LUMIX 14mm vs 12-32

[timo]

At comparable apertures and focal length, is the image quality produced by the 14mm f2.5 Lumix pancake significantly better than that of the 12-32 zoom?

 

[Allan Brown]

At comparable apertures and focal length, is the image quality produced by the 14mm f2.5 Lumix pancake significantly better than that of the 12-32 zoom?

NO.

I have the 14 and 3 12-32. I would not say that the lens IQ is any better but much about the same. My friend also has a 14 and that one does not look any different from mine.

The speed advantage of the 14 at f2.5 vs the 12-32 at 14mm, f3.7 (1 stop) is, in most cases, negated by either OIS or IBIS.

The 14 is smaller.

I also have the P15mm. I do not believe that it is much sharper than the 14 but the rendering is quite different. It is also 3 times longer and a lot more expensive.

Allan

 

[timo]

At comparable apertures and focal length, is the image quality produced by the 14mm f2.5 Lumix pancake significantly better than that of the 12-32 zoom?

NO.

I have the 14 and 3 12-32. I would not say that the lens IQ is any better but much about the same. My friend also has a 14 and that one does not look any different from mine.

The speed advantage of the 14 at f2.5 vs the 12-32 at 14mm, f3.7 (1 stop) is, in most cases, negated by either OIS or IBIS.

The 14 is smaller.

I also have the P15mm. I do not believe that it is much sharper than the 14 but the rendering is quite different. It is also 3 times longer and a lot more expensive.

Allan

That is extremely helpful. I suspected it might be so. You are right about ibis. As for the 15mm, it’s tempting, but I can’t justify it. At that focal length I get very pleasing results using my Pentax DA15 with an adapter. Not too big or heavy.

 

[Allan Brown]

At comparable apertures and focal length, is the image quality produced by the 14mm f2.5 Lumix pancake significantly better than that of the 12-32 zoom?

NO.

I have the 14 and 3 12-32. I would not say that the lens IQ is any better but much about the same. My friend also has a 14 and that one does not look any different from mine.

The speed advantage of the 14 at f2.5 vs the 12-32 at 14mm, f3.7 (1 stop) is, in most cases, negated by either OIS or IBIS.

The 14 is smaller.

I also have the P15mm. I do not believe that it is much sharper than the 14 but the rendering is quite different. It is also 3 times longer and a lot more expensive.

Allan

That is extremely helpful. I suspected it might be so. You are right about ibis. As for the 15mm, it’s tempting, but I can’t justify it. At that focal length I get very pleasing results using my Pentax DA15 with an adapter. Not too big or heavy.

I only got the P15 because I got a very good deal. I hardly ever use it or the 14 for that matter. The 12-32 is just more versatile. If I want better IQ, then I use my O12-40.

Allan

 

[cba_melbourne]

At comparable apertures and focal length, is the image quality produced by the 14mm f2.5 Lumix pancake significantly better than that of the 12-32 zoom?

IQ is pretty much the same.

What sets the 14 apart is:

- it's the smallest and lightest AF lens in the system. Just 55grams, and 20.5mm long

- it's one stop faster than the 12-32 at 14mm

- it does not need to be extended to use, nor collapsed to store

- it is much more robust (the 12-32 is a quite fragile lens)

- it has a manual focus ring, the 12-32 does not

 

[baxters]

The P!4mm was my second prime, after the P20mm. I recall ordering it from Japan for around $200, about 2/3 of the NYC prices in 2011. It was definitely sharper than my 14-42 version 1 Olympus kit lens at 14mm, but then most lenses are.
.
I later picked up the DMw-DWC1 WA adapter and for a long time, that 11mm equivalent was my widest lens,
.
When the 12-32mm came out as a kit lens, it made the P14mm less relevant for newer M43 members. Today, I don't see anyone buying it, but it filled a niche 10-12 years ago.

 

[Quodz]

Quite the reverse, I had both and compared them side by side. My 12-32 was sharper at 14mm, dumped the 14mm.

 

[SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany]

At comparable apertures and focal length, is the image quality produced by the 14mm f2.5 Lumix pancake significantly better than that of the 12-32 zoom?

IQ is pretty much the same.

What sets the 14 apart is:

- it's the smallest and lightest AF lens in the system. Just 55grams, and 20.5mm long

- it's one stop faster than the 12-32 at 14mm

- it does not need to be extended to use, nor collapsed to store

- it is much more robust (the 12-32 is a quite fragile lens)

- it has a manual focus ring, the 12-32 does not

If only there was a smallish compact Pany 12mm f/2.5 with the benefits of 14mm f/2.5.

 

[mobi1]

The Panasonic 15 mm f/1.7 is better lens than 14 mm f/2.5 but priced lot higher too.

