14mm Pana as good as 12mm Oly

[photo perzon]

My results with the 14mm 2.5 Panasonic are just as good as the samples with the Olympus 12mm 2.0, in indoor light with no flash.

I could not tell the difference between the two. If I look, sometimes the 14mm is sharper, I guess the 12mm wins but only cause I paid more for it.

I am very proud of the 14mm, not only does it produce great pictures, it is also very thin and makes the camera pocketable.

I see no reason to keep the 12mm and plan to return it.

I was expecting to see a difference. In poor light they are very similar.

 

[kev777zero]

you'll probably see the difference on a test ha!

I've been skeptical about "lens quality" & so instead look at practical usage of lens (focal lengths, apertures, etc...). I feel like lens quality is a minor issue when you compare to things such as the photographer's skill & post-processing.

oly 12mm f2 is probably a popular lens among enthusiasts but to me it suffers an identity crisis. It just screams not too wide, not too fast (aperture), not too small, & most of all not too cheap!
--



http://www.wix.com/drkevinlyu/photography

 

[tgutgu]

My results with the 14mm 2.5 Panasonic are just as good as the samples with the Olympus 12mm 2.0, in indoor light with no flash.

I could not tell the difference between the two. If I look, sometimes the 14mm is sharper, I guess the 12mm wins but only cause I paid more for it.

I am very proud of the 14mm, not only does it produce great pictures, it is also very thin and makes the camera pocketable.

I find pancake designs generally not ideal, because they can cause compromises in build, usability, and image quality and nowadays too much is sacrificed for smallness (i.e. body usability). To my observation the 12mm is sharper and better at the corners, but it costs almost twice as much.

However, Olympus brought with the 12mm some fresh design to m4/3 lenses and fortunately did not follow the pancake paradigm with this one.

With the 14, 17, and 20mm lenses, I think we have enough pancakes. I want real stuff which I can grap! Therefore the new PL 1.4/25mm is about the right design.

I see no reason to keep the 12mm and plan to return it.

I was expecting to see a difference. In poor light they are very similar.

--
Thomas

 

[fermy]

Well, I don't have a horse in this race, since I don't own either lens. However, 14mm is not a bargain either and then my sources tell me that 12mm is wider, faster, sharper, and more expensive. Earth shattering, I know.

 

[millsart]

I really don't mean any offense but your "test" are always awful.

Remember the ones you did between your x100 and ep3 where you didn't frame anything the same, shot them at totally different speeds and with a very different white balance ?

In absolute test the 12mm does have the better edge performance but you are correct there isn't much difference between them and the 14 is good.

Given you've seem to have bought every camera under the sun I don't see why you wouldn't just go for the 12mm though,

You always seem to want "the best"

I mean after all, you said you wanted to keep your X100, just because some people said it could compare to a Leica, and Leica's are expensive so naturally that made you like your X100 even more, even though it sounded totally wrong for your needs.

But then weren't you saying how you needed the GF3 instead ?

14mm certainly fits that better than the 12

My results with the 14mm 2.5 Panasonic are just as good as the samples with the Olympus 12mm 2.0, in indoor light with no flash.

I could not tell the difference between the two. If I look, sometimes the 14mm is sharper, I guess the 12mm wins but only cause I paid more for it.

I am very proud of the 14mm, not only does it produce great pictures, it is also very thin and makes the camera pocketable.

I see no reason to keep the 12mm and plan to return it.

I was expecting to see a difference. In poor light they are very similar.

--
http://www.millsartphotography.com

 

[tgutgu]

you'll probably see the difference on a test ha!

I've been skeptical about "lens quality" & so instead look at practical usage of lens (focal lengths, apertures, etc...). I feel like lens quality is a minor issue when you compare to things such as the photographer's skill & post-processing.

oly 12mm f2 is probably a popular lens among enthusiasts but to me it suffers an identity crisis. It just screams not too wide, not too fast (aperture), not too small, & most of all not too cheap!

Didn't many here, want "pro" level, fast, high quality, good looking, more analogish glass?

To me the 12mm fills a big gap. It is after all the fifth fastest native m4/3 lens, not too bad.

To me the 2.5/14mm has more for an identity crisis. The 14-45mm is only 1 stop slower, but quite sharp as well. The 14mm sits in a cluster of currently 7 lenses, which also cover 14mm, for six of them 14mm is at the end of the focal range.

The 12mm is covered only by two other lenses (7-14mm and 9-18mm) and is two stops faster.

--



http://www.wix.com/drkevinlyu/photography

--
Thomas

 

[kev777zero]

not that I own or want either lenses, but I'm not so clear of the hype for oly 12mm f2 - namely the price.

in Asia I can get a brand new pany 14mm f2.5 for $200 (& the pany 20mm costs $500, weird eh?) when the oly 12mm f2 is $800.

with the pany-leica 25mm 1.4 @ $500 and oly 45mm f1.8 at sub $400, I don't understand the point of oly 12mm. and if it's wide you're going for, there's the cheaper oly 9-18mm & the high quality 7-14mm!

what makes oly think they can charge such price? magical "lens quality & world's fastest AF speed (true?)"? come'on they ain't no leica!

just my 2c

--



http://www.wix.com/drkevinlyu/photography

 

[fermy]

not that I own or want either lenses, but I'm not so clear of the hype for oly 12mm f2 - namely the price.

in Asia I can get a brand new pany 14mm f2.5 for $200 (& the pany 20mm costs $500, weird eh?) when the oly 12mm f2 is $800.

Yes, in such price structure 14mm looks like a good lens to buy. In Europe/US the price is around 400$/320Euros, almost exactly the same as 20mm, while the lens is not much faster and sharper than kit zooms at 14mm. In such price structure, 14mm looks like one of the most overpriced lenses ever and 12mm price seems much more palatable.

 

[Mike Ronesia]

I just don't have any desire for either right now. I'd love a wide, fast prime but neither of these is wide enough or fast enough to justify the price when I have the 7-14 all ready. The f4 on the 7-14 has not been an issue with the GH2 being able to use higher ISO's and at 7mm I can't see a need for shallow DOF. I'll wait for something better to come along.
--
It's easier to ask for forgiveness then to ask for permission.

 

[453C]

I could not tell the difference between the two. If I look, sometimes the 14mm is sharper, I guess the 12mm wins but only cause I paid more for it.

From that, I gather you believe the less expensive lens is sharper, but the more expensive lens "wins" because ... it cost more? Interesting.

I am very proud of the 14mm, not only does it produce great pictures, it is also very thin and makes the camera pocketable.

You're proud of a lens? Again, interesting.

Before anyone gets too excited about any of this, I suggest they read the above again and reconsider the weight they give to the observations.
--
http://453c.smugmug.com/

 

[Gethenderson]

you'll probably see the difference on a test ha!

I've been skeptical about "lens quality" & so instead look at practical usage of lens (focal lengths, apertures, etc...). I feel like lens quality is a minor issue when you compare to things such as the photographer's skill & post-processing.

oly 12mm f2 is probably a popular lens among enthusiasts but to me it suffers an identity crisis. It just screams not too wide, not too fast (aperture), not too small, & most of all not too cheap!
--



http://www.wix.com/drkevinlyu/photography

Hmm i'm afraid this is flawed. Firstly, skeptical about lens quality? You just have to look at NEX to see the difference, they have a better sensor but worse pictures entirely because of lens quality. Post processing does not make up for this, I spend a good 3 hours on every serious image I process and the fact is you'll always be ahead with a better quality lens. Granted I spend a huge amount of time looking at photos and judging small details but the 12mm wins out on this, in real world situations it's night and day to me, but granted most will not tell the difference.

24mm is about the most common focal length for landscape work also so identity crisis averted, essentially we have 24mm (landscape and wide street) 50mm (normal and street) and 90mm (portrait and long street), it's about the most obvious 3 piece lens set up you could think of. Also 12mm is great in that it is wider than any kit lens.

I understand people are upset about prices, i'm lucky in that respect (just picked up the $117 lens hood and $70 lens cap ) right now having a sufficient budget, but it's good to finally have some premium lens available. Check out the Digital Rev YouTube review of it, that's much the same way most people feel when first opening it.

btw, the 14mm is great too!

--
Street Photography Blog:
http://fotofungi.wordpress.com/

 

[photo perzon]

I am looking forward to the 40mm 1.8 that is different

My point is if you look at real world handheld samples the 14mm and the 12mm will be hard to see a difference...I personally do not care about corners, not that the 14mm is soft.

 

[453C]

I'm not sure if that was a reply to me, but here goes...

I am looking forward to the 40mm 1.8 that is different

I think you meant the Olympus 45mm f1.8:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusEP3/page2.asp
I look forward to your disappointment with the 45mm.

My point is if you look at real world handheld samples the 14mm and the 12mm will be hard to see a difference...I personally do not care about corners, not that the 14mm is soft.

That may be true, or not. Please realize that some people actually do care about corner sharpness and ultimate image quality, and lenses like the 12mm have been requested by many people here.

I beleive there's a bit more to the issue, since the 12mm features completely different MF handling, a different FL, and a different form factor. I don't see them as very comparable, as each is aimed at different spaces in the lens line up.
--
http://453c.smugmug.com/

 

[pocketpygmy]

Yes, in such price structure 14mm looks like a good lens to buy. In Europe/US the price is around 400$ 320Euros, almost exactly the same as 20mm, while the lens is not much faster and sharper than kit zooms at 14mm. In such price structure, 14mm looks like one of the most overpriced lenses ever and 12mm price seems much more palatable.

whoa whoa. no way. sorry, strong disagreement here. $200 for the 14 is a steal and whatever it's actually been ($300+) is fair. people always forget that the 14 is the smallest and lightest lens, which for me is quintessentially micro 4/3 (practically invisible), and that it focuses like a champ, unlike the chumpy 20 which groans and moves like molasses when it focuses. to me the 14's attributes more than make up for its smaller aperture.

remember, the 12 is more than twice the price! how is that more palatable? it's not more than twice as 'good' is it? the 14's the real bargain, imo.

 

[Chopsocky]

not that I own or want either lenses, but I'm not so clear of the hype for oly 12mm f2 - namely the price.

in Asia I can get a brand new pany 14mm f2.5 for $200 (& the pany 20mm costs $500, weird eh?) when the oly 12mm f2 is $800.

with the pany-leica 25mm 1.4 @ $500 and oly 45mm f1.8 at sub $400, I don't understand the point of oly 12mm. and if it's wide you're going for, there's the cheaper oly 9-18mm & the high quality 7-14mm!

what makes oly think they can charge such price? magical "lens quality & world's fastest AF speed (true?)"? come'on they ain't no leica!

just my 2c

--



http://www.wix.com/drkevinlyu/photography

Just wanted to say nice 'pano' of the St. Georges Harbour in your sig! I recognized it right away.

 

[venice]

I would never consider a 24mm f/2 to be remotely in the same category as a 28mm f/2.5 lens.

The 14mm pancake is no doubt a fine lens.

The 12mm is wider, faster and a hair sharper in the corners. For me, it is well worth it but I can see why others may feel the difference in price is prohibitive.

I think most will agree that it is better to have the choice than not.

Best,

Bill

 

[Gregm61]

I would never consider a 24mm f/2 to be remotely in the same category as a 28mm f/2.5 lens.

The 12mm is wider, faster and a hair sharper in the corners. For me, it is well worth it but I can see why others may feel the difference in price is prohibitive.

I have also yet to see any blue/purple fringing in highlights with the 12mm in either the E-PL2 or E-PL3 RAW files like I have seen when using the 14/2.5.

 

[Anders W]

My results with the 14mm 2.5 Panasonic are just as good as the samples with the Olympus 12mm 2.0, in indoor light with no flash.

I could not tell the difference between the two. If I look, sometimes the 14mm is sharper, I guess the 12mm wins but only cause I paid more for it.

I am very proud of the 14mm, not only does it produce great pictures, it is also very thin and makes the camera pocketable.

I find pancake designs generally not ideal, because they can cause compromises in build, usability, and image quality and nowadays too much is sacrificed for smallness (i.e. body usability). To my observation the 12mm is sharper and better at the corners, but it costs almost twice as much.

However, Olympus brought with the 12mm some fresh design to m4/3 lenses and fortunately did not follow the pancake paradigm with this one.

With the 14, 17, and 20mm lenses, I think we have enough pancakes. I want real stuff which I can grap! Therefore the new PL 1.4/25mm is about the right design.

I see no reason to keep the 12mm and plan to return it.

I was expecting to see a difference. In poor light they are very similar.

Thomas,

As I think you already know, I agree with you about many things, including the issue of body size versus body ergonomics. Both of us prefer the GH/G-style bodies and don't like what they did to the G3.

But I can't understand why you would want to apply the same kind of reasoning to lenses. Why, when it comes to lenses, do you "want real stuff" that you can "grab". Do you have difficulties to "grab" the focus ring on a pancake lens, to find it in your bag, or to mount it on the camera? ;-)

And what, in general are, according to you, the build, usability, and image quality problems caused by pancake designs. I can think of some potential ones but I'd like to hear what you say first.

Unlike you, I prefer my 20/1.7 to the PL 25/1.4 on most grounds, including design.

 

[dr blacktape]

really...

 

[photo perzon]

My pana 20mm is silent. It is old. I got a new one and that one was noisy! I guess they vary.

14mm is silent.

Yes, in such price structure 14mm looks like a good lens to buy. In Europe/US the price is around 400$ 320Euros, almost exactly the same as 20mm, while the lens is not much faster and sharper than kit zooms at 14mm. In such price structure, 14mm looks like one of the most overpriced lenses ever and 12mm price seems much more palatable.

whoa whoa. no way. sorry, strong disagreement here. $200 for the 14 is a steal and whatever it's actually been ($300+) is fair. people always forget that the 14 is the smallest and lightest lens, which for me is quintessentially micro 4/3 (practically invisible), and that it focuses like a champ, unlike the chumpy 20 which groans and moves like molasses when it focuses. to me the 14's attributes more than make up for its smaller aperture.

remember, the 12 is more than twice the price! how is that more palatable? it's not more than twice as 'good' is it? the 14's the real bargain, imo.