Old kit lens, new kit lens or a pro zoom?

Long story short, how good are the various kit lenses (Olympus 14-42mm R II and EZ, Panasonic 12-32mm and Panasonic 12-60mm) and how much would you pay for them?

I'm looking to buy GX80/GX85 or E-M10 mark II and need something short and probably zoom since I will be selling my E-PL6 with a lens - probably the kit lens. I am under the impression that the Olympus kit lenses are the worst out of the four with the EZ being slightly worse than the R II, which I personally have found usable if a little soft on corners and with annoying mechanism of requiring manual extension before you can shoot even at 14mm.

If I were to buy a camera right now at the quoted prices I'd be paying around 170€ extra for the 14-42mm EZ on top of E-M10 mark 2 and 240€ or 250€ extra for the two panasonic kit lenses respectively on top of GX80 (though that GX80 is a single store selling the silver body for 449€ while others sell at 549€ at cheapest). The other option would be to seek an used 14-42mm R II for 60-80€, though in reality I'm waiting for sales and cashbacks and hoping that a sale puts a kit closer to body only prices, preferably during a cashback.

Now, I also did think of getting the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 briefly. They go for 600€ used here which is way cheaper than what you can get the Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 for. This, however, seems like a bit steep investment for my photography needs I think. The Panasonic kit lenses have 12mm at f/3.5 with hopefully good enough optical quality, but the current ~250€ price premium on them compared to body only made me think that 350€ extra wouldn't be that horrible. I'm not even sure how awful handling a big pro zoom on the two fairly small bodies I am thinking on would be.

I did briefly also consider primes, but they're generally fairly expensive apart from the Panasonic 14mm f/2.5 so I think I'm better off with either paying a bit more for a pro zoom or a substantially less for a kit zoom.

The price of new GX80 + used 12-40mm f/2.8 is around the same as the price for new G80 + new 12-60mm kit lens. The latter pair would be weather sealed, but that'd be only mildly convenient and I think optics are a better investment than bodies anyway.

Generally the pro zooms and primes will offer better sharpness and contrast (especially towards the corners and edges)... and maybe other bells and whistles depending on the lens. The 12-40mm has some added perks like weather sealing, an excellent manual focus ring with distance scale, the ability to focus quite close, and (at least a perk for Olympus cameras) a programmable L-Fn button.

Some of the variable aperture zooms have the advantages of being smaller, lighter and less expensive. The question is how much do you give up in terms of IQ? For some not that much at all. I used to have a Panasonic 14-45mm that was probably the sharpest kit zoom I've ever owned. I put it up there with the Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5. The 14-45mm compares quite well against a lens like the 12-40mm f/2.8 or Panny 12-35mm f/2.8. In good light the pro zoom doesn't offer much advantage except for 12mm being MUCH wider than 14mm. I also had an Oly 12-50mm kit zoom that came with my E-M5. it wasn't as sharp as the Panny 14-45mm, but I ended up using it more because of it's wider wide end and it's close-focusing capability. Whatever sharpness it lacked compared to the Panny was not that obvious for most photos unless you pixel peeped. Well... it had some flaws at the corners and edges, but the center was really nice. Great for some photos, but not for others.

I shoot primes quite often... the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 pancake is the lens that brought me to m4/3, and I still shoot with it a lot. I also shoot with the Oly 45mm f/1.8 and a Rokinon fisheye quite often. The 45mm not as much since I bought the 12-40mm f/2.8. The 12-40mm is my most used lens, but it's a beast compared to the typical m4/3 kit zoom. That said it's really light and compact compared to my old Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 for APS-C, and it's a better lens in every regard. The 12-40mm f/2.8 is a wonderful lens, but a variable aperture kit zoom might do quite well for daytime walk-around use. I often use the slower Oly 9-18mm zoom as my walk-around go-to, but I like wide angles.

Ultimately it depends on what you shoot, where and what the lighting conditions are. Primes are great and compact, but the zooms sure are nice when I'm out with the family... or anytime when I need to shoot quickly from a variety of focal lengths. The new Oly 12-100mm f/4 sure has a lot of appeal for a general use lens as well.

Sean

I may have framed my question a bit badly. I own a few primes: Panasonic 25mm f/1.7, Olympus 45mm f/1.8 and the Olympus 60mm f/2.8 macro. I mostly use the 25mm prime on my camera, but there are two reasons I currently occasionally use the 14-42mm R II: 14mm is substantially wider than 25mm and as long as there's enough light or my camera is on a tripod the image quality is good enough that the only reason to switch to 25mm or 45mm primes is the shallower depth of field available. I also have the cheap Olympus 40-150mm for longer focal lengths and as much as I'd love either of the cheap 300mm zooms, that's a question I don't need help with. It's more of a question of when I'll get whichever is the cheapest (or Panasonic if I have Panasonic camera by then)

I'm pretty well covered for anything except the wider focal lengths, which is where I just simply need a new lens of some kind. If I wanted to truly shoot wide in low light I'd just get the Olympus 12mm f/2.0 even if it's quite expensive. The pro zooms at f/2.8 aren't really that fast anyway, less than a stop faster than the kit zooms at their shortest focal lengths. Currently, without proper image stabilization, even f/1.7 sometimes feels slightly too slow indoors.

I suppose the full range zooms might be an alternative, except that they feel a bit too expensive for what I feel like they are. I generally don't mind swapping to the 40-150mm if I need the extra reach, though of course it might lose me some shots and I'd thus rather buy something more specialized or cheaper. That said, if I did buy a body with weather sealing that would be very interesting.

I guess the main question I wanted to ask is whether I should pay the prices I quoted to get a kit instead of body only or whether I should try to buy a second 14-42mm R II cheaply. That'd obviously depend on which kit lens was available, which is why I wanted opinions on the Oly 14-42mm EZ and Panasonic 12-32mm and 12-60mm kit lenses.

It's really annoying to have to think about this. I thought I could get one of the newer kit lenses for under 100€ as part of a kit. The only kit I've seen where the price premium from having a kit lens is under 100€ is G80, which has the weather sealed Panasonic 12-60mm for 70€ more than just the body. As alluring excuse as that and the weather sealing are to buy a G80, I really don't think I should buy that over GX80 or E-M10 mark 2 with the price difference they have.

As I stated on another post, I framed my question badly: I have 25mm, 45mm and 60mm primes. What I need is a wider lens to replace my 14-42mm R II. The question is whether that should be another 14-42mm R II or some other kit lens offered with whatever camera I end up buying or something else like the pro zoom. The kit lenses seem to cost substantially more than I thought they would which makes this hard. If they were less than 100€ compared to body only I would just get whatever.

Currently I don't think the 12-40mm f/2.8 would be fast enough for low light since I find f/1.7 to be almost too slow and that's 1.5 stops faster. That said, when I buy a new camera, maybe the proper IBIS compared to the near worthless 2 axis IBIS in E-PL6 would compensate that much for anything that doesn't move. That said, the size does intimidate me, considering I plan on buying GX80 or E-M10 mark II, even if I haven't truly experienced anything like it, so maybe I'd better just scrap that off the list.

The 12mm f/2 would be neat too but I feel like that's too expensive and I think I can deal with using flash, tripod or a longer focal length in low light.

Depends on what you're looking for: Good all-around IQ or large aperture. If you need large, it will cost you dearly for the Panny 12-35 0r Oly 12-40. If you want good versatility and IQ and also have large-aperture  pimes, a used Panny 14-45 or 14-42 Mk II  will certainly do the job. I am quite amazed by the fact the 14-45 I bought new in 2011 is even costlier now! Still a great  basic zoom lens after all these years.

john isaacs wrote:

Here, you can get a G85 for $900, and a G85 w/12-60 for $1000. That's $100 for a lens that sells alone for $550. Quite a bargain. If that kit meets your needs, I would say go for it.

Here G80 is around 970€ alone and 1050€ with 12-60, which probably makes it about the same cost compared to other models. I find it a bit hard to justify getting that when GX80 alone is 450€ and even with the 12-60 699€ (curiously it's 690€ with 12-32), though it's far less useful without weather sealing.

I do kind of doubt the lens actually sells much at $550 though. If it did, that GX80 + 12-60 would be an amazing bargain for the lens alone.

Elmokki wrote:

As I stated on another post, I framed my question badly: I have 25mm, 45mm and 60mm primes. What I need is a wider lens to replace my 14-42mm R II. The question is whether that should be another 14-42mm R II or some other kit lens offered with whatever camera I end up buying or something else like the pro zoom. The kit lenses seem to cost substantially more than I thought they would which makes this hard. If they were less than 100€ compared to body only I would just get whatever.

Currently I don't think the 12-40mm f/2.8 would be fast enough for low light since I find f/1.7 to be almost too slow and that's 1.5 stops faster. That said, when I buy a new camera, maybe the proper IBIS compared to the near worthless 2 axis IBIS in E-PL6 would compensate that much for anything that doesn't move. That said, the size does intimidate me, considering I plan on buying GX80 or E-M10 mark II, even if I haven't truly experienced anything like it, so maybe I'd better just scrap that off the list.

The 12mm f/2 would be neat too but I feel like that's too expensive and I think I can deal with using flash, tripod or a longer focal length in low light.

Since you already own a trio of primes, unless you want 12mm covered then the 12-40mm f/2.8 might not offer you much more than the convenience of having a zoom that rivals your primes for IQ.  If I don't need to shoot quickly I will switch to my primes for indoor stuff. I use the 12-40mm f/2.8 for indoor shots as well, but usually only when there is enough light or when I don't have time to switch lenses (or when I'm shooting with a flash gun). The 12-40mm excels at event photography where the fast AF and zoom are handy. I also use the L-Fn button to temporarily switch from my flash preset (with an external flashgun mounted) to my available light Auto-ISO preset. I sometimes also use the MF clutch to toggle between MF and AF.

The size of the 12-40mm f/2.8 is not that significant to me coming from my previous DSLR shooting experience, but it is significant when compared to many m4/3 lenses and the smaller m4/3 bodies. Carrying and shooting with a GX80 or E-M10 with a 12-40mm attached is a different experience from using one of those cameras with a smaller/lighter zoom or prime. The center of gravity shifts to the lens more than it did when I shot a Nikon D200 with a 17-55mm f/2.8. It doesn't bother me while shooting because I always support the weight of my kit with my left hand under the lens and operate the camera controls with my right. It's not a lot to carry, but you won't carelessly hang an E-M10 with a 12-40mm attached around your neck as comfortably as you would with a lighter and smaller lens. This is one reason I enjoy using the 20mm f/1.7 and the Oly 9-18mm as walkaround lenses. I look like a tourist, but the camera is resting comfortably around my neck and is always ready to shoot. When I walk about with the 12-40mm attached, I usually carry the camera in my hand while not shooting, or in my camera bag. With the 12-40mm f/2.8 my m4/3 kit is still way more portable than my old DSLR gear.

If you can try the lens out before you buy. It's a beautifully engineered and built lens that will tempt you, but try to envision where it fits in your lens lineup and where/when you might use it over your other lenses. It is a beautiful chunk of lens, but it's definitely a chunk compared to featherweights like the 9-18mm and 45mm f/1.8.

Sean

Elmokki wrote:

I may have framed my question a bit badly. I own a few primes: Panasonic 25mm f/1.7, Olympus 45mm f/1.8 and the Olympus 60mm f/2.8 macro. I mostly use the 25mm prime on my camera, but there are two reasons I currently occasionally use the 14-42mm R II: 14mm is substantially wider than 25mm and as long as there's enough light or my camera is on a tripod the image quality is good enough that the only reason to switch to 25mm or 45mm primes is the shallower depth of field available. I also have the cheap Olympus 40-150mm for longer focal lengths and as much as I'd love either of the cheap 300mm zooms, that's a question I don't need help with. It's more of a question of when I'll get whichever is the cheapest (or Panasonic if I have Panasonic camera by then)

I'm pretty well covered for anything except the wider focal lengths, which is where I just simply need a new lens of some kind. If I wanted to truly shoot wide in low light I'd just get the Olympus 12mm f/2.0 even if it's quite expensive. The pro zooms at f/2.8 aren't really that fast anyway, less than a stop faster than the kit zooms at their shortest focal lengths. Currently, without proper image stabilization, even f/1.7 sometimes feels slightly too slow indoors.

I suppose the full range zooms might be an alternative, except that they feel a bit too expensive for what I feel like they are. I generally don't mind swapping to the 40-150mm if I need the extra reach, though of course it might lose me some shots and I'd thus rather buy something more specialized or cheaper. That said, if I did buy a body with weather sealing that would be very interesting.

I guess the main question I wanted to ask is whether I should pay the prices I quoted to get a kit instead of body only or whether I should try to buy a second 14-42mm R II cheaply. That'd obviously depend on which kit lens was available, which is why I wanted opinions on the Oly 14-42mm EZ and Panasonic 12-32mm and 12-60mm kit lenses.

It's really annoying to have to think about this. I thought I could get one of the newer kit lenses for under 100€ as part of a kit. The only kit I've seen where the price premium from having a kit lens is under 100€ is G80, which has the weather sealed Panasonic 12-60mm for 70€ more than just the body. As alluring excuse as that and the weather sealing are to buy a G80, I really don't think I should buy that over GX80 or E-M10 mark 2 with the price difference they have.

As you have the fast primes for the low lighting, I suppose the only consideration is:

1. Size; or
2. versatility of zoom range.

Before that, if it will be used on a latest Pany body (like GX85 or G85 or GH5), I would be in favour of a Dual IS I/II supported lens (or you might be disappointed by the still relatively less effective IBIS only of Pany bodies comparing to EM5 I/II's standard). Upon that terminology, all Oly kit zooms would be ruled out.

For size, 12-32 wins. For zoom range, 12-60 wins. I don't think their IQ (very good in terms of their price) would differ much from each other. 12-35 f/2.8 would be no doubt winning on every aspect to the 2 but heavier/larger, cost much more, and yet not as long as 60...

I see that you have the Panasonic 25/1.7 and Olympus 45/1.8 primes and that means that you don't really need the "fast" 12-40/2.8.

You also already have a kit zoom. IMHO you should just sell the PL-6 without lens.

Ulric wrote:

You also already have a kit zoom. IMHO you should just sell the PL-6 without lens.

I'd do that, but it's a fairly close relative I'm selling it to so I'm going to sell it with a lens and cheaply so they can actually use it.

Elmokki wrote:

Ulric wrote:

You also already have a kit zoom. IMHO you should just sell the PL-6 without lens.

I'd do that, but it's a fairly close relative I'm selling it to so I'm going to sell it with a lens and cheaply so they can actually use it.

In that case, getting the new camera in a kit including lens would be the way to go. I see at B&H that body+lens is only $50 more than the body alone.

I've owned the Panasonic kit lenses (14-42 and 14-45), the Pan Leica 25mm and the Olympus 45mm. All of them pale in comparison with the 12-40 f2.8, an exceptional lens. The 12-40 is one of my favorite lenses and one of the best I have used.

You often heare photographers recommend you buy the best glass possible..there is a reason. The clarity for the 12-40 is exceptional (really shines when cropping). Purchasing the 12-40 was easily the best m43 decision I've made.

Richard

Yeah. This really hurt my wallet but I ended up getting GX80 and 12-35mm f/2.8. I did say 12-35mm f/2.8 isn't sold at affordable prices, but it's for sale for about 600€ on Ebay from Europe brand new without warranty (grey market). In my books that's about as good as a near mint used one from Finland without warranty. It's about 3.5 times as expensive as I probably could've gotten the 12-32mm kit lens for used which does kind of sting, but I feel like the 12-35mm will probably keep its price well enough in case I end up regretting it for some reason. Who knows, maybe I'll even end up selling my 25mm f/1.7 if f/2.8 feels enough with dual IS which would bring the price down further.

GX80 body was 440€. It's been 399€ on a Black Friday sale and obviously the recent UK double cashback would've been even cheaper had I been ready to pull the trigger and found a trustworthy seller to ship it to Finland. I figured it's unlikely there's going to be some amazing cashback deal that brings it down much further any time soon since even that 440€ is 110€ cheaper than the next cheapest retailer.