An under-appreciated bargain.

I'm on my second copy of this lens after coming back to m4/3's, previously I had the mk1 and now I have the mkII. I had read that there is no difference except cosmetically, this has not been my experience of it. The first copy I had was very sharp stopped down but a bit disappointing wide open. The copy I currently have is definitely much better, it's very sharp wide open and it's pretty consistent across the frame, stopping down doesn't make much difference except in terms of depth of field.

I love this little lens, it's tiny and light and has it's own character. It does render a little cool but it's a look I like, it also renders out of focus areas very nicely when you get close to your subject. I haven't noticed any vignetting to speak of, nor distortion and CA control also appears to be better on this version. I either got a poorer copy originally or the mkII has been improved. Focusing is also extremely quick and accurate, though it can be a bit finicky at close distances, which is the only reason I docked it half a point.

Even though I am getting the 12-32mm I will not be selling this lens, the extra stop and performance wide open means it's definitely worth keeping and it's so easy to carry I don't see why I would. Even though the 12-32mm has OIS on a Panasonic body and the 14mm won't on the GM1 I'm getting, that's not a benefit when things are moving in lower light. I also have the E-M1 so it will be stabilised on that camera. The 14mm also has much better close focusing ability than the 12-32mm.

For the price, size, cost and performance this lens is a no-brainer for me, it really is a little gem, ideal for street shooting, environmental portraits, semi macro, shooting inside and landscapes it's one of the best bargains you can get in m4/3's IMHO.

I suspect there is some copy variation with this lens, get a good one and it's an absolute steal.

The focusing ring is nice and tight on the mk II and feels like a mechanical focusing ring making manual focusing a much more pleasurable and painless experience.

There is no difference between the Mk1 and Mk2 optically ..... there CAN however be quite a lot of difference between samples of both versions .....

My Mk1 is tack sharp edge to edge at F2.5 , I`ve seen samples which are far from that . Yes it`s an underappreciated bargain (the Mk1 anyway, the Mk2 costs too much) so long as you get a good one ............

this isn`t limited to the 14 F2.5 of course, sample variation is rife thesedays, I`ve even seen a less than optimal 14-42-IIHD (a lens with a good rep for consistency) and the copy of the 12-32 I`ve just got exceeds anything I`ve seen before from this model of lens at both ends wideopen ..

AdamT wrote:

There is no difference between the Mk1 and Mk2 optically ..... there CAN however be quite a lot of difference between samples of both versions .....

My Mk1 is tack sharp edge to edge at F2.5 , I`ve seen samples which are far from that .

this isn`t limited to the 14 F2.5 of course, sample variation is rife thesedays, I`ve even seen a less than optimal 14-42-IIHD (a lens with a good rep for consistency) and the copy of the 12-32 I`ve just got exceeds anything I`ve seen before from this model of lens at both ends wideopen ..

Yes I have read that, and though there may be no difference in design and optical elements the mk II I have is like a different lens to the first one I had. The mk II I have is made in Japan, I have no idea where the first one was made but there is a significant difference in the optical quality so maybe quality control has improved. I still liked the first one for it's size and convenience so I'm delighted with my newer version.

have no idea where the first one was made but there is a significant difference in the optical quality so maybe quality control has improved.

I`ve seen a dud Mk2 - a dud Mk2 20mm also (Mine is fine) - you just got lucky with your sample like I did with my Mk1 . in all fairness Panasonic are better than many , I still can`t believe some of the samples people posted from dud Oly 12-40s and the less said about the Canon 16-35L the better .

Where its made is actually irrelevant, the company who must be the absolute worst for sample variation across the years is Sigma .. all their lenses are made in Japan . My superb all black Mk1 14mm is made there  as was the dud Mk2 and no doubt the dud Mk1 .. my perfect 14-42-IIHD was made in China

AdamT wrote:

have no idea where the first one was made but there is a significant difference in the optical quality so maybe quality control has improved.

I`ve seen a dud Mk2 - a dud Mk2 20mm also (Mine is fine) - you just got lucky with your sample like I did with my Mk1 . in all fairness Panasonic are better than many , I still can`t believe some of the samples people posted from dud Oly 12-40s and the less said about the Canon 16-35L the better .

Where its made is actually irrelevant,

I disagree on that, some plants will have better QC than others, there some known examples of lenses being made in two different locations with one location turning out noticeably better copies than the other. Of course where they are isn't important, how they both manage QC is. One of the things I loved about Olympus 4/3's was the consistency of the Zuiko lenses, I never had a single problem with any of mine, and still don't to this day.

the company who must be the absolute worst for sample variation across the years is Sigma .. all their lenses are made in Japan . My superb all black Mk1 14mm is made there as was the dud Mk2 and no doubt the dud Mk1 .. my perfect 14-42-IIHD was made in China

-- hide signature --

** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

Henry Richardson wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

Yes I have read that, and though there may be no difference in design and optical elements the mk II I have is like a different lens to the first one I had. The mk II I have is made in Japan, I have no idea where the first one was made but there is a significant difference in the optical quality so maybe quality control has improved. I still liked the first one for it's size and convenience so I'm delighted with my newer version.

I have the first version that I bought new in 2012 for $160 (I think it was one of those separated from a kit). Mine says Made in Japan on it.

I like mine, but I don't use it that much. I have never done any testing so I can't say how good it is, but seems okay. I never test, just too boring for me, but if I had a peon who worked for free or peanuts who would get multiple copies of each lens, do careful testing, and then cherry pick the best one for me then I would happily use his services. Until then I just buy, use, and only if I see some obvious problem do I follow up. That is rare though.

I just check my lenses in real world use, I don't care much for test shots against swatches, they don't tell you an awful lot about a lens. Some lenses are great are close distances and awful at infinity. My personal test of what's a good lens is one that can do both, the 14mm can.

Don't have the lens but nice to see you back and posting!

String wrote:

Don't have the lens but nice to see you back and posting!

Thanks, it's been a "round the houses" journey but m4/3's has come of age now, no need to go elsewhere for me personally