Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: 14-45 vs 14-42

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Rainham
    Posts
    1,008
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    52
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    74
    Thanked in
    62 Posts
    Likes: 30
    Liked 29 Times in 20 Posts

    14-45 vs 14-42

    Hi all,
    Has anyone done a comparison between the old and the new "kit" lenses or know of any reviews that have?

    Thanks

    Graham

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Hemel Hempstead UK
    Posts
    7,790
    Blog Entries
    13
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    166
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    799
    Thanked in
    498 Posts
    Likes: 98
    Liked 123 Times in 61 Posts

    Re: 14-45 vs 14-42

    Quote Originally Posted by Graham View Post
    Hi all,
    Has anyone done a comparison between the old and the new "kit" lenses or know of any reviews that have?

    Thanks

    Graham
    I have DxO Analyzer test data on both lenses, but not fitted to the same camera. Distortion, CA and vignetting information should be comparable, but not sharpness as the sensor resolutions are different.

    I can't dig this out right this minute, but I will update you as soon as I can.

    Ian
    Founder/editor
    Four Thirds User (http://fourthirds-user.com)
    Digital Photography Now (http://dpnow.com)
    Olympus UK E-System User Group (http://e-group.uk.net)
    Olympus camera, lens, and accessory hire (http://e-group.uk.net/hire)
    Twitter: www.twitter.com/ian_burley
    Flickr: www.flickr.com/photos/dpnow/
    Pinterest: www.pinterest.com/ianburley/

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    197
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Likes: 0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: 14-45 vs 14-42

    I just changed my 14-45 for 14-42 mainly because of the size and weight. I have been really delighted with the 14-42. Subjectively it seems sharper, the close focus distance is down to about 8", the handling is better in my opinion. I can do close ups not possible with the 14-45. I have been so pleased I am also changing my 40-150 for the new lightweight version.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    439
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    36
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts
    Likes: 6
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: 14-45 vs 14-42

    Old thread, new response, as I have something to show

    Previously had 14-45 on E500 and bought the 14-42 with the E510. Sort of things I 'normally' shoot don't need close distance (and generally not Live View either). Today I had the opportunity to really try both out, with a visit from a local native - a ring-tailed possum (Pseudocheirus peregrinus) in our wisteria vine.

    These shots taken at distance less than 35 cm, held at full stretch above my head with only LV to see what I was looking at in the vine

    So, QED, the short focusing distance of the 14-42 vs 14-45 is useful to have (and LV too for that matter)
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Cheers....OzGary
    -----------------------------------
    E620 + ZD 14-42, 14-54, 40-150, 50-200, 70-300 and EC14 (+ E510)
    E-M1 + EP3 + VF-2 + u1250 + u1442 + u14150 + u17 + u45 + MMF-2

    Picasa

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    243
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Likes: 0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: 14-45 vs 14-42

    Like Glyn R, I found the 14-42mm to be sharper than the 14-45mm (purely subjective) - can't think of any reason to prefer the 14-45mm, except "metal mount snobbery".

    I had the old 40-150mm and loved it but had to sell up for a 50-200mm. The old one was plenty small for me, but the new one is even tinier! Suppose it's up to personal taste whether size/weight of the new one is more useful than the extra 1/2 stop or so the old one gives.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Xtc
    Posts
    208
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Likes: 0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: 14-45 vs 14-42

    Quote Originally Posted by Den View Post
    Like Glyn R, I found the 14-42mm to be sharper than the 14-45mm (purely subjective) - can't think of any reason to prefer the 14-45mm, except "metal mount snobbery"...
    It is a little disappointing that Oly didn't use a metal mount on the 14-42. I don't think I'm a 'metal mount snob'. They are mating surfaces which are subjected to friction. Is plastic really up to a long-term job? It seems like an economy which compromises quality.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    243
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Likes: 0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: 14-45 vs 14-42

    Call me old-fashioned, but I like a nice metal mount too. I suspect it's an irrational preference though, as I have now-ancient plastic mounted M42 lenses that seem none the worse for wear after 20 years of use. And even if metal is superior to plastic, tt could be worse - Oly could made something as pedestrian as the Nikkor 18-55mm or, worse still the Sigma 18-50mm! Instead, they didn't compromise on image quality andd the 14-42mm is a real little gem which I'm enjoying very much, despite having a (metal-mounted) 14-54mm as well.

  8. #8
    E1-2-E3 Guest

    Re: 14-45 vs 14-42

    One of the selling points of one of the new canon 1D somethings is that it's plastic lens cap has been made of a different material that won't 'wear' thusallowing 'dust' into the mirror box.

    I haven't seen these new plastic based lenses, what do they look like after long use with much changing?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Xtc
    Posts
    208
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Likes: 0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: 14-45 vs 14-42

    Quote Originally Posted by Den View Post
    Call me old-fashioned, but I like a nice metal mount too. I suspect it's an irrational preference though, as I have now-ancient plastic mounted M42 lenses that seem none the worse for wear after 20 years of use. And even if metal is superior to plastic, tt could be worse - Oly could made something as pedestrian as the Nikkor 18-55mm or, worse still the Sigma 18-50mm! Instead, they didn't compromise on image quality andd the 14-42mm is a real little gem which I'm enjoying very much, despite having a (metal-mounted) 14-54mm as well.
    Mmmm. Your experience of the old plastic mounted M42 lenses is convincing, but do you really mean 20 years of wear and tear, or 20 years ownership? Japan's gift to the world was limited lifespan and I do feel a natural resistance to it. I'm not for one moment questioning the fitness for use of the Oly 14-42, but so often these economies go into the manufacturer's pocket and not the customer's. I marvel at my 1959 British Seagull outboard engine which is still entirely serviceable and the company still makes all the spares I need for it. The quaint little manual says that if you look after you Seagull it will last you your entire life!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Saskatoon, Canada
    Posts
    7
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Likes: 0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Re: 14-45 vs 14-42

    Actually, the United States and its car industry deserve much more credit for designed obsolescence than the Japanese. And thank you, while there are a few things that the Brits do extremely well - like my Apeks scuba regulator, there are many others they don't. I'll continue to buy Japanese cars, for example. The oldest I have is a 1991 Toyota Previa that still works beautifully.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •