What a difference a lens makes....

[davidedric]

I decided very recently to dip my toe in the micro 4/3 world, and bought a refurbished Panasonic G5 with version 1 of the 14-42mm kit lens, as a low cost entry point. My intention was to see whether the camera, with one or two lenses, could become my lightweight carry everywhere camera.

I love the camera itself for it's handling and configurability (I have small hands - don't think it would work too well if you have big hands). I have every key control set on a button, and it's all viewable in the EVF. Definitely ahead of my Canon 600D

However, I was distinctly underwhelmed by the quality of the images. I could get something reasonable out of RAW images with a lot of pp, but it seemed like a lot more work than it should be. I wasn't quite sure where to go next, but a camera without acceptable IQ is no camera at all.

Anyway, I did some more research and it appeared that version II of the lens, though still a "kit" lens, was much superior. Anyway, after some soul searching and much reading (remembering the cheap entry point), I decided to give the version II a try.

It arrived yesterday - and it's like chalk and cheese. I've only had chance to shoot a few test images but they are crisp, sharp and decently saturated (that's the RAW), haven't tried the jpegs yet). Very, very much happier.

Lessons? Not sure. Maybe looking for a cheap entry pint was always going to be a mistake. Maybe should have done more research - although in truth the refurb deal was a pretty good one. Of course it's possible that the original lens was a bad copy, but I don't think so. One thing is for sure, if you are thinking of buying one of these lenses - DON'T buy the version 1.

In truth I'm not that much worse off financially. I have a lens that I don't need, but can probably off load on ebay for a few £'s. I have a set up that I'm certainly going to give a run out to, and a bunch of experience.

I had pretty much decided to upgrade my DSLR to a 70D next year, and look into buying better glass to go with it (yes, I know that's the wrong order!), but I think I'm going to put that on hold. The same money invested in micro 4/3 could put together a nice set of kit.

Ah well, enough rambling for now. Any comments appreciated.

Dave

[inkista]

Just me, but I'd say bad copy, first. I never had too many issues with the first version of the kit lens, other than size (one of the three reasons I'm waiting for the GM1's kit lens, the 12-32 f/3.5-5.6 to arrive on the US market--the other two being 12mm coverage and the MTF).


G3+14-42 I, @14mm [28 equiv.], iso 160, f/4.5, 1/320s.

Then again, I have lower expectations of a kit lens, and I tend to stop down with it most of the time:


G3+ 14-42 I, @14mm, iso 160, f/11, 1/400s

However. Get the Olympus 45/1.8, and you're liable to be really happy.


G3+m.Zuiko 45mm f/1.8, iso 160, f/1.8, 1/4000s.

100% crop:

[inkista]

Ah. Looking up the MTF of the 12-32, found it interesting to do a comparison.

Here's are the MTFs of the 14-42 Mk I:



14-42 Mk II:



PZ 14-42:



And the 12-32 GM1 kit:



So, yes, the MkII improves over the MkI, but mostly in the corners and on size (it's smaller). The PZ is a little better than the standard 14-42 kit lenses (it costs $300, but it's also close to pancake size when retracted), but the surprise here is how good the 12-32 is. It should also be in the $300 price range. I'm guessing the design is based more on the PZ's since it also does the near-pancake thing.

[xpatUSA]

I decided very recently to dip my toe in the micro 4/3 world, and bought a refurbished Panasonic G5 with version 1 of the 14-42mm kit lens, as a low cost entry point. My intention was to see whether the camera, with one or two lenses, could become my lightweight carry everywhere camera.
However, I was distinctly underwhelmed by the quality of the images. I could get something reasonable out of RAW images with a lot of pp, but it seemed like a lot more work than it should be. I wasn't quite sure where to go next, but a camera without acceptable IQ is no camera at all.

Anyway, I did some more research and it appeared that version II of the lens, though still a "kit" lens, was much superior. Anyway, after some soul searching and much reading (remembering the cheap entry point), I decided to give the version II a try.

It arrived yesterday - and it's like chalk and cheese.

My experience was similar to yours. I bought a G1 body only and then searched eBay for a zoom. Choice was 14-45mm which was more expensive than the plastic-mount 14-42mm Mk I. Bought the 14-42mm . Sold the cam and the lens. Later, bought the GH1 body and, wiser this time, bought the G1 14-45mm kit lens. Chalk and Cheese for me, too.

[IzzieK]

After the initial body, investing in fine glass always makes a big difference...

During this Christmas holiday period, my husband and step-son were asking me a favour -- my reply? -- it'll cost you...and they immediately know what I meant. (it happened last year too so they are getting the idea...hehehehe)

[thequacksoflife]

I've never used the mk1 14-42 but a friend who had it didn't like it. I do know that the mkII got decent reviews on photozone. But Kathy's pics look rather good.

as to the 12-32? I am in lurve....... my Christmas present to me was a GM1. Went out yesterday afternoon in horrid light and it focused so well. A camera bag with a GM1 12-32 and the 14/20 primes is a bit light

[thequacksoflife]

So, yes, the MkII improves over the MkI, but mostly in the corners and on size (it's smaller). The PZ is a little better than the standard 14-42 kit lenses (it costs $300, but it's also close to pancake size when retracted), but the surprise here is how good the 12-32 is. It should also be in the $300 price range. I'm guessing the design is based more on the PZ's since it also does the near-pancake thing.

the 12-32 is smaller than the 20mm f1.7 mkI it's pretty close to the size of the 14mm (when retracted).

[inkista]

the 12-32 is smaller than the 20mm f1.7 mkI it's pretty close to the size of the 14mm (when retracted).

Yup. Main reason I want one. As I said, I've got the MkI of the 14-42, which is the largest of the Panasonic kit zooms. Be nice to swap to the smallest and have 12mm. I'm used to taking my 5DmkII out with the 24-105 on it, so I do miss the 24-28 range when I'm shooting with the G3+14-42--I'm typically jammed up against 14mm about 75% of the time when I'm using it. [Yeah, yeah. I've got an eye on the 7-14 and 9-18, too].

I'm really hoping Panasonic continues to design lenses to this diameter--Olympus has been doing it for a while (e.g., 45/1.8), so it's nice to see this compactness on both sides of the fence. So even though I don't want a GM1 personally, I'm really really happy it arrived.

I've been seeing a lot of "oh, great, just what we need--another f/3.5-5.6 kit lens" remarks on a lot of boards about the 12-32, but I get the feeling once folks start to use it that opinion might turn around. I have no temptation to pick up an Oly 12-50 now.

[thequacksoflife]

Yup. Main reason I want one. As I said, I've got the MkI of the 14-42, which is the largest of the Panasonic kit zooms. Be nice to swap to the smallest and have 12mm. I'm used to taking my 5DmkII out with the 24-105 on it, so I do miss the 24-28 range when I'm shooting with the G3+14-42--I'm typically jammed up against 14mm about 75% of the time when I'm using it. [Yeah, yeah. I've got an eye on the 7-14 and 9-18, too].

I'm really hoping Panasonic continues to design lenses to this diameter--Olympus has been doing it for a while (e.g., 45/1.8), so it's nice to see this compactness on both sides of the fence. So even though I don't want a GM1 personally, I'm really really happy it arrived.

I've been seeing a lot of "oh, great, just what we need--another f/3.5-5.6 kit lens" remarks on a lot of boards about the 12-32, but I get the feeling once folks start to use it that opinion might turn around. I have no temptation to pick up an Oly 12-50 now.

yes that 12mm does make a difference. hopefully Panny will release it lens only, i think they have in Germany. The GM1 is insanely small and surprisingly easy to use.

You'd love the 7-14 my local dealer got a really good second hand copy in. they had it as a commission sale and priced to go and well I just had to

Two lenses i got to play with recently are the new 14-140 (very small and competent for a travel zoom, pair with the 20 mm f1.7 for a nice out with the family kit) and 12-35 f2.8 not a lot bigger than the mk1 14-42 really

[inkista]

yes that 12mm does make a difference. hopefully Panny will release it lens only, i think they have in Germany. The GM1 is insanely small and surprisingly easy to use.

I read somewhere that it's planned as a lens-only release, but of course, if the US gets it, we'll be the last market to do so. (sigh).

