Reading mode: Light Dark

The new 14-42mm "R" kit lens - less than stellar

Go to last post
D

Day Hiker

Forum Pro
Messages
11,113
Solutions
14
Reaction score
6,556
Location
Summit County, CO, US
Well, I've had a chance to look at several hundred photos that the new Olympus m.Zuiko 14-42mm "R" kit lens produced on my E-PL3 over the past two weeks. Bottom line: I'm extremely spoiled by classic 4/3 Zuiko HG and SHG lenses. I must stop down this kit lens about two stops in order to provide results that start to compare with what my classic 4/3 lenses gave me nearly wide open. What this means is that, at 42mm, this lens really doesn't get sharp until around f/11. On the bright side, I was beginning to think that this camera is soft. It's not. When the lens is stopped down, the images are very crisp and contrasty. The camera is capable of great work. The lens must be coaxed and coddled to produce great work.

OTOH, the lens does focus really really fast and accurately. :)

So, I'm in the market for some really sharp µ4/3 glass. Suggestions? I knew there was a reason that I never explored SG glass when I was shooting classic 4/3.

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA
 
James Pilcher said:
So, I'm in the market for some really sharp µ4/3 glass. Suggestions? I knew there was a reason that I never explored SG glass when I was shooting classic 4/3.

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA
Click to expand...
i've read that the 14-150 MSC is sharper at 14 (especially at center) 25 and 45
mm. distorsion is quite huge at wide angle but well corrected in jpeg.

9-18 seems also sharper wide open.

i'm gonna buy the E-PL3 too, but i'm waiting to find it with the 17 mmf2.8. sharpness seems quite good between f4 and f6.3, better than 14-42 mk II at 18 mm at least in the center.
in Europe, i'm afraid it won't be easy to get the E-PL3 + 17 mm f2.8. :(
 
James Pilcher said:
Well, I've had a chance to look at several hundred photos that the new Olympus m.Zuiko 14-42mm "R" kit lens produced on my E-PL3 over the past two weeks. Bottom line: I'm extremely spoiled by classic 4/3 Zuiko HG and SHG lenses. I must stop down this kit lens about two stops in order to provide results that start to compare with what my classic 4/3 lenses gave me nearly wide open. What this means is that, at 42mm, this lens really doesn't get sharp until around f/11. On the bright side, I was beginning to think that this camera is soft. It's not. When the lens is stopped down, the images are very crisp and contrasty. The camera is capable of great work. The lens must be coaxed and coddled to produce great work.

OTOH, the lens does focus really really fast and accurately. :)

So, I'm in the market for some really sharp µ4/3 glass. Suggestions? I knew there was a reason that I never explored SG glass when I was shooting classic 4/3.
Click to expand...
. . . Either wait for this new 14-42X and see if it suits you or go ahead and find a Panny 14-45. Even though I use the 14-150 more often because of its reach, I can't seem to bring myself to getting rid of the 14-45. It's a really good std. zoom IMO.
 
Hello James

Try to turn off Noise Filter and bring sharpening down to -2, and then try the 14-42mm again.

I do this with my E-P3 and 14-42mm and the pictures are much better.
 
James Pilcher said:
Well, I've had a chance to look at several hundred photos that the new Olympus m.Zuiko 14-42mm "R" kit lens produced on my E-PL3 over the past two weeks. Bottom line: I'm extremely spoiled by classic 4/3 Zuiko HG and SHG lenses. I must stop down this kit lens about two stops in order to provide results that start to compare with what my classic 4/3 lenses gave me nearly wide open. What this means is that, at 42mm, this lens really doesn't get sharp until around f/11. On the bright side, I was beginning to think that this camera is soft. It's not. When the lens is stopped down, the images are very crisp and contrasty. The camera is capable of great work. The lens must be coaxed and coddled to produce great work.

OTOH, the lens does focus really really fast and accurately. :)

So, I'm in the market for some really sharp µ4/3 glass. Suggestions? I knew there was a reason that I never explored SG glass when I was shooting classic 4/3.
Click to expand...
There are 2 problems with the kit lens. First, it never really gets good in the corners at 14mm (basically, it's underedesigned). The second problem is that build quality is so-so, and so there's a lot of variation. Sounds like you probably got a bad sample. A good sample hits optimal sharpness between f/5.6 and f/8 depending on the focal length.

m4/3 really needs a good standard zoom. The Panasonic 14-45 is better than either of the 14-42s, but it's still a far cry from the 12-60 or Panasonic 14-50.
--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey
 
I'm starting (just barely starting) to agree. I got an E-PM1 with the 14-42 and kept trying to coax a good image out of it. It's ok, but certainly not stellar. Switching to RAW helped coax some better detail out of the images. I was beginning to just chalk it up to a new camera and the inevitable learning curve until I put on Nikon 50mm legacy and even with my fumbling manual focus it was sharper. I then put on a used 14-150 I'd gotten. It suddenly looked like everything snapped into focus.

I say just barely because I haven't done a head to head test - just casual impressions. Here is the 14-150 at 150 where it is alleged to be soft:



 
Tim in upstate NY said:
James Pilcher said:
Well, I've had a chance to look at several hundred photos that the new Olympus m.Zuiko 14-42mm "R" kit lens produced on my E-PL3 over the past two weeks. Bottom line: I'm extremely spoiled by classic 4/3 Zuiko HG and SHG lenses. I must stop down this kit lens about two stops in order to provide results that start to compare with what my classic 4/3 lenses gave me nearly wide open. What this means is that, at 42mm, this lens really doesn't get sharp until around f/11. On the bright side, I was beginning to think that this camera is soft. It's not. When the lens is stopped down, the images are very crisp and contrasty. The camera is capable of great work. The lens must be coaxed and coddled to produce great work.

OTOH, the lens does focus really really fast and accurately. :)

So, I'm in the market for some really sharp µ4/3 glass. Suggestions? I knew there was a reason that I never explored SG glass when I was shooting classic 4/3.
Click to expand...
. . . Either wait for this new 14-42X and see if it suits you or go ahead and find a Panny 14-45. Even though I use the 14-150 more often because of its reach, I can't seem to bring myself to getting rid of the 14-45. It's a really good std. zoom IMO.
Click to expand...
It's near the top of my list. The X lenses are unknowns at this point. Let's hope Panasonic isn't just blowing smoke.

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA
 
Schwarzer hut said:
Hello James

Try to turn off Noise Filter and bring sharpening down to -2, and then try the 14-42mm again.

I do this with my E-P3 and 14-42mm and the pictures are much better.
Click to expand...
I've already done that, based upon good advice gleaned here. ;)

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA
 
mfbernstein said:
m4/3 really needs a good standard zoom. The Panasonic 14-45 is better than either of the 14-42s, but it's still a far cry from the 12-60 or Panasonic 14-50.
Click to expand...
...and maybe that good standard zoom with be the 14-42mm X or the 12-35mm X.

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA
 
James Pilcher said:
Well, I've had a chance to look at several hundred photos that the new Olympus m.Zuiko 14-42mm "R" kit lens produced on my E-PL3 over the past two weeks. Bottom line: I'm extremely spoiled by classic 4/3 Zuiko HG and SHG lenses. I must stop down this kit lens about two stops in order to provide results that start to compare with what my classic 4/3 lenses gave me nearly wide open. What this means is that, at 42mm, this lens really doesn't get sharp until around f/11. On the bright side, I was beginning to think that this camera is soft. It's not. When the lens is stopped down, the images are very crisp and contrasty. The camera is capable of great work. The lens must be coaxed and coddled to produce great work.

OTOH, the lens does focus really really fast and accurately. :)

So, I'm in the market for some really sharp µ4/3 glass. Suggestions? I knew there was a reason that I never explored SG glass when I was shooting classic 4/3.

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA
Click to expand...
The Mark I 14-42 is both sharper and focuses closer.

Downside: focuses slower and front element rotates.

Tedolph
 
Its too bad that you aren't satisfied with your lens. Maybe you do indeed have a bad copy. Do you have any samples that you could share that demonstrate what you are seeing, so maybe we could give better feedback on whether it is indeed a dud?
 
James Pilcher said:
So, I'm in the market for some really sharp µ4/3 glass. Suggestions? I knew there was a reason that I never explored SG glass when I was shooting classic 4/3.
Click to expand...
The 12mm f2 and the 20mm f1.7 are the two lenses I am using in place of the 14-42 right now. As soon as the 45mm f1.8 is mine, the 14-42+ range is covered.
 
Gregm61 said:
James Pilcher said:
So, I'm in the market for some really sharp µ4/3 glass. Suggestions? I knew there was a reason that I never explored SG glass when I was shooting classic 4/3.
Click to expand...
The 12mm f2 and the 20mm f1.7 are the two lenses I am using in place of the 14-42 right now. As soon as the 45mm f1.8 is mine, the 14-42+ range is covered.
Click to expand...
I'm looking at the same kit as you, but with the 25mm PanaLeica in place of the 20mm Lumix. No zoom, but lots of lens speed and sharpness. Seems like a good tradeoff for now.

