Quality of OLy vs. Pana lenses vs. size?

Hello,

Other than reading this forum I am new to m4/3, and have a G3 on order. I ordered the Pana 20mm, 14-42, and 45-200 lenses so that when the camera arrives I will have a complete kit. No stores around here carry Panasonic m4/3 cameras or lenses so I ordered based on what I had read in the forums.

The lenses arrived today, and boy was I surprised (disappointed) at the size! I like the 20mm, but the 14-42 and 45-200 are not significantly smaller than my past DSLR kit lenses. I will keep the 20mm, but am debating returning the other two. I don't like the feel of the 14-42 - it just feels kind of cheap (though fairly light which is nice), but the 45-200 seems very well made.

Is panasonic lens quality regarded as much better than the Oly lenses making it worth the extra heft? The Oly lenses seem to be about half the size and weight - I was able to handle them at a local store and was expecting similar from the Panasonics. It seems like the lightest kit possible would be a 14mm, 20mm, and the Oly 40-150 on some m4/3 body? Would that be advisable on a G3 or should I then stick with an Oly body (stabilization) even though that was not my first choice?

Lastly, is the 14mm prime, other than size convenience, worth getting to replace the Oly or Pana 14-42 kit lens? (Image quality, etc.)

Thanks for the input!

Having handled both the Oly 14-42mm and 40-150mm I found the Panasonic Lenses superior in build and quality.

Don't forget the Mega O.I.S. in the Panasonic Lenses is mated to your G3. I have found that O.I.S. is superior to CCD sensor shift (IBIS).

Panasonic make brilliant kit lenses and the 20mm is the most amazing for the price pancake for sharpness and contrast etc.

spritley said:

Hello,

Click to expand...

...

spritley said:

The lenses arrived today, and boy was I surprised (disappointed) at the size! I like the 20mm, but the 14-42 and 45-200 are not significantly smaller than my past DSLR kit lenses. I will keep the 20mm, but am debating returning the other two. I don't like the feel of the 14-42 - it just feels kind of cheap (though fairly light which is nice), but the 45-200 seems very well made.

Is panasonic lens quality regarded as much better than the Oly lenses making it worth the extra heft? The Oly lenses seem to be about half the size and weight - I was able to handle them at a local store and was expecting similar from the Panasonics. It seems like the lightest kit possible would be a 14mm, 20mm, and the Oly 40-150 on some m4/3 body? Would that be advisable on a G3 or should I then stick with an Oly body (stabilization) even though that was not my first choice?

Click to expand...

There's no general rule that holds true. While the panny kit 14-45 beats the Oly m.zuiko 14-42 mkI. I would say the Oly 14-42 mkII beats the Panny 14-42 by a long shot. The 20mm f/1.7 beats the 17mm f/2.8 pretty handily. The panny 7-14 has better center sharpness. The oly 9-18 has better corner to corner characteristics. Both the 75-300 & the 100-300 pretty much suck at the long end. (although the 100-300 has annoyingly lumpy bullseye characteristics). The 40-150 & the 40-200 both seem nearly identical to me. The It's really all over the place.

--
'I have no responsibilities here whatsoever'

eBaying something, I understand. The lenses you have are good. I just went through the same thought process by buying the much smaller and lighter Oly 40-150 to replace my 45-200. Huge mistake. Thankfully, I hadn't sold the 45-200 yet. I had no idea how much difference OIS made with video, as well as how much smoother the Pany lens' focusing ring works. I also think that the Pany is somewhat sharper. These aren't just my opinions; I showed the videos and stills to some friends for their comments. Now, the Oly will be sold at a loss.

I come from the dSLR world, and I think that the m4/3 lenses are adequately smaller and lighter. Like you, I was surprised at how big the 45-200 lens was when I bought it about a year ago. However, compare it to a similar (75-300) dSLR lens. I also have a Sony A33 and appreciate Sony's new, lighter and smaller, prime lenses. Almost as compact as the m4/3 systems.

One more thought. I have read that the G3 has the same ETC feature as the GH2 (my second m4/3 camera). If that is true, your zooming range will be incredibly increased and the OIS in the 45-200 lens will be even more important...same for the 14-42. If you don't know ETC, read the articles about the GH2 on the Luminous Landscape website.

I would recommend you consider the new Olympus 14-42mm MSC version instead of the Panasonic. It's smaller and lighter than the Panasonic version and I think it's sharper as well. The neat retractable storage position makes the lens nice and small for carrying. Image stabilization isn't really a big deal in that focal range. It's my favorite lens on my GH1 and the new MSC version focuses super fast and silently.

Corkcampbell said:

by buying the much smaller and lighter Oly 40-150 to replace my 45-200. Huge mistake.

Click to expand...

There have been numerous reports on the forum that the Oly 40-150 is sharper than the the Panny 45-200.