You'd love the 7-14 my local dealer got a really good second hand copy in. they had it as a commission sale and priced to go and well I just had to

Congrats! It's an awesome piece of glass--just too expensive for what I'm willing to fork out on mft at the moment, and then there's the fact that the 9-18 reaches farther into the walkaround range, and takes filters and that the Oly refurb site sometimes lists it, and I'm evenly balanced between the two. The 7-14 is much more dramatic, though. There's also the fact that I could get a Tokina 11-16/2.8 or an EF 17-40/4L for my 50D or 5DmkII at much the same price... and I'm paralyzed with indecision. Spoilt for choice.

Maybe I'll go super-cheap and get a Rokinon 14/2.8 for the 5DMkII instead.

The funny thing is I thought I'd go for the expensive glass when I hit mft, but I simply haven't. No 12/2, 25/1.4, 75/1.8 or the f/2.8 zooms for me. Not yet. Still eyeing all the new systems coming out, I guess. [grin].

[rpcrowe]

I have never purchased nor shot with a Canon kit lens. When I purchased my first Canon 10D DSLR, I also purchased the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens. Despite, this lens being later sold in a kit with other bodies, it is not a "kit" lens. Neither is the 24-105mm f/4L IS lens which was often sold as a kit with the Canon 5D series cameras.

I have since standardized on the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses. Yes, they were expensive and are somewhat heavy but, these lenses have lasted me through several generations of DSLR bodies and when I look back at my images shot with these lenses on my 30D and 40D cameras, the image quality is excellent.

I fully expect these lenses to last me until a long while in the future. The pro-rated costs of these two lenses over the last seven years or so of use are not nearly as mind boggling as was the original cost.

I really don't like lenses that are reviewed with terms like, "almost" or "for the price"

[thequacksoflife]

Congrats! It's an awesome piece of glass--just too expensive for what I'm willing to fork out on mft at the moment, and then there's the fact that the 9-18 reaches farther into the walkaround range, and takes filters and that the Oly refurb site sometimes lists it, and I'm evenly balanced between the two. The 7-14 is much more dramatic, though. There's also the fact that I could get a Tokina 11-16/2.8 or an EF 17-40/4L for my 50D or 5DmkII at much the same price... and I'm paralyzed with indecision. Spoilt for choice.

Maybe I'll go super-cheap and get a Rokinon 14/2.8 for the 5DMkII instead.

The funny thing is I thought I'd go for the expensive glass when I hit mft, but I simply haven't. No 12/2, 25/1.4, 75/1.8 or the f/2.8 zooms for me. Not yet. Still eyeing all the new systems coming out, I guess. [grin].

as m43 is now my only system ..... and the price was not much more than the 9-18 I thought go for it! I do understand your point though. the 9-18 is a decent walkaround lens.

the m43 lens are generally pretty good. even the cheaper glass like the 14 f2.5, 20 f1.7 (my fave) and 45 f1.8. If you have a full frame system then I can understand your reticence.

luckily I am close to two proper camerastores and both have a person who uses m4/3

Apologies to the original poster Dave for going off topic. The G5 is a nice camera it's not sexy and like the G6 gets a bit overlooked because its sensor is not state of the art but it does everything well (a friend has one).

Dave if you do look to buy more m4/3 lenses then I'd recommend the 20 f1.7 it is small and sharp. I have the MKI and now that the MKII is out the MKI is becoming available second hand. Reviews suggest little to no change between the two.

[davidedric]

As the OP no worries about going off topic. This has been a very helpful and interesting thread, and thanks to all who have contributed (special thanks to Kathy )

[inkista]

I have never purchased nor shot with a Canon kit lens. When I purchased my first Canon 10D DSLR, I also purchased the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens. Despite, this lens being later sold in a kit with other bodies, it is not a "kit" lens. Neither is the 24-105mm f/4L IS lens which was often sold as a kit with the Canon 5D series cameras.

Huh. To me, "kit lens" means exactly that: a lens that's sold kitted in the box with the body. So, in my book, the 28-135 IS and the 24-105L ARE both kit lenses. To my mind, the main reason the 28-135 IS got updated to crop/digital as the EF-S 18-135 IS is mainly because it was being used as a kit lens. And it was a kit lens on film Canons for a long time. To me, "Kit lens" doesn't mean crap lens, even if we are talking about the 18-55 lenses; or the many many 14-42s of the mft world.

as m43 is now my only system ..... and the price was not much more than the 9-18 I thought go for it! I do understand your point though. the 9-18 is a decent walkaround lens.

The 7-14 is the impractical seriously-love-it lens, while the 9-18 is the practical-but-not-magic one. If they were the same cost, I'd have plumped down for the 7-14, even though after hauling around a fisheye for six years, I am soooo tired of remembering to protect a naked bulgy front element... I'm a UV filter believer.

the m43 lens are generally pretty good. even the cheaper glass like the 14 f2.5, 20 f1.7 (my fave) and 45 f1.8. If you have a full frame system then I can understand your reticence.

Yup. Given that if I shoot with an ultrawide it's most likely to be for environmental portraits or landscape, full frame tends to fulfill that need a bit better. OTOH, mft is still the most convenient, and most-used system I have. And yes, I've been relatively astounded at how even the consumer-grade glass in the mft system performs. Yay for digital lens correction. Still, to my mind, the 45/1.8 is actually a step above the other two lenses you mention: short telephoto lenses are typically going to be better performers than wides, let alone the more extreme wides called for by a smaller sensor format.

....Dave if you do look to buy more m4/3 lenses then I'd recommend the 20 f1.7 it is small and sharp. I have the MKI and now that the MKII is out the MKI is becoming available second hand. Reviews suggest little to no change between the two.

Pretty much what I've concluded from the reviews. And yes, the 20/1.7 is a good starter lens. The only problem is that as a fast wide normal, it's still a close-to-$300 lens even as a used MkI. It's definitely a better performer than the Olympus 17/2.8 pancake.

My personal recommendation is insane: the Samyang/Rokinon/etc. etc. 7.5mm f/3.5 fisheye. It's about $200 right now, manual focus doesn't matter so much with a fisheye, and unlike it's APS-C sibling, it's very compact and tiny. But, as I said, insane recommendation unless you're already a fisheye addict.


G3+Rokinon 7.5 fisheye. Slightly defished (stereographic mapping) via LR lens profile.

As the OP no worries about going off topic. This has been a very helpful and interesting thread, and thanks to all who have contributed (special thanks to Kathy )

You're welcome!

[thequacksoflife]

Huh. To me, "kit lens" means exactly that: a lens that's sold kitted in the box with the body. So, in my book, the 28-135 IS and the 24-105L ARE both kit lenses. To my mind, the main reason the 28-135 IS got updated to crop/digital as the EF-S 18-135 IS is mainly because it was being used as a kit lens. And it was a kit lens on film Canons for a long time. To me, "Kit lens" doesn't mean crap lens, even if we are talking about the 18-55 lenses; or the many many 14-42s of the mft world.

the 18-55/14-42 are all pretty decent these days. they often give something up in build quality but for the price as part of a kit they are not a bad option. I think a lot of people remember the old film kit zooms the 28-80's....

but Richard makes a valid point that quality lenses will outlast bodies. As an example in the UK at the moment you can get a Panasonic G6 with 14-140 for the price of a 14-140 on its own with Panny's latest cashback offer. That is mad! and the g6 is a seriously good video camera if you are into video by all accounts (I'm not)

The 7-14 is the impractical seriously-love-it lens, while the 9-18 is the practical-but-not-magic one. If they were the same cost, I'd have plumped down for the 7-14, even though after hauling around a fisheye for six years, I am soooo tired of remembering to protect a naked bulgy front element... I'm a UV filter believer.

curiously I've just bought a polarising filter and have a UV filter obvously not for the 7-14.

Yup. Given that if I shoot with an ultrawide it's most likely to be for environmental portraits or landscape, full frame tends to fulfill that need a bit better. OTOH, mft is still the most convenient, and most-used system I have. And yes, I've been relatively astounded at how even the consumer-grade glass in the mft system performs. Yay for digital lens correction. Still, to my mind, the 45/1.8 is actually a step above the other two lenses you mention: short telephoto lenses are typically going to be better performers than wides, let alone the more extreme wides called for by a smaller sensor format.

you are probably right but the 20mm and 14mm get much more use by me. If you told me I could only keep one of the three it would be the 20. But I think that goes to show that we all have different objectives as shooters......