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA
 
James Pilcher said:
mfbernstein said:
m4/3 really needs a good standard zoom. The Panasonic 14-45 is better than either of the 14-42s, but it's still a far cry from the 12-60 or Panasonic 14-50.
Click to expand...
...and maybe that good standard zoom with be the 14-42mm X or the 12-35mm X.
Click to expand...
The 14-42X is a lens designed primarily for size. I like the idea, but there is no reason whatsoever to expect the optics to be anything special.

The 12-35 probably will be good. Unfortunately, the range is rather restrictive. It is indeed a standard zoom but as a walkaround it's not going to be much of a 12-60 replacement. There's just not enough on the long-end.

--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey
 
mfbernstein said:
James Pilcher said:
Well, I've had a chance to look at several hundred photos that the new Olympus m.Zuiko 14-42mm "R" kit lens produced on my E-PL3 over the past two weeks. Bottom line: I'm extremely spoiled by classic 4/3 Zuiko HG and SHG lenses. I must stop down this kit lens about two stops in order to provide results that start to compare with what my classic 4/3 lenses gave me nearly wide open. What this means is that, at 42mm, this lens really doesn't get sharp until around f/11. On the bright side, I was beginning to think that this camera is soft. It's not. When the lens is stopped down, the images are very crisp and contrasty. The camera is capable of great work. The lens must be coaxed and coddled to produce great work.

OTOH, the lens does focus really really fast and accurately. :)

So, I'm in the market for some really sharp µ4/3 glass. Suggestions? I knew there was a reason that I never explored SG glass when I was shooting classic 4/3.
Click to expand...
There are 2 problems with the kit lens. First, it never really gets good in the corners at 14mm (basically, it's underedesigned). The second problem is that build quality is so-so, and so there's a lot of variation. Sounds like you probably got a bad sample. A good sample hits optimal sharpness between f/5.6 and f/8 depending on the focal length.

m4/3 really needs a good standard zoom. The Panasonic 14-45 is better than either of the 14-42s, but it's still a far cry from the 12-60 or Panasonic 14-50.
--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey
Click to expand...
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1400/cat/15

They must have gotten a superb copy. At f5.6, it is pretty sharp in the corners at 14mm.
 
Panasonic is already claiming that the 14-42mm X optics will be better than the highly regarded 14-45mm. I will believe it when I see it.
mfbernstein said:
James Pilcher said:
mfbernstein said:
m4/3 really needs a good standard zoom. The Panasonic 14-45 is better than either of the 14-42s, but it's still a far cry from the 12-60 or Panasonic 14-50.
Click to expand...
...and maybe that good standard zoom with be the 14-42mm X or the 12-35mm X.
Click to expand...
The 14-42X is a lens designed primarily for size. I like the idea, but there is no reason whatsoever to expect the optics to be anything special.

The 12-35 probably will be good. Unfortunately, the range is rather restrictive. It is indeed a standard zoom but as a walkaround it's not going to be much of a 12-60 replacement. There's just not enough on the long-end.

--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey
Click to expand...
--
GH2, GF1, & ZS3 Sample movies
http://www.youtube.com/user/mpgxsvcd#play/uploads
http://vimeo.com/user442745
GF1 Pictures
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4222674355/albums
 
tedolf said:
The Mark I 14-42 is both sharper and focuses closer.
Click to expand...
unless you get a "Wobbler" which will produce randomly shaky images between 60th and 200th sec - they fixed the issue with the far better designed front end of the Mk2 .

Also this is the first post I've seen saying the Mk2 is softer than the Mk1 , the reverse seems to be the common feeling around here .

I've not got either (never had a Mk2) just a panny 14-45 (which never gets used since getting the 14mm prime which is great on Oly bodies thanks to IBIS) and waiting for the new compact 14-42X to keep things small .

--
A Problem is only the pessimistic way of looking at a challenge

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Phocal
  • User review User review
OM SYSTEM M.Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm f/2.8 IS PRO Initial/Ongoing Review
2 3 4
Replies
69
Views
34K
Hmm1000
H
M
Starting Over after years of not keeping up with the tech
Replies
19
Views
470
UncleVanya
UncleVanya
Cossio
XF 16-50 New Kit lens vs. Tamron 17-70mm F2.8
Replies
18
Views
919
Jim in Hudson
J
M
From the past, to the future.
Replies
12
Views
1K
Tom Caldwell
T
M
XF 10-24mm f/4 R, XF 33mm f/1.4 & XF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 for backpacking landscape photography
Replies
9
Views
584
Mountaingrapher
M

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top