Panasonic 14-45 OIS vs Olympus 14-42 R II

Probably been chewed over a bit here on the forum, just looking for a bit of insight for those who've used both. The Panny always gets plaudits as, while the perhaps oldest, still the benchmark for "kit" M43 lenses. Great IQ, build quality (metal mount). switchable IS, etc. The Oly also receives seemingly good reviews; perhaps not built as well, but a few grams lighter (but really significant at that point?). Oddly, while I thought the consensus would be the Panny would be the better performer, data I pulled up at Photozone reflected quite the opposite, that the two lenses are much more comparable, w/ the Olympus even faring better (MTF data, e.g.). Given I can pick up a used kit copy of the Olympus for about half what the market price of the Panny 14-45 goes for, I'm intrigued. Not having used the Panasonic, perhaps there's other factors not quite revealed by a simple review- colors, rendering, whatnot

Basically a prime shooter, looking for the cheap zoom for convenience and flexibility when I need it (Olympus -M10 MK II)

Thoughts?

Oly was tested on 16MPix body while Panny on 12MPix. When nothing else will be involved in equation you should multiply the MTF values of Panny by factor app. 1,15

It's nothing you will ever notice, unless you ever print something very large.

I've often chimed in on various postings here (over the years) that some kit lenses perform like the more expensive big boys.  I've used all of the kit lenses from both Panny and Oly.  Now before I go on, some would say that the $1000 USD Oly 12-40 f2.8 is a "kit lens," but that would be a stretch at the least.

I've found the Panasonic kit lenses to be much sharper than the Olympus versions (true kit lenses - entry-level, if you will).  Sure, any lens can give you satisfactory imagery, but in the end there are some intangibles not often discussed on these forums.  By intangibles I mean to say those observations (feelings?) that come into play when you see well-taken images that cause the viewer to feel part of the scene - that, "you are there" feeling that so often eludes us.  To me, the following Panasonic kit lenses can provide a good bit of that and can give the big boys a run for their money:

The older Lumix 14-45 OIS (still sold today) and is one very, very sharp lens.  It has superb optical qualities for what it does.  No, it doesn't have weather-proofing, nor does it have a constant f2.8 minimum aperture.  If you want those two additional scenarios, then by all means invest $1000+ on the Panny 12-35 or the Oly 12-40.  I liked this lens so much that I wound up with two of them.  And yes, it has a metal lens mount.  I keep one on my older Panny GF-1 and one on my Oly E-PL5.

The newer Lumix 14-42 II is a major advance over the original  Lumix 14-42 and is much, much smaller in size.  At first I was going to discount this lens (because of the plastic lens mount), but I decided to give it a try.  And I'm glad I did as the lens is superb optically in so many ways.  Again, it doesn't have the constant f2.8 or weatherproofing which would have jacked up the price big time.  I keep one on the Panny G5 and one on the GX-1.

And last - but not least - the absolutely wonderful (well, IMO, that is) Lumix 12-32.  Not only is it a very, very small lens (but it has a metal lens mount), optically this little optic really shines - almost to the point of being clinical (without the negative connotations that often comes with that description).  It's downright sharp (at least the two copies I have).  I keep them on my E-P5 and E-PL7.

As far as the Olympus kit lenses, I used to have both the 14-42 and 14-42 II, along with the 12-50...and I sold them all!   The 14-42 and 14-42 just didn't do it for me optically.  Sure, they were very, very small (great for the Pen series of cameras - they looked best on those types of models), but beyond that, the optical clarity just wasn't there.  I was never drawn into (or inspired by) the images I got from those lenses.  And the 12-50 (again, for me, that is) was even worse.  Yes, you could get satisfactory images, but it was if a veil was covering the images.  They looked OK, but they never inspired.

So in summary, I found - after extensive use of all of the Panny and Oly kit lenses - that the Panny lense were superior optically, and were able to allow me to really appreciate the imagery they were capable of capturing.  You would be happy with the 14-45 - take my word on that.

Since my only experience is with the 14-45, I can't comment on the Oly lenses. Maybe it's my old 35mm (film) background but to me, the 14-45 is practically weightless. It also seldom disappoints with the caveat that I tend to favor taking pictures at 1/125s and over with OIS switched off (easy to do with the on-lens OIS switch) as I get better results that way most of the time. Remember, this lens has the oldest version of OIS there is. The only other nit-picking I have about the lens is the rubber covered zoom ring: when it's real hot and muggy out, the rubber covering tends to dilate and becomes partly unstuck from the zoom ring itself; not a big issue but slightly annoying at times. Besides that, it's a stellar performer optically, even wide-open, and the mechanical feel is excellent, although perhaps not as smooth as the PL25.

Just what I was looking for, I believe I may be inclined to the Panny 14-45..Thanks all for the helpful replies from folks with the hands on.....

.....curious,the Panny 12-32, w/ its pancake collapsible design, how is it w/ respect to flare (no lens hood design)   Is it an issue in the field shooting into/near light?

You can use a step up ring (stepping up to a 52 MM outer edge).  This allows you to use a custom metal wide angle lens hood.  I've done this and it is remarkable in both how it looks and works.

but using the 12-32, with the EM-10 II...."When using a lens with an image stabilization function switch, priority is given to the lens

I know on the 14-45, I'd be able to turn off the IS on the lens (a switch) and defer to the 5-axis, 4 stop IS of the camera. With the 12-32, it seems as if I HAVE to default automatically to the lens IS, as the 12-32 doesnt have a switch t turn it off. Thus I'm "stuck" with the lens IS, no option to use either/or .........as I would with the 14-45

Am I correct here? Thnx, appreciated

Look in your camera settings.  There is a setting that says something like "Lens IS Priority" (or very similar - I'm not near my cameras at the moment.  Just make sure that setting is set to "off" so the only IS being used in the IBIS in the camera.  All of the Olympus M43 cameras have this setting so it they don't conflict with the IS in Panny lenses.

mrwilly100 wrote:

Probably been chewed over a bit here on the forum, just looking for a bit of insight for those who've used both. The Panny always gets plaudits as, while the perhaps oldest, still the benchmark for "kit" M43 lenses. Great IQ, build quality (metal mount). switchable IS, etc. The Oly also receives seemingly good reviews; perhaps not built as well, but a few grams lighter (but really significant at that point?). Oddly, while I thought the consensus would be the Panny would be the better performer, data I pulled up at Photozone reflected quite the opposite, that the two lenses are much more comparable, w/ the Olympus even faring better (MTF data, e.g.). Given I can pick up a used kit copy of the Olympus for about half what the market price of the Panny 14-45 goes for, I'm intrigued. Not having used the Panasonic, perhaps there's other factors not quite revealed by a simple review- colors, rendering, whatnot

Basically a prime shooter, looking for the cheap zoom for convenience and flexibility when I need it (Olympus -M10 MK II)

Thoughts?

I have the 14-45. Very sharp on my Panny camera.

Since you shoot Oly get the Oly 14-42. You'll be a lot happier with it on your Oly camera.

Disclaimer: I'm not a pixel pee person.

Good luck.

Lena

The 14-45 on the G1 and the 14-42 II on the E-PL3.

I was one of those who had lot of good things to say about the great quality of the images produced by the 14-45.

When I moved to the E-PL3, though, I was very happy with the performance of the 14-42 II, which I judged to be at least as good as the 14-45. (Both manufacturers in the interim had produced 14-42 kit lenses that didn't measure up, sadly.)

In addition, the 14-42 II had the advantage of being much smaller (when retracted) and lighter than the 14-45, and you could get the wide angle supplementary lens for low cost which gave me an f3.5 11mm lens of usable quality.

In summary: I did lots of good work with both these lenses, loved using them, but would buy the Olympus nowadays because of its equivalent (or better) IQ performance, compactness, light weight, and the ability to take the supplementary lens to provide an "instant" UWA with a very reasonable aperture!

Sorry, I wanted to give you a few examples, but DPReview has other ideas tonight.

My current walkaround lens, though, is the Panny 12-32 on the GX7. Love that extra bit of width.

An old post I know, but thanks for the tip, have just ordered both.