There are some excellent full frame options now. I really don't understand Canikon's philosphy on their crop sensor cameras. Canon launch a 22 f2 pancake for the M when it would have been great for the EF-S mount and Nikon launch a compact with an APS-C sensor and a 18 f2.8 lens. And have they launched an 18 f2.8 for DX? no! we get a bunch of 18-XXX lenses. I appreciate you can use FF lenses but they are bigger than they need to be. well my two cents worh

Not my problem anyway the latest generation of m4/3 sensors are fine for my needs and the lens options are excellent.

Pretty much what I've concluded from the reviews. And yes, the 20/1.7 is a good starter lens. The only problem is that as a fast wide normal, it's still a close-to-$300 lens even as a used MkI. It's definitely a better performer than the Olympus 17/2.8 pancake.

well picked mine up as part of kit originally. As I said David should check out sites for second hand copies which are normally 60% of the price of the new one. Also check out local dealers in case they have new copies split from bodies. The lens is then normally on a discount. Which is how I acquired the 12-35 (hey it's Christmas ) Curiously the 20mm pricing in the US is higher relatively than it is in the UK, go figure.

My personal recommendation is insane: the Samyang/Rokinon/etc. etc. 7.5mm f/3.5 fisheye. It's about $200 right now, manual focus doesn't matter so much with a fisheye, and unlike it's APS-C sibling, it's very compact and tiny. But, as I said, insane recommendation unless you're already a fisheye addict.

get thee behind me! i'll stick with the 7-14

[inkista]

...If you told me I could only keep one of the three it would be the 20. But I think that goes to show that we all have different objectives as shooters...

Yup. The 20/1.7 is often my default lens for the G3. But if I could only keep one of my mft lenses, it would probably be the 45/1.8.

I really don't understand Canikon's philosphy on their crop sensor cameras. Canon launch a 22 f2 pancake for the M when it would have been great for the EF-S mount and Nikon launch a compact with an APS-C sensor and a 18 f2.8 lens. ...

A 28/2.8 equivalent is wide enough and slow enough not to be an all-rounder for me. 35-40 equivalency, to me, actually is hitting the sweet point. Still long enough for normal, but wide enough for adding context/landscape, fast enough for available light, short enough focus distance for near-macro and sharp enough to make anyone happy. It's why the 20/1.7 in mft hits a sweet spot and why you'd probably choose it over your 14.

The 22/2 is actually the one thing Canon did right on the EOS M in my view. And especially making it an f/2. I can get by with an f/2.8 prime lens, but I'll love an f/2 prime.

... Not my problem anyway the latest generation of m4/3 sensors are fine for my needs and the lens options are excellent.

My 2¢ comment: if only the flash system were as good. At least Panasonic finally got off their freaking butts and added the RC wireless flash stuff in the current generation of camera bodies and finally got an RC flash out there, but jeebus; they couldn't have done this at the start? And it's not like there are cheap Yongnuo radio triggers out there to do mft's TTL/HSS/remote commanding.

[re: 20/1.7 price]...As I said David should check out sites for second hand copies which are normally 60% of the price of the new one.

And here in the states that means $300 for a used 20/1.7. A new MkII is $400.

Makes a Canon 50/1.8 II or 40/2.8 STM look cheap when it comes to fast normal primes.

[re: 7.5 fisheye]... get thee behind me! i'll stick with the 7-14

Giiiiiiive iiiiiinnnnnn....


G3+Rokinon 7.5. No digital defishing--just horizon placed in middle of frame.

Usually $250 or thereabouts. Dirt cheap as fisheyes go. And tiny. Why I can hold off on spending for a 7-14 or 9-18. Not that defishing in post is a substitute, but it helps when the rectilinear urge hits:



And, of course, the main reason I own a fisheye is to do these. While you can do it with a 7-14, it's not nearly as easy...

