Quality difference between oly 14-42 II and 12-50

I dropped my standard zoomlens. Now the question is. Is there a difference in image quality between the 14-42 and the 12-50. The latter one seems very cheap to me.

I cannot find reviews of the 12-50

Thanks in advance

BingoCharlie wrote:

Yes.  12-50 is better than the 14-42, and is equivalent to the Panasonic 14-45.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/05/standard-range-micro-43-imatest-results

You base a decision solely on MTF figures? They are close enough in that respect that it's the last thing I'd worry about.

I own them both and will keep both. There are much bigger pros and cons than MTF figs that you're unlikely to notice in print.

The 12~50 has the best range being both a tad wider and a tad longer. It also has a useful macro mode. This makes it a very versatile lens for general use, although a little slow both in term of focussing and max aperture.

The 14~42 is much smaller, which is the reason I bought the OMD in the first place (and later added a Pen lite). If fits into the top pocket of my rucksack whereas the 12~50 wouldn't. This makes it easier for me to have it with me on a daily basis.

Both were dirt cheap. I bought the 12~50 as part of a kit so the net cost to me was about £120. The 14~24 was cheaper still; I bought the latest version of it from SRS Microsystems (where i bought mosy of my MFT kit) for £69.

I assumed I'd choose between them but I can't . If I absolutely had to it would be the 14~42 because of it's size.

Thanks Guys,

Looking at DXOMark, i'd probably have to incluide the Panny 14-42 also in my equation.

I'am leaning to the 12-50. The bigger formfactor doesn't bother me.

I have both, and strongly prefer the 12-50mm due to weatherproofing.  If image quality needs to be utterly maximized I use the appropriate prime lens.

Hehe, it seems like chosing a lens should not be based on a review, but on picking the good sample ^^

My 14-42 II was very poor, with strong decentering. However, where it was sharp, it was stunningly so. On the other hand, my dad's 14-42II is quite good wide open, and very good once stopped down.

I wanted to buy the 12-50 as I did buy the body only, and I found a seller that allowed me to test the lens. I took four shots, and all were very, very bad. Probably a bad sample, again. My dad's 14-42II is much sharper.

However, there seem to be more of a consensus on the Panasonic 14-45. It may be down to better quality control (lens made in Japan vs China for example). Of course, you still don't have a guarantee of getting a good copy.

In my experience, getting a good copy is not easy, and there are definitely variation of wide amplitude. To me, it's really a nightmare when I'm getting a new lens.

The sample from the 12-50 at 5.6, 12mm

I don't find this acceptable. But that's just me.

slimandy wrote:

BingoCharlie wrote:

Yes.  12-50 is better than the 14-42, and is equivalent to the Panasonic 14-45.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/05/standard-range-micro-43-imatest-results

You base a decision solely on MTF figures? They are close enough in that respect that it's the last thing I'd worry about.

I own them both and will keep both. There are much bigger pros and cons than MTF figs that you're unlikely to notice in print.

The 12~50 has the best range being both a tad wider and a tad longer. It also has a useful macro mode. This makes it a very versatile lens for general use, although a little slow both in term of focussing and max aperture.

The 14~42 is much smaller, which is the reason I bought the OMD in the first place (and later added a Pen lite). If fits into the top pocket of my rucksack whereas the 12~50 wouldn't. This makes it easier for me to have it with me on a daily basis.

Both were dirt cheap. I bought the 12~50 as part of a kit so the net cost to me was about £120. The 14~24 was cheaper still; I bought the latest version of it from SRS Microsystems (where i bought mosy of my MFT kit) for £69.

I assumed I'd choose between them but I can't . If I absolutely had to it would be the 14~42 because of it's size.

And that from a single source, at a single aperture and focal length.  The 14-42 may be better at 14mm.

Other more comprehensive tests show them to be about equal optically, overall.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1400/cat/15

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1479/cat/15

Also, photozone.de hasn't tested the 12-50, but found the original 14-42 equal to the Panasonic 14-45 (both earning 3.5 stars optically).

And DxOMark hasn't tested the Olympus 14-42, but found the 12-50 very slightly behind the Panasonic 14-42 PZ .

On balance, there is little difference overall in sharpness or overall optical quality between any of the kit zooms (including the superzooms).  Buy them based on the various tradeoffs in size, features, build, and coverage.

BingoCharlie wrote:

Yes.  12-50 is better than the 14-42, and is equivalent to the Panasonic 14-45.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/05/standard-range-micro-43-imatest-results

Say what?  The 14-45 is generally considered to be a very good, very sharp lens.  I've not seen anything that indicates the 12-50 is as good as the 14-45, IQ wise.   In fact, most of the reviews / comments for the 12-50 tend to say that the IQ is OK but not stellar, but the lens makes up for it by being weather sealed, wider at the low end, has a longer zoom, and has good macro capabilities.  The 12-50 isn't a bad lens by any stretch of the imagination, but it does not have the reputation for crisp sharp pictures that the 14-45 does.

To respond to the OP's question, from my own limited experiences I can't really see any difference between the 14-42 II Olympus lens, and the 12-50 (with respect to IQ).  I was actually quite pleased with both of them.  The only problem I have with the 12-50 is that is is much larger to pack than the 14-42, since it doesn't collapse.  (I know that people say the 14-42 expands in length when you unlatch it for use, but I'm talking about the minimum space each lens requires in a small camera bag when traveling.  I left my 12-50 at home and took the 14-42 when I went on vacation this March, because I could get the 14-42 plus a small prime in the same space the single 12-50 lens took up in the bag.)

IQ wise they are very close. Perhaps the 12-50 is a bit sharper, better contrast at the equivalent focal lengths and apertures (and yes I have both), but not significantly better. (Again, it might depend on the copy of each lens you have. My 14-42IIR is relatively new and pretty good.)

Obvious advantages of one over the other (zoom range, macro, weather sealing, size/weight) have been discussed previously. When I want something more compact I pick up the 14-42 or a small prime/pancake. When I want the increased zoom range I use the 12-50.

Joseph T Lewis III wrote:

The 14-45 is generally considered to be a very good, very sharp lens.  I've not seen anything that indicates the 12-50 is as good as the 14-45, IQ wise.

The Panasonic 14-45 that came with my wife's G1 is undoubtedly sharper than the 12-50 that came with my E-M5

The 12-50 isn't a bad lens by any stretch of the imagination, but it does not have the reputation for crisp sharp pictures that the 14-45 does.

It's just not a great lens.  I wasn't over impressed with the Panasonic 45-200 but prefer it in the 45-50 range as compared with the 12-50.

Grzzl wrote:

I dropped my standard zoomlens. Now the question is. Is there a difference in image quality between the 14-42 and the 12-50. The latter one seems very cheap to me.

I cannot find reviews of the 12-50

Thanks in advance

You could have Googled it. There are lots of reviews of the 12-50.

https://www.google.ca/search?client=firefox-a&hs=GQa&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&channel=np&sclient=psy-ab&q=12+50+review+olympus&oq=12-50+review+&gs_l=serp.1.1.0i22i30l6j0i22i10i30l2j0i22i30l2.269.269.1.2759.1.1.0.0.0.0.193.193.0j1.1.0...0.0...1c.1.14.serp.yDhL2R4_XL4&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.46751780,d.aWc&biw=1050&bih=660&ech=1&psi=7N-bUdn1A5G6yAHdt4GoDQ.1369184669335.3&emsg=NCSR&noj=1&ei=7N-bUdn1A5G6yAHdt4GoDQ

BingoCharlie wrote:

Yes.  12-50 is better than the 14-42, and is equivalent to the Panasonic 14-45.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/05/standard-range-micro-43-imatest-results

No way Hosea. The 14-42 lags behind the 14-45.

jcharity wrote:

BingoCharlie wrote:

Yes.  12-50 is better than the 14-42, and is equivalent to the Panasonic 14-45.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/05/standard-range-micro-43-imatest-results

No way Hosea. The 14-42 lags behind the 14-45.

The 14-45 and the 12-50 are quite close in these tests, if you can believe it!

"In the first table, we’ll look at the MTF50 of each lens at the widest aperture it can use at 25mm

Oly 12-50 f/5  800 665

Oly 14-42 II R f/4.3 690 580

Pan 14-45 f/5 830 670

Oly 14-150 f/4.7 780 640

Pan 14-140 f/4.7 795 680

In the second table, we’ll look at the MTF50 with each lens at f/5.6

Oly 12-50 f/5.6  830  670

Oly 14-42 II R  f/5.6  710 630

Pan 14-45  f/5.6 825 675

Oly 14-150  f/5.6 785 660

Pan 14-140  f/5.6 800 690