The DJI 15 mm f/1.7 is effectively same as Pana 15 mm yet priced like 14 mm lens.

So DJI 15 mm f/1.7 wins

 

[pipituni]

At comparable apertures and focal length, is the image quality produced by the 14mm f2.5 Lumix pancake significantly better than that of the 12-32 zoom?

IQ is pretty much the same.

What sets the 14 apart is:

- it's the smallest and lightest AF lens in the system. Just 55grams, and 20.5mm long

- it's one stop faster than the 12-32 at 14mm

- it does not need to be extended to use, nor collapsed to store

- it is much more robust (the 12-32 is a quite fragile lens)

- it has a manual focus ring, the 12-32 does not

one additional benefit is that the 14/2.5 can be converted to UWA with one of these with no loss of light:

https://www.panasonic.com/uk/support/discontinued-products/cameras-camcorders/dmw-gfc1gu.html

i picked up a 14/2.5 a few years ago for less than 90 quid, and then found one of those converters for only £65

very happy with both

 

[SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany]

The Panasonic 15 mm f/1.7 is better lens than 14 mm f/2.5 but priced lot higher too.

The DJI 15 mm f/1.7 is effectively same as Pana 15 mm yet priced like 14 mm lens.

So DJI 15 mm f/1.7 wins

Looked at the Dji 15/1.7;a month or so ago doesn't have the small compact benefits of 14 f/2.5.

Dji wins one way in being faster.

Dji looses in 2 ways not as wide as 12mm not as compact as 14mm.



Overall reckon gonna pick up Lx100 its f/1.7-f/2.5 in such a compact form almost 4/3 sensor convenient urban london. Even if it brings dust onto sensor via lens zoom.

--
Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.

 

[pannumon]

At comparable apertures and focal length, is the image quality produced by the 14mm f2.5 Lumix pancake significantly better than that of the 12-32 zoom?

IQ is pretty much the same.

What sets the 14 apart is:

- it's the smallest and lightest AF lens in the system. Just 55grams, and 20.5mm long

- it's one stop faster than the 12-32 at 14mm

- it does not need to be extended to use, nor collapsed to store

- it is much more robust (the 12-32 is a quite fragile lens)

- it has a manual focus ring, the 12-32 does not

12-32 has optical stabilization, 14mm does not. This is something to consider when using cameras like GM1 and GM5.

 

[Todd Yes]

The Panasonic 15 mm f/1.7 is better lens than 14 mm f/2.5 but priced lot higher too.

The DJI 15 mm f/1.7 is effectively same as Pana 15 mm yet priced like 14 mm lens.

So DJI 15 mm f/1.7 wins

Looked at the Dji 15/1.7;a month or so ago doesn't have the small compact benefits of 14 f/2.5.

Dji wins one way in being faster.

Dji looses in 2 ways not as wide as 12mm not as compact as 14mm.

DJI loses in not having firmware updates, so you if you get stuck with one with the old firmware that performs poorly, there is nothing you can do about. It also loses in not being recognized by all editing software, such as DxO PhotoLab and PureRAW, so you lose out on that software's optical corrections, which are vastly superior to the basic stuff the camera and the manufacturer's software can do.

 

[SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany]

The Panasonic 15 mm f/1.7 is better lens than 14 mm f/2.5 but priced lot higher too.

The DJI 15 mm f/1.7 is effectively same as Pana 15 mm yet priced like 14 mm lens.

So DJI 15 mm f/1.7 wins

Looked at the Dji 15/1.7 a month or so ago doesn't have the small compact benefits of 14 f/2.5.

Dji wins one way in being faster.

Dji looses in 2 ways not as wide as 12mm not as compact as 14mm.

DJI loses in not having firmware updates, so you if you get stuck with one with the old firmware that performs poorly, there is nothing you can do about. It also loses in not being recognized by all editing software, such as DxO PhotoLab and PureRAW, so you lose out on that software's optical corrections, which are vastly superior to the basic stuff the camera and the manufacturer's software can do.

Todd. Today purchased Lx100 bargain price 1/4 its usual price, has minor issue straightforward workaround, as nearly all my mirrorless camera purchases this year.

Lx100 draws dust onto sensor via lens some dpr forum members reported, others reported no such issue.

Finishes my search for a small fast wide lens for m4/3 for urban london, more compact jacket pocketable f/1.7 24mm - f/2.8 75mm although sensor area a little less than 4/3.

--
Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.

 

[yonsito]

That is my impression also.

I keep my 14/2.5 because it is really, really small but it's not a stellar lens. The 12-32, however, punches well above its weight IMHO.