[thequacksoflife]

The 22/2 is actually the one thing Canon did right on the EOS M in my view. And especially making it an f/2. I can get by with an f/2.8 prime lens, but I'll love an f/2 prime.

sorry I was not clear.... the 22/2 is the right lens. but surely they should have released something like it for say the SL1/100d/?

yeah you're right a 28 f2.8 equiv is too slow. Fuji got that right with a 28 f2 equiv. you tempted by a 30 f1.7 equiv for m4/3?

My 2¢ comment: if only the flash system were as good. At least Panasonic finally got off their freaking butts and added the RC wireless flash stuff in the current generation of camera bodies and finally got an RC flash out there, but jeebus; they couldn't have done this at the start? And it's not like there are cheap Yongnuo radio triggers out there to do mft's TTL/HSS/remote commanding.

logic from a camera company?? get out of here. flash is next on my list. not really looked at the options. thinking fl360e. a lot of the old houses i shoot in ban flash hence gone for fastish lenses .....

And here in the states that means $300 for a used 20/1.7. A new MkII is $400.

Makes a Canon 50/1.8 II or 40/2.8 STM look cheap when it comes to fast normal primes.

snuck a look at the price. weird as the 12-35 is at a £1 = $1 rate. us brits get fleeced......

Giiiiiiive iiiiiinnnnnn....


G3+Rokinon 7.5. No digital defishing--just horizon placed in middle of frame.

Usually $250 or thereabouts. Dirt cheap as fisheyes go. And tiny. Why I can hold off on spending for a 7-14 or 9-18. Not that defishing in post is a substitute, but it helps when the rectilinear urge hits:



And, of course, the main reason I own a fisheye is to do these. While you can do it with a 7-14, it's not nearly as easy...

you are a cruel woman.......

[inkista]

sorry I was not clear.... the 22/2 is the right lens. but surely they should have released something like it for say the SL1/100d/?

Ah, yes, see what you mean. OTOH, Canon has never managed to cough up a $200 EF-S 35mm f/1.8 USM either, the way Nikon has their $200 Nikkor AF-S 35/1.8G. Normal-on-a-crop remains a conundrum for Canon shooters.

... you tempted by a 30 f1.7 equiv for m4/3?

Oddly, no. Because it's likely to be in the $600 price range, and I seem to be staying very steadily in the $300 and below range right now. I was surprised that I went for the 45-200 instead of the 100-300, frankly. Much as I love mft, I'm probably still not convinced it's a permanent home, yet, given how I'm still going back to the Canons from time to time.

...logic from a camera company?? get out of here.

I know. As I've said before: Canon logic is not our earth logic. And Panasonic's well... kinda demented.

...flash is next on my list. not really looked at the options. thinking fl360e. a lot of the old houses i shoot in ban flash hence gone for fastish lenses .....

Yeah. It all depends on what you shoot. My other hobbies include folding origami and restoring vintage fountain pens, so I got into the macro/product thing pretty fast, hence liking lighting gear. FL360E also seems to be where I'm heading, but only after I upgrade from the G3 to a body that supports the RC stuff. And I have to dump my FL-50. Most demented UI evah: gives me the power output by guide number. The FL360E/FL-600R has a custom function to switch to display power ratios instead.

snuck a look at the price. weird as the 12-35 is at a £1 = $1 rate. us brits get fleeced......

Nice for it to be the other way 'round for once, innit?

One more fisheye shot. Because yes, I am that cruel and I think I may have finally decided to buy the G3 and go mft when I found out this lens had been released.

[thequacksoflife]

ARGH

I will be interested to see what (or if) you upgrade to....

and I can understand why you want a foot in full frame. I was coming from a crop sensor.....

[RustBeltRaw]

OTOH, Canon has never managed to cough up a $200 EF-S 35mm f/1.8 USM either, the way Nikon has their $200 Nikkor AF-S 35/1.8G. Normal-on-a-crop remains a conundrum for Canon shooters.

The EF 20mm f2.8 USM (32mm on crop) does a pretty good job. It's certainly not my favorite lens, it softens considerably when wide open, and I would kill for a an EF 24mm f2.0 USM, but it's the best cost/quality solution I've found. About $400 used.