Reports of the 45-200 at the long end > 150mm were very negative on that lens.

spritley said:

Is panasonic lens quality regarded as much better than the Oly lenses making it worth the extra heft? The Oly lenses seem to be about half the size and weight - I was able to handle them at a local store and was expecting similar from the Panasonics. It seems like the lightest kit possible would be a 14mm, 20mm, and the Oly 40-150 on some m4/3 body? Would that be advisable on a G3 or should I then stick with an Oly body (stabilization) even though that was not my first choice?

Lastly, is the 14mm prime, other than size convenience, worth getting to replace the Oly or Pana 14-42 kit lens? (Image quality, etc.)

Click to expand...

IMHO the optical advantage that 14-45 lens has over old Zuiko 14-42 is way overblown. Yes, Pany is slightly better optically by all accounts, but that makes very little difference in practice. I don't have 14-45 to compare, but I have 20mm f1.7 prime, which is yet better than 14-45 optically by all tests and accounts. When I am choosing which lens to put on my Pen, 20mm or 14-42, the sharpness advantage of 20mm is the very last thing that enters my mind.

Some people don't like the collapsible construction and wobbliness of 14-42 Mk1. If you are fine with that, buy this lens and be happy, it's a nice lens. To me its size/weight makes it a clear winner over Pany zooms. Zuiko 14-42 MK2 is yet a better lens, but harder to get cheaply. Your choice. You'll lose IS though.

14mm chief advantage is size. Optically it seems no better than 14-42 lenses (both Oly and Pany). If your body is G3, I don't think this lens makes any sense.

Personally, I have no time for the 20 but I haven't used a "standard" lens for 40 years or more -- just not my style. The 14 pancake looks useful but it is grossly overpriced in my view. Most of the major lens makers have now thrown their hats into the m43 ring so we should be seeing some great new lenses and more competition in this field pretty soon.

Is your size comparison of the 14-42 really right? I just looked up the specs for the comparable Nikon DX lens, and it is very much bigger than the Panny lens. The Nikon is the f3.5~5.6 17-55 mm so it is directly comparable. Its dimensions are 73 x 79.5mm (height measured from camera flange seat) and weighs 265 g (9.3 oz), while the Panny f3.5~5.6 18-42 mm is 63.6 x 60.6mm and weighs 165g (5.82oz).

Cheers, geoff
--
Geoffrey Heard

http://pngtimetraveller.blogspot.com/2010/12/what-does-standard-of-living-mean-in.html

Thanks to all....
I'll have to look up this ETC feature and see what it is....

You are right, in comparison to my old Nikon 70-300 it is very much smaller, but in comparison to my Pentax 55-200 not as much as I expected (don't have either lens anymore so going off memory). Guess I wasn't really comparing equivalent focal lengths if you consider the effective fl of each with their respective crop factors and the fact that both the Panny and Nikon have VR/IS in the lens..... just kept hearing 'micro' 4/3rds and expected 'tiny'!

spritley said:

Thanks to all....
just kept hearing 'micro' 4/3rds and expected 'tiny'!

Click to expand...

Think "small" instead of "tiny" and you'll be able to give the system a good evaluation.

Plenty of good info. in this thread. M4/3 makes a GREAT lightweight kit. I get four lenses and lunch in a LowePro 100 Sling bag and it weighs less than my a850 with one lens.

Someone in another recent thread ranked all the M4/3 lenses in categories like "Pro", "Plenty Good" and "Just OK". That ranking matched my experience.

Fwiw, the 45-200 is no-problems good up to 150mm. Above that I was still able to get sharp prints at 11 x 17, but it does get soft. For awhile I didn't like the lens because of the 150 - 200 softness, but now I just think of it as a good 45-150 with a bit of a bonus at the long end.

IMHO, the 7-14 is a dream. Likewise the 20 -- but it's not a focal length I'm naturally interested in. The 45Macro is a lens I'd very much like to have.

the lenses seemed about equal. If you check; you'll see that I started a thread about the Oly lens on a GH2 a couple of weeks ago eliciting opinions, and participated in a couple of others. Doesn't make any difference though, as I was using them on a GF1 and a GH2 and the OIS (apparently) made a big difference (or maybe there is some mismatch between my particular Oly lens and my cameras, or my Oly is defective). However, if I am really concerned about attaining the maximum sharpness for stills, I'm going to take a dSLR. I even have an A33 SLT with a very small, light 85mm 2.8 prime that excels in my kinds of situations, but the 45-200 on an m4/3 body gives more reach. It's (A33) actually a companion to my GH2. The GF1 (usually with the 20mm or 14mm attached) is for my carry everyday portability solution (along with a DP2), and the GH2 is when I need video flexibility, which is quite often because of my work. I'm sure that for other kinds of shooting, the Oly may indeed be the better, and sharper, lens, especially when used on an Oly body with its BIS.