 

[SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany]

Just now purchased fully manual focus 10mm f/2.0 TTArtisan. I will have time to manual focus for the topics I want to photograph urban london. A lot smaller lighter than adapting my Sigma 10-20 + my viltrox.

Because TTArtisan didn't change the optics for m43, just the mount, the edges of the frame look terribly smeared because of the thicker filter stack on m43. ....It does get better when stopping down, but personally I didn't want an f/2 lens just to shoot it at f/5.6-8 for acceptable edges, and with an ultrawide, I want sharp edges because the whole reason I got the lens was to capture more at the edge of the frame!

The exact same lens, adapted to E-mount, will look perfectly fine on a camera with a thinner filter stack. It's not a bad lens, it's just a bad lens on m43 specifically. If you read good reviews of it, and saw good sample photos of it, on other brands of cameras, and are confused as to why the one you got looks so terrible on your m43 camera... now you'll know why. You didn't get a bad copy, you're just using it on the wrong camera, and exchanging it for another copy won't improve things.

I hated it and returned it for a refund. You might be okay with the image quality, but if you're not, get the Laowa 10mm f/2 instead, as the optics in that were actually designed for the m43 filter stack, and the edges of the frame are much much much better.

Todd Yes wrote:

It happens on every single m43 camera except the Blackmagic cinema cameras, as those have a thinner filter stack. It happens with every Chinese manual focus ultrawide or fisheye lens that I've ever tried, other than Laowa's made-for-m43 lenses, because none of them change their optics when changing the mount. I have not tried any of Laowa's made-for-APS-C-but-given-an-m43-mount ultrawides.

It's worse on fisheyes, but also still present on ultrawides.

Adapting it to Sony cameras and seeing way better image quality was truly disheartening, but I saw the exact same thing with every Chinese fisheye I tried, so I wasn't surprised by it.

Todd is it smearing edges or soft edges.

They are different things.

You ought to be specific.

Soft edges at f/2.0 for a $£150 rectilinear 10mm f/2.0 lens that has low ca low distortion is to be expected, can't expect the earth.

Smeared edges is a no no as it's abberations easy to spot.

I cancelled my £84 TTArtisan 10mm f/2.0 purchase because of what you wrote. P*ssed at my self for not making sure what you meant.



--
Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.

 

[cba_melbourne]

At comparable apertures and focal length, is the image quality produced by the 14mm f2.5 Lumix pancake significantly better than that of the 12-32 zoom?

IQ is pretty much the same.

What sets the 14 apart is:

- it's the smallest and lightest AF lens in the system. Just 55grams, and 20.5mm long

- it's one stop faster than the 12-32 at 14mm

- it does not need to be extended to use, nor collapsed to store

- it is much more robust (the 12-32 is a quite fragile lens)

- it has a manual focus ring, the 12-32 does not

12-32 has optical stabilization, 14mm does not. This is something to consider when using cameras like GM1 and GM5.

Usually yes, OIS is a big advantage for GM bodies. But at 14mm FL I do not really miss IS very much. Also consider the aperture advantage of the 14 over the 12-32 is worth one stop of IS, as it halves the exposure time.

For me the small size of the 14 takes priority over IS. I rather have it just 55g and just 20.5mm long, than any larger to accommodate an OIS element and motors.

 

[cba_melbourne]

At comparable apertures and focal length, is the image quality produced by the 14mm f2.5 Lumix pancake significantly better than that of the 12-32 zoom?

NO.

I have the 14 and 3 12-32. I would not say that the lens IQ is any better but much about the same. My friend also has a 14 and that one does not look any different from mine.

The speed advantage of the 14 at f2.5 vs the 12-32 at 14mm, f3.7 (1 stop) is, in most cases, negated by either OIS or IBIS.

The 14 is smaller.

I also have the P15mm. I do not believe that it is much sharper than the 14 but the rendering is quite different. It is also 3 times longer and a lot more expensive.

The PL15 (and the DJI15) is VERY much sharper than the P14 in the edges. But about the same in the center. As is to be expected, given the substantial difference in price and size and weight. The PL15 also has better contrast, and an almost clinical rendering in comparison. And the P14 has a somewhat strange, non-round bokeh.

Compare the two MTF charts from Lenstip below. At f/4 the PL15 has 64lp/mm in the edges, the P14 has at f/4 only 48LP/mm in the edges. That is 25% less resolution in the edges, which is quite a lot.


P14/2.5


P15/1.7

 

[Allan Brown]

At comparable apertures and focal length, is the image quality produced by the 14mm f2.5 Lumix pancake significantly better than that of the 12-32 zoom?

NO.

I have the 14 and 3 12-32. I would not say that the lens IQ is any better but much about the same. My friend also has a 14 and that one does not look any different from mine.

The speed advantage of the 14 at f2.5 vs the 12-32 at 14mm, f3.7 (1 stop) is, in most cases, negated by either OIS or IBIS.

The 14 is smaller.

I also have the P15mm. I do not believe that it is much sharper than the 14 but the rendering is quite different. It is also 3 times longer and a lot more expensive.

The PL15 (and the DJI15) is VERY much sharper than the P14 in the edges. But about the same in the center. As is to be expected, given the substantial difference in price and size and weight. The PL15 also has better contrast, and an almost clinical rendering in comparison. And the P14 has a somewhat strange, non-round bokeh.

Compare the two MTF charts from Lenstip below. At f/4 the PL15 has 64lp/mm in the edges, the P14 has at f/4 only 48LP/mm in the edges. That is 25% less resolution in the edges, which is quite a lot.


P14/2.5


P15/1.7

Well, that may be true on paper but I compared them side by side. Each was mounted to one of my EM5 MkII bodies and, using a DIY mount, they were on the same tripod.

I took several shots at close and far distances at various common apertures. At 100% view, I could not see any meaningful difference in sharpness anywhere in the frame. I even swapped the bodies they were on just in case there were any differences - there was none.

I do agree about the contrast, however, by adjusting the 14's contrast in post, the two lenses look much about the same.

Sure, overall, the 15 is the better lens and I will choose it over the 14 for important work. However, for casual photography, the 14 is just fine although I prefer the 12-32 for that purpose - swapping that for my 12-40 Pro when it is needed.

Allan

 

[Todd Yes]

Just now purchased fully manual focus 10mm f/2.0 TTArtisan. I will have time to manual focus for the topics I want to photograph urban london. A lot smaller lighter than adapting my Sigma 10-20 + my viltrox.

Because TTArtisan didn't change the optics for m43, just the mount, the edges of the frame look terribly smeared because of the thicker filter stack on m43. ....It does get better when stopping down, but personally I didn't want an f/2 lens just to shoot it at f/5.6-8 for acceptable edges, and with an ultrawide, I want sharp edges because the whole reason I got the lens was to capture more at the edge of the frame!

The exact same lens, adapted to E-mount, will look perfectly fine on a camera with a thinner filter stack. It's not a bad lens, it's just a bad lens on m43 specifically. If you read good reviews of it, and saw good sample photos of it, on other brands of cameras, and are confused as to why the one you got looks so terrible on your m43 camera... now you'll know why. You didn't get a bad copy, you're just using it on the wrong camera, and exchanging it for another copy won't improve things.

I hated it and returned it for a refund. You might be okay with the image quality, but if you're not, get the Laowa 10mm f/2 instead, as the optics in that were actually designed for the m43 filter stack, and the edges of the frame are much much much better.

Todd Yes wrote:

It happens on every single m43 camera except the Blackmagic cinema cameras, as those have a thinner filter stack. It happens with every Chinese manual focus ultrawide or fisheye lens that I've ever tried, other than Laowa's made-for-m43 lenses, because none of them change their optics when changing the mount. I have not tried any of Laowa's made-for-APS-C-but-given-an-m43-mount ultrawides.

It's worse on fisheyes, but also still present on ultrawides.

Adapting it to Sony cameras and seeing way better image quality was truly disheartening, but I saw the exact same thing with every Chinese fisheye I tried, so I wasn't surprised by it.

Todd is it smearing edges or soft edges.

They are different things.

You ought to be specific.

Soft edges at f/2.0 for a $£150 rectilinear 10mm f/2.0 lens that has low ca low distortion is to be expected, can't expect the earth.

Smeared edges is a no no as it's abberations easy to spot.

I cancelled my £84 TTArtisan 10mm f/2.0 purchase because of what you wrote. P*ssed at my self for not making sure what you meant.

I was specific. I said smeared, and I meant smeared. While I don't have any examples from that lens, these examples from phillipreeve.net show the exact same thing with different lenses and different cameras: the problem of a lens not being designed for a thick sensor stack. Consider the A7III example to be what the TTA 10mm looked like on an m43 camera, and the A7rII UT (ultra-thin sensor stack modification) example to be what the exact same lens looked like when put on an E-Mount adapter and used on a Sony APS-C camera, which has a sensor stack half the thickness of m43.



As a further illustration of what I mean by "smearing," I'm talking about blur that has directionality to it, and coma. Pay attention especially to the points of light on the right side... this is a Samyang fisheye optically designed for m43 on an m43 camera on top, and a Meike fisheye optically designed for APS-C cameras with just the mount changed to m43, on an m43 camera. The Meike looked fantastic when adapted to E-mount. The problem is definitely the sensor stack, and lenses not being optically designed for it.