cameras, but I think it is a shame to buy a top of the line body and using the 14-42.
You're welcome. It would be interesting to read the follow up post about how all this ends.
--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum