Improved kit lenses!

Anyone else notice how the kit lenses in M4/3s are improving. I notice most people are keeping the kit lens anymore and using them. Just like the Panasonic 14-42 II and the 12-32, they're actually kind of scarce on the used market.

Jere Landis wrote:

Anyone else notice how the kit lenses in M4/3s are improving. I notice most people are keeping the kit lens anymore and using them. Just like the Panasonic 14-42 II and the 12-32, they're actually kind of scarce on the used market.

I think we have been very fortunate with the kit lenses in mFT , most are pretty good especially for "kit" lenses. My first mFT purchase back in 2009 was the GF1 with 20mm F1.7 and the 14-45mm , both lenses are very good performers even nowadays.

I can certainly agree regarding the 12-32.  It's a very good lens but I had to get it from Japan.  On my EM10 or EM5mkII it fits nicely in a medium jacket pocket.

JL

The 12-32 is a little ripper, but does suffer from shutter shock on the Panasonic G6 in the region of 1/60-1/200.

The Oly 14-42 II is excellent too -- up to the standard of the 14-45, an outstanding lens that introduced a lot of people to m43 and really the standard setter for kit (and other) lenses for the format in my view.

I keep my kit lenses because If I sold them I'd only really get a few hundred dollars... Nothing more, the Olympus 14-42 II R is a good lens but I don't use it since I have the 12mm F/2 which is better than the 14-42 II R is at 14mm and also has less depth of field and I keep the 45-150 II again because if I tried to sell it I wouldn't get the money back.

The 14-42 II R really is a good kit lens, it's very sharp at 14mm and also through most of its zoom range, in all honesty my gripe with it is simply that I've got something better and secondly I prefer primes over zooms.

In reality all of this is just my own agenderisations, or predilections or preferences or whatever you want to call it.

The Olympus 14-42 II R is really a very good kit lens.

The 12-32mm and 14-42mm are too slow.  On the other hand the 12-35mm and 12-40mm are too heavy and not quite long enough.  I would like a 14-45mm II with f/2.8-4.0.  Current techniology and glass should make this possible at the same weight and with better edge-to-edge sharpness.

The Kodak (Pixpro) 12-45 actually performs as well as the Olympus 14-42 R II.  It's a little bit bigger though.

I can certainly agree regarding the 12-32.  It's a very good lens but I had to get it from Japan.  On my EM10 or EM5mkII it fits nicely in a medium jacket pocket.

JL

Had to? I bought my 12-32 from Japan but that's largely because I'm impatient; in fairness, it took something like 6 months post-GM1 release for Panasonic to start selling it separate in the US, this was long after it was available in EU/Asia... Rather maddening, at least I was lucky it was announced just before I had made up my mind to get the 14-42 PZ!

Sold my 14-42 II for $100 to a guy on the forum who said it was visibly sharper than his PZ on the GX1, dunno if SS was the culprit there or a combination of things but I pretty much never used it so I might as well get a little $ for it... The irony is I ended up getting a GM1 (body only, duh) about a year after I bought the 12-32. Still came out slightly ahead tho!

I think the value of a good kit lens is very underrated by enthusiasts, as in the value and overall importance for the system (not their use).

Jere Landis wrote:

Anyone else notice how the kit lenses in M4/3s are improving. I notice most people are keeping the kit lens anymore and using them. Just like the Panasonic 14-42 II and the 12-32, they're actually kind of scarce on the used market.

I just bought an E-PL5 kit that sells for $399 now. It is a backup to my E-M10 and I have no need for the 14-42 II R lens that comes with it. But, they aren't selling E-PL5 bodies only. Olympus has the retail price for the 14-42 II R set a $299. Thats like saying my E-PL5 is worth $100. Having no use for this lens and no desire to keep it. I asked the dealer how much I would get if I traded the lens for another piece of equipment before I left the store. His answer was $20. Imagine buying a new car and loosing 93% of its retail value before you even drive it off the lot.

I tested this lens just to make sure it worked and my preliminary thoughts are;

It's cheaply made and doesn't even have a metal mount.

Most zooms have a lock switch to prevent creep when carrying the lens but. this lens has a lock switch to prevent you from closing it.

In typical Olympus fashion, there is no lens hood, which probably saved them fifty cents on their cost for this $299 gem.

If they did give you a hood, you would have to figure out what to do with the cheap plastic ring that covers the bayonet mount for the hood. The ridiculously small lens cap is another candidate to disappear.

The image quality is acceptable but not much more than that.

Jere Landis wrote:

Anyone else notice how the kit lenses in M4/3s are improving. I notice most people are keeping the kit lens anymore and using them. Just like the Panasonic 14-42 II and the 12-32, they're actually kind of scarce on the used market.

Not as good as I would like to have though.  But quite usable when I want a zoom that is small, light, and discrete.  The alternatives of true quality are all bigger.  I don't feel cheated.

A lot of people want a better camera than a phone or P&S camera. They buy a camera with interchangeable lenses but look around at tourist traps: 90% or so of the people are using their camera with just the kit lens and do not appear to have other lenses with them. In this era of the market being influenced by social networks, if the camera+kit lens is bad because the kit lens is bad the camera will get a lot of negative "press". That hurts sales. The reality is that while we discuss the plethora of lenses available a large majority of average consumers just use cameras with only the kit lens. So that lens has to be pretty good. (It may be slow because consumers do not understand aperture anyway, but it should be sharp.)

I used to follow Canon since I bought a 300D with kit lens early 2004. The kit lens was usable but certainly not great, but Canon too improved the kit lenses considerably, as needed for the increasing number of megapixels.

Most of my friends and colleagues are much more ignorant about camera gear than I am (and I don't pretend to know much either). They see my pictures are technically better than anything they could do and then ask what camera I use. I hope they do not simply act upon that. If they get an E-M5 with kit lens they would still not get the pictures I'm getting with the 12-40/2.8 and 40-150/2.8. It's not just a matter of what they can afford or are willing to spend, it's a matter of simply not understanding the difference other than price. Many of us in this forum are gearheads. The vast majority of the population buying similar cameras is not.

Tony8232 wrote:

I use my Oly 14-42 all the time. I can't justify buying the Pro version there are other lenses I'd rather have over the Pro like a very wide angled prime and a macro lens.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/90891174@N04/

I just finished this justification and knocked my issue on the head by buyinf the 9-18. I no longer have a desire to pay the price for anything more expensive and I've got an ultra wide lens. There's no more thinking about expensive lenses any more where previously I was thinking about the Olympus 7-14.

Hithertoo wrote:

I keep my kit lenses because If I sold them I'd only really get a few hundred dollars... Nothing more, the Olympus 14-42 II R is a good lens but I don't use it since I have the 12mm F/2 which is better than the 14-42 II R is at 14mm and also has less depth of field and I keep the 45-150 II again because if I tried to sell it I wouldn't get the money back.

The 14-42 II R really is a good kit lens, it's very sharp at 14mm and also through most of its zoom range, in all honesty my gripe with it is simply that I've got something better and secondly I prefer primes over zooms.

In reality all of this is just my own agenderisations, or predilections or preferences or whatever you want to call it.

The Olympus 14-42 II R is really a very good kit lens.

You are lucky. In Hong Kong most high street used gear shops only offer me US$40 around for my Panny 14-42 MI which is generally <US$80 for 99.9% new.

So I just keep it as a collection...

No one mentioned the Olympus 12-50mm lens. I know it didn't get great reviews, but it is splash proof and has a macro mode. It is a very useful walk around lens.

clemcam wrote:

The 12-32mm and 14-42mm are too slow. On the other hand the 12-35mm and 12-40mm are too heavy and not quite long enough. I would like a 14-45mm II with f/2.8-4.0. Current techniology and glass should make this possible at the same weight and with better edge-to-edge sharpness.

What you are asking for is approximately twice the light. That means twice the glass surface. So now the elements weigh double or more and, unless you are planning to use half as many, the whole shebang will end up being twice as heavy and larger in diameter.

Current technology already did its magic on the 12-32 and 14-42. There are physical limits; that's why they call it physics. Current glass is the same glass they've used since whenever. Affordable aspherical shaping and fancy coatings are new but optics and the specific gravity of glass is not going anywhere soon.

Prepare yourself to be disappointed with 'current technology'.

Yep - people often tell me I must have a good camera when they see my pics, as if the camera did all the work.

As for lenses, people who do buy lenses too often buy a slow "super-zoom" - even posters on here who ask for advice end up buying a super-zoom (even though nobody advised them to do so).

Heck, even the pro photographer (local guy who takes pictures at YMCA and schools) uses a slow super-zoom for portraits...crazy.

That doesn't sound that crazy to me. Slow isn't much of a problem if you have a nice lighting setup and a backdrop. How often do you see professional portrait photographers (I'm talking about high volume retail portrait photographers here. ) shooting with a fast prime lens?