Panasonic Lumix 12-32/3.5-5.6 vs Olympus 14-42/3.5-5.6 II R MSC

Would You exchange Olympus 14-42/3.5-5.6 II R MSC with Panasonic Lumix 12-32/3.5-5.6 for IQ reasons and not taking focal range into account? Body - Oly E-PL5

Oleksak wrote:

Would You exchange Olympus 14-42/3.5-5.6 II R MSC with Panasonic Lumix 12-32/3.5-5.6 for IQ reasons and not taking focal range into account? Body - Oly E-PL5

Yes, the motivators for me were size, as the 12-32 makes the E-PM2 pocketable, and the 12mm wide end. The more consistent IQ was a bonus. Since getting the 12-32 over a year ago, the 14-42IIR has sat on the shelf. The E-PM2+12-32 is a great combo that goes in my pocket nearly everywhere. If you use the long end of the 14-42, you may miss that part. A 45/1.8 would solve that. I paid $300 US soon after the GM1 kit came out for a de-kitted lens, so I felt it was just ok for that price. At the $200 they are going for now, it's a good deal.

zuikowesty wrote:

Oleksak wrote:

Would You exchange Olympus 14-42/3.5-5.6 II R MSC with Panasonic Lumix 12-32/3.5-5.6 for IQ reasons and not taking focal range into account? Body - Oly E-PL5

Yes, the motivators for me were size, as the 12-32 makes the E-PM2 pocketable, and the 12mm wide end. The more consistent IQ was a bonus. Since getting the 12-32 over a year ago, the 14-42IIR has sat on the shelf. The E-PM2+12-32 is a great combo that goes in my pocket nearly everywhere. If you use the long end of the 14-42, you may miss that part. A 45/1.8 would solve that. I paid $300 US soon after the GM1 kit came out for a de-kitted lens, so I felt it was just ok for that price. At the $200 they are going for now, it's a good deal.

It is my case, because I have 45/1.8 already.

I sure would. But be aware that there might be shutter shock problems with this lens on the Epl5. I know there were on the Epm2.

Yes, I would as well. The 12-32 is a great, tiny lens. The wide end is very useful.

For me the 12-32 works perfectly on the E-PM2 with Anti-Shock 1/8 sec and Lens IS priority (this makes OIS of lens used). With these settings I have no shutter-shock problems. Images get very sharp, but I do not have any 14-42 lens to compare (bought E-PM2 body-only). To get longer than 32 I have once assigned the DTC (digital tele converter) to the Fn button near the shutter and I have also the Sigma 60/2.8.

So the E-PM2 + 12-32 (under low-light 17/1.8 instead of 12-32) is also my always-with-me pocket setup, in contrary to the GM1/GM5 it takes the same battery as my E-M10, has a simple stabilizer for the primes, same interface as the E-M10, great JPEG engine of Olympus, great E-M5 sensor.

Should work with E-PL5 the same way, as the two are the same generation.

Till

Thanks to everyone's recomendations.

I have both your lenses. Just got the 12-32. Have owned a version of the 14-42 since 2010, including the II version.

I believe the 12-32 is 3X the price of the 14-42 in the used market. People say it's smaller. wider angle, and better. I agree.

Only thing I cannot do with it on a non-panasonic battery is manual focus, and I only do that on AF lenses on telephotos when I shoot the moon.

baxters wrote:

I have both your lenses. Just got the 12-32. Have owned a version of the 14-42 since 2010, including the II version.

I believe the 12-32 is 3X the price of the 14-42 in the used market.

i've found one for $125 new from kit. Will be waiting to test.

People say it's smaller. wider angle, and better. I agree.

Only thing I cannot do with it on a non-panasonic battery is manual focus, and I only do that on AF lenses on telephotos when I shoot the moon.

I don't use my 14-42 much as I have three primes in that range (12,20,45) that are all better than it. There is nothing wrong with the 14-42 though, it's incredibly sharp wide open for a kit lens at F/3.5 to the point where I don't see much point in the Panasonic 14mmF/2.5.

The problem with the 12-32 is inherent in its nature wide open, it has quite a significant amount of barrel distortion. You can use all the software you like in the world but you can't correct it without losing sharpness. So bare in mind, there is some trade off for its small size.

The Panny 12-32, along with its sibling 35-100, are the standard kit on my E-PL7. Both are great lenses.

Cyberphoto gives the edge to either the Panasonic G X Vario PZ 14-42/3,5-5,6 or the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42/3,5-5,6 II R.

http://www.cyberphoto.se/info.php?article=pana1232silverbulk

/Evert

e_kjellgren wrote:

Cyberphoto gives the edge to either the Panasonic G X Vario PZ 14-42/3,5-5,6 or the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42/3,5-5,6 II R.

http://www.cyberphoto.se/info.php?article=pana1232silverbulk

/Evert

Tha site is in Swedish unfortunately..,

But anyway, thank You for reply

e_kjellgren wrote:

Cyberphoto gives the edge to either the Panasonic G X Vario PZ 14-42/3,5-5,6 or the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42/3,5-5,6 II R.

http://www.cyberphoto.se/info.php?article=pana1232silverbulk

/Evert

This is pretty good for a kit lens

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/14-42mm-f3.5-5.6-ii-m.zuiko-digital/review/

The 12-32 is slightly off it in the centre according to SLR Gear but its not bad either. You can't go wrong unless you go for the 14-42 EZ pancake lens from Olympus.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/panasonic/12-32mm-f3.5-5.6-asph-mega-ois-lumix-g-vario/review/

Allan Brown wrote:

Hitherto wrote:

e_kjellgren wrote:

Cyberphoto gives the edge to either the Panasonic G X Vario PZ 14-42/3,5-5,6 or the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42/3,5-5,6 II R.

http://www.cyberphoto.se/info.php?article=pana1232silverbulk

/Evert

This is pretty good for a kit lens

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/14-42mm-f3.5-5.6-ii-m.zuiko-digital/review/

The 12-32 is slightly off it in the centre according to SLR Gear but its not bad either. You can't go wrong unless you go for the 14-42 EZ pancake lens from Olympus.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/panasonic/12-32mm-f3.5-5.6-asph-mega-ois-lumix-g-vario/review/

What do you mean by that? All the reviews and my experience shows that the lens is very sharp in the centre.

Allan

Note that the 14-42 review above is for the II version, not the IIR. I believe the IIR might be a bit softer. I didn't use my 14-42IIR much, since I had the 12-50 on my E-M5 at the time, and I shoot at 12mm a lot. But I used the FT 14-42 for four years on my E-410, and it seemed to perform better than the MZ 14-42. Since I wanted the 12mm, the 12-32 was the answer, although at almost as much as I paid for the E-PM 2 lens kit, it was more than I wanted to pay. But the lens is very small, well built, and performs well across the frame. I have not done any testing, but the corner softness I often saw on the 14-42 is gone on the 12-32.

The only things I don't like:

- CA can be an issue on Oly bodies (E-M5 and E-PM2 in my case)

- will miss focus occasionally even though focus confirm light is on, often with close subjects. I have to watch for this, as I have ruined some shots due to this. Close focus also not quite as good as 14-42.

- zoom ring turns the wrong way!

- no manual focus ring

photofan1986 wrote:

I sure would. But be aware that there might be shutter shock problems with this lens on the Epl5. I know there were on the Epm2.

Frankly speaking I had never seen shutter shock problems on my images with E-PL5 before I saw Your post. May be I was not careful enough. But when I looked through a number of posts about the problem in MFT forums I was shocked that it is considered as a so big problem of MFT, that can destroy all the advantages of any high-quality optics.  Is it worth to invest in MFT then?