Reading mode: Light Dark

What M43 lacks is a good kit lens

Go to last post
You mean kit lens on the fast side, and yes only Fuji has one if you think a $700 lens fits the category just because it is bundled with some (expensive) cameras. Is the 17mm f1.8 a kit lens because Olympus bundles it with the E-P5?

At $700 is the Fuji a more attractive proposition than the faster and sharper $1000 12-40mm f2.8?

In my experience (and in tests) the best kit lenses are Canon EF-S and EF-M 18-55 STMs. Optically top-rate and inexpensive. No, not fast.

It would be nice if the m43 kit lenses were the best, but they are competitive, better than NEX kit lenses.
 
Fredrik Glckner said:
0MitchAG said:
The Panasonic 14-42mm 3.5-5.6 kit is just rubbish. I don't use it at all because of the horrid build quality...
Click to expand...
Do you think the build quality is horrid because the lens is fragile, or because it has a plastic exterior?

Personally, I have accidentally dropped the lens from three feet on a hardwood floor, and there was no damage to the lens whatsoever. As far as I can tell, the image quality and OIS is just as good as before.

I call that good build quality.

http://m43photo.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
I don't mind the body material all that much, and plastic's probably more suitable for the winter as well its better deformation (or lack of) properties. That's why your lens still works. But it's also why the zoom and focus rings are absolutely horrible. That is the main reason I don't use it, as well I prefer to just use longer focal lengths at much higher IQ. With the mark ii they improved the build a lot and boosted the centre resolution but it generally didn't get better across the frame which would have been beneficial for the wider side of the zoom. And I doubt a plastic vs metal mount really matters all too much, but would it hurt them to include it?
My point is that it could have been great, but instead it was only good. And at $400, I won't be buying it.
 
Last edited:
Here you go:



90ab195aeb8245108f12741410a15fdc.jpg
 
I notice that the Samyang 300/6.3 is missing from the list, as are all the Voigtländers.
 
Bhima78 said:
At least Panny has sold a few of their cameras with the 14mm option (I believe some with the 20 1.7 as well but its just way overpriced imo). Oly tried with their pancake but its pretty shabby compared to the Canon 22mm f2. Too bad that Canon lens is only on the not so great EOS M system.
Click to expand...
Panasonic will also sell GM1+15/1.7 as a kit. Looks attractive to someone who is unimpressed with a f/5.6 kit lens.
 
tomtom50 said:
You mean kit lens on the fast side, and yes only Fuji has one if you think a $700 lens fits the category just because it is bundled with some (expensive) cameras. Is the 17mm f1.8 a kit lens because Olympus bundles it with the E-P5?

At $700 is the Fuji a more attractive proposition than the faster and sharper $1000 12-40mm f2.8?

In my experience (and in tests) the best kit lenses are Canon EF-S and EF-M 18-55 STMs. Optically top-rate and inexpensive. No, not fast.

It would be nice if the m43 kit lenses were the best, but they are competitive, better than NEX kit lenses.
Click to expand...
The Fuji 18-55mm is a brilliant "kit" lens IMHO. Combined with their 14mm or 10-24mm and you're in IQ heaven.

I'm really liking the look of the Olympus 12-40 as well. It seems to make the 12mm prime essentially redundant.
 
0MitchAG said:
The Panasonic 14-42mm 3.5-5.6 kit is just rubbish. I don't use it at all because of the horrid build quality... but that's to be expected for a $169 lens.

Releasing a quite nice mark 2 didn't solve much of this though, because it was priced at $400 and the image quality wasn't improved, only size and a (mostly) internal zoom. So while they fixed most of the build quality issues (exlcuding the fact there is a version with a plastic, and another with a metal mount), they didn't tackle the greater issue of image quality or aperture. They missed the mark entirely.

I think a lens, even if slightly bigger but with a full internal zoom, metal mount, F4 aperture and more consistent image quality could sell well at about $500 tops. That's what it should have been. There is absolutely no point in charging absorbent prices for a half baked effort. You know, because then they went and killed it entirely with the release of the 12-32.
Click to expand...
You're expecting too much the 14-42 II R and 14-14 EZ are meant to compete with the non STM Canon 18-55 F/3.5 - F/5.6 and similiar from Nikon, the basic 18-55 from Canon isn't internal zoom either. Yes they're all cheap and a little bit nasty as is the equivalent Canon, but the Olympus lenses are the equivalent if not probably better than those lenses from Canon and Nikon in terms of image quality they produce.

Is there better out there? Yes that's the point and that's what differentiates kit lenses from more expensive lenses. You however, are asking for caviar for the price of catfish. That's the problem with Fuji as well, there are no cheap lenses even if you wanted them.

What Micro Four Thirds offers is a good range of lenses from your modest 14-42 II R and 40-150 R to lens like the 12-35 F/2.8, 12-40 F/2.8, 35-100 F/2.8, and soon to be released 40-150 F/2.8. You have the choice to buy high quality lenses or you can buy affordable lenses that do a job at a reasonable price.
 