But, the lens (and GH2) was bought primarily for video and, there was such a major difference in performance (in my kind of shooting, which means no tripod) of the two lenses at their maximum zoom, that I knew within five minutes that the Oly would go; it was just impossible to hand-hold it steady enough; the zoom mechanism (ring) was also not nearly as smooth as that of the Pany, which increased the problem, adding noise that even my external microphone picked up. I had read that in reviews, but was still surprised at the difference. The lens just couldn't be used for handheld video anywhere near its extended limits, whereas the Pany did quite well - only (very) occasional software stabilization was needed later. In fact, the Pany even did better using the GH2's ETC feature, which made it - forgot exactly how much - a 1200+mm (35mm eq.) zoom than the Oly did at its 300mm. It appears that the G3 has the same feature, by the way, which is cool and should be considered whey judging lenses. Another thing I noticed was that, because the zoom range of the Pany was greater, it offered additional shallow DOF to the videos in a lot of situations. As you know, getting shallow DOF is a challenge in m4/3 due to sensor size so any help I can get in that area is significant, especially since it really makes some videos much more attractive than those shot with traditional camcorders. Again, if I need shallow DOF in still photos, such as portraits, I will turn to a hulking, heavy, almost non-portable, increasingly hated, dSLR, that (with grip) sits on a shelf like a menacing Tiger tank...waiting for its occasional trip outside to scare children and puppies, and to give me back aches the next day, which remind me how nice the m4/3 (and A33 with the new lighter lenses) system is and how far we've come in just a few years.

Although I noted above that I saw (and felt) the difference almost immediately, I did spend a couple of afternoons later shooting with the two lenses and doing comparisons - I just deleted the 20 or so gigs of files yesterday.

Lastly, and this is really subjective and concerns video, the colors of the Pany seemed to be more vibrant. It's a little more difficult to adjust colors (without some compromise) in video than in just processing a RAW still. The Pany also seemed to focus faster at 150 or more when shooting my test videos, which were street scenes, people coming towards me or going away from me on bicycles, people speaking animatedly across a large street, small neighborhood children playing and participating in races, dogs fighting, and head shots of people walking in the distance.

Trust me, I wasn't looking for this outcome, which was a surprise; I had even drafted the auction info for my posting of the 45-200 on eBay. I clearly wanted the Oly to be the lighter and smaller solution. But, reading posts and reviews of which lens is sharper (or steadier, or smoother zooming) when shooting BIF or some other kind of photography does not necessarily apply to my situation. That is why I just wrote a note of caution to the OP that he/she should try the lenses on whatever camera (G3?) they are to be used on, and with the OP's kind of shooting before making any decisions. Of course, that may mean that the return time for the lenses is exhausted before the camera arrives, but there are ways around that as well, such as just returning the lenses and buying them again or working out a deal with the retailer.

spritley said:

It seems like the lightest kit possible would be a 14mm, 20mm, and the Oly 40-150 on some m4/3 body?

Click to expand...

My plan, too, which didn't work out...

spritley said:

Lastly, is the 14mm prime, other than size convenience, worth getting to replace the Oly or Pana 14-42 kit lens? (Image quality, etc.)

Click to expand...

In my opinion, the 14-42 deserves more respect than many reviewers give it. It makes a nice (84mm) companion when you don't want to carry the 45-200, or 40-150. You could also look for a deal on a used 14-45 - it's cost new is a bit high. This is the prior kit lens, is not so plasticy, has a metal lensmount, and most say somewhat better performance. I have both, but the 14-42 came with a recent purchase and so will be eBayed as "almost new." For that reason, I haven't really tested it or done comparisons.

Look at one of the recent articles on the GH2 on the Luminous Landscape website; it is devoted to the ETC, which is hardly mentioned in the manual, but which is being discovered and touted by users. Thanks to a recent post on this forum, I noticed in the G3 website that Pany now mentions it as an advantage - still at the bottom of the page, though.

The LL article says that you lose no video quality when using it...that's my experience, although you can never really utilize it completely on a lens like the 45-200 without a tripod. However, I was also really pleased with the stills that can be captured. Supposedly, there is loss of quality, but, wow, they're still okay, especially since it may be the only way you can get a close-up of something ridiculously far away. It's not a feature that would be used every day, but if I found that I was carrying my camera and only had my 14mm, being able to turn that 14mm into 50mm (or whatever - can't remember the ratio) when unexpectedly needed is nice, and a kind of insurance.

The above is based on my GH2, and light experimenting; I don't know if it is the same, worse, or better with the new G3.

"For awhile I didn't like the lens because of the 150 - 200 softness, but now I just think of it as a good 45-150 with a bit of a bonus at the long end."

That is precisely my view of the 45-200; really quite good up to 150 . . . but i really don't have much need for north of that anyway.

The 14-45 is, in my opinion, the sharpest corner-to-corner mid-range zoom i've ever used. I'm a Nikon user, so can't comment on the Canons, but my 14-45 is every bit as good as my 24-70 . . . just not f2.8.

-- gary ray

--

Semi-professional in early 1970s; just a putzer since then. interests: historical sites, virginia, motorcycle racing. A nikon user more by habit than choice; still, nikon seems to work well for me.