Last edited:
I was talking strictly about the Panasonic lenses. I have no experience with Olympus. It's great that their are entry level offerings, but a lot of us are enthusiasts and I find the middle ground lacking. The Panasonic 45-150 is an excellent example of a fine kit zoom at a respectable price, in both build and IQ. Why they couldn't manage to do this even with the third iteration of the 14-42 bewilders me.
 
I have no real experience with the Panasonic mid range but, there's not a lot of lemons really except the old 45-200 which is soft, particularly on the long end.

Panasonic did just revitalise its 14-140 though, making it F/3.5 on the short end, its also substantially smaller and optically just as good as well, so there is that to look at in something around the $600-$700 price range and of course there's the nice little 12-32 for the GM1 and the 15mm prime that is just about to be released for the GM1 as well.

But yes, the recently released lenses have a few people in consternation that Micro Four Thirds has forgotten about the middle ground in attempting to get more pro users to buy into the Micro Four Thirds system. I do consider that being in the middle ground as well.
 
Last edited:
0MitchAG said:
I was talking strictly about the Panasonic lenses. I have no experience with Olympus. It's great that their are entry level offerings, but a lot of us are enthusiasts and I find the middle ground lacking. The Panasonic 45-150 is an excellent example of a fine kit zoom at a respectable price, in both build and IQ. Why they couldn't manage to do this even with the third iteration of the 14-42 bewilders me.
Click to expand...
14-42mm is a great focal length range.

It's just a shame that Olympus can't seem to get it right.
 
Ulric said:
I notice that the Samyang 300/6.3 is missing from the list, as are all the Voigtländers.
Click to expand...
I tried to assemble a list of AF lenses only.

If you include every lens that comes with a M4/3 lens mount, then the list goes way over 70 lenses. because there are around 25 more MF lenses from Samyang, SLRMagic, Voigtlander, Jakar, and Mitakon. Pluus, there are another dozen or so frightfully expensive cine lenses from Zeiss that can be had with M4/3 mounts too.

But... what would be the point? Leave them all off... only count the AF lenses... then delete the very similar type lens upgrades... and you still have three times as many lenses as Fuji has.
 
Ollie 2 said:
The Fuji 18-55mm is a brilliant "kit" lens IMHO. Combined with their 14mm or 10-24mm and you're in IQ heaven.

I'm really liking the look of the Olympus 12-40 as well. It seems to make the 12mm prime essentially redundant.
Click to expand...
If you don't need anything faster than f/2.8, then you are right. The Olympus 12-40mm lens makes plenty of prime lenses redundant:
  • 12mm f/2.0
  • 14mm f/2.5
  • 15mm f/1.7
  • 17mm f/1.8
  • 17mm f/2.8
  • 20mm f/1.7
  • 25mm f/1.4
  • 25mm f/1.8
  • 45mm f/1.8 (well, almost)
That's around $4,000 worth of lenses that you could replace with a $1,000 zoom lens, if you didn't need quite as much speed.

Of course, you could save even more if you didn't need anything faster than f/3.5.

The $300 12-50mm lens can make all of the above, plus a few others, redundant too.
 
clemcam said:
As I search for my next camera I am renting various mirrorless models. My current favorite is the Olympus OM-D E-M10. However, there is no suitable kit lens. Either you get a $100 piece of junk with an absurdly slow long end, or you have to buy a pro lens for $1000 which is too big for the M10 body and too slanted towards wide focal lengths. What is really needed is a 14-45mm or 14-50mm f/2.8-4 zoom of serious quality. Only Fuji with its 18-55mm for APS-C gets this right (at $700.) I would happily pay this much for an equally good M43 kit lens for the M10, but no such lens is available.
Click to expand...
1000$ for 12-40 2.8 is too much but 700$ for 18-55 2.8-4 is OK? Where is the logic in it?
 
Marty4650 said:
Ollie 2 said:
The Fuji 18-55mm is a brilliant "kit" lens IMHO. Combined with their 14mm or 10-24mm and you're in IQ heaven.

I'm really liking the look of the Olympus 12-40 as well. It seems to make the 12mm prime essentially redundant.
Click to expand...
If you don't need anything faster than f/2.8, then you are right. The Olympus 12-40mm lens makes plenty of prime lenses redundant:
  • 12mm f/2.0
  • 14mm f/2.5
  • 15mm f/1.7
  • 17mm f/1.8
  • 17mm f/2.8
  • 20mm f/1.7
  • 25mm f/1.4
  • 25mm f/1.8
  • 45mm f/1.8 (well, almost)
That's around $4,000 worth of lenses that you could replace with a $1,000 zoom lens, if you didn't need quite as much speed.

Of course, you could save even more if you didn't need anything faster than f/3.5.

The $300 12-50mm lens can make all of the above, plus a few others, redundant too.
Click to expand...
 
The 12-50 is only really useful if you have a need for a weather sealed lens and then that's only on the EM1 and EM5. The 12-40 is really what the 12-50 should have been from the beginning.
 
Last edited:
Olydude said:
The 12-50 is only really useful if you have a need for a weather sealed lens and then that's only on the EM1 and EM5. The 12-40 is really what the 12-50 should have been from the beginning.
Click to expand...
If one requires a weather sealed sucky lens, the 12-50mm is certainly your guy.

;-)
 
clemcam said:
As I search for my next camera I am renting various mirrorless models. My current favorite is the Olympus OM-D E-M10. However, there is no suitable kit lens. Either you get a $100 piece of junk with an absurdly slow long end, or you have to buy a pro lens for $1000 which is too big for the M10 body and too slanted towards wide focal lengths. What is really needed is a 14-45mm or 14-50mm f/2.8-4 zoom of serious quality. Only Fuji with its 18-55mm for APS-C gets this right (at $700.) I would happily pay this much for an equally good M43 kit lens for the M10, but no such lens is available.
Click to expand...
…an f2.8~4 14-45 would be very nice indeed, and I would have glommed on to it. Even more, an f2.8~f4 12-45 -- that would be heaven on a stick with a hat on and a constant f4 12-45 would have done the job very well.

And I agree the Panny f2.8 12-35 and the Oly f2.8 12-40 are a bit big -- I use the Panny professionally but I can't walk around with it (the f3.5~f5.6 12-32 is great to walk around with on the G6).

But to ridicule the standard 14-45, and 14-42 zooms as $100 junk is ridiculous. The original Panny 14-45 is still available and is a superb lens, albeit strangled at the long end by f5.6, and the current Oly 14-42 II R is of equal excellent IQ and a great lens too although suffering the same strangulation.

I have used both professionally and have happy customers for my pix taken with them.

They are definitely not junk.

Cheers, geoff
 
Then you need to remove the MF Tokina reflex as well. But it would imho be more accurate to include all the third party lenses with native mft mount. That there are many of them is hardly a problem.
 
Ollie 2 said:
Marty4650 said:
Ollie 2 said:
The Fuji 18-55mm is a brilliant "kit" lens IMHO. Combined with their 14mm or 10-24mm and you're in IQ heaven.

I'm really liking the look of the Olympus 12-40 as well. It seems to make the 12mm prime essentially redundant.
Click to expand...
If you don't need anything faster than f/2.8, then you are right. The Olympus 12-40mm lens makes plenty of prime lenses redundant:
  • 12mm f/2.0
  • 14mm f/2.5
  • 15mm f/1.7
  • 17mm f/1.8
  • 17mm f/2.8
  • 20mm f/1.7
  • 25mm f/1.4
  • 25mm f/1.8
  • 45mm f/1.8 (well, almost)
That's around $4,000 worth of lenses that you could replace with a $1,000 zoom lens, if you didn't need quite as much speed.

Of course, you could save even more if you didn't need anything faster than f/3.5.

The $300 12-50mm lens can make all of the above, plus a few others, redundant too.
Click to expand...
I was with you right down to your final comment.

IMHO the 12-50mm sucked the big one. I certainly hope the 12-40 is substantially better than that.
Click to expand...
I own the 12-50mm, and I agree that it is a mediocre lens. I will probably end up replacing it with a 12-40mm lens.

I think the problem is the lens is too ambitious. Weather sealed.... huge range.... macro function... makes it a handy all around lens, but the speed is slow, and the optical quality lacking.

But for the price... it isn't that bad. When bundled with a camera, it only costs $300. I have seen used ones selling for as low as $200. Naturally, a $1,000 lens should do a lot better. At least, one would hope so.

--
Marty
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6101/6318442842_7b93cb589b.jpg
 
Last edited:
Ollie 2 said:
Olydude said:
The 12-50 is only really useful if you have a need for a weather sealed lens and then that's only on the EM1 and EM5. The 12-40 is really what the 12-50 should have been from the beginning.
Click to expand...
If one requires a weather sealed sucky lens, the 12-50mm is certainly your guy.

;-)
Click to expand...
The type of lenses I want are really not relevant to this discussion, but, shall we say 12mm isn't enough width for me and I'm waiting on the 7-14 F/2.8 to knock prices down a little bit further in that lens width. The 7-14 will remove all my need for primes and I'll be able to get rid of my 14-42 as I don't really tend to use zooms outside of the in between widths.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Why do I prefer zoom lenses over primes on M43?
2
Replies
27
Views
176
SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany
SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany
B
Spring cruise to Japan - kit
Replies
14
Views
920
BWD
B
ryan1mcq
Beginner landscape lens question
Replies
9
Views
125
C Sean
C
G
  • Solved
Please help me choose between Olympus Pen and OM-D line as a first M43 body
2
Replies
37
Views
451
Gelatin silver print
G
Michael J Posner
Opinion on Olympus OM-D E-M1X plus 6 lens kit for $3,000
2
Replies
21
Views
402
Michael J Posner
Michael J Posner

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