14-42 Zuiko first edition how good ?

[teos]

<p>Hello !<br>

How bad (or good ) is the 14-42 zuiko first edition ? I read mixed reviews and seen mixed results .I have a good oportunity for an EPL-1 + kit to replace my G9. Would this combo give results good enough not to feel sorry about the Canon G9 ? Please post samples ,if you don't mind.<br>

I have a NEX3 wich I absolutely love and use with legacy primes .But I don't like the bulk of the Sony 18-55 kit ,so I'd like the compactness of the foldable 14-42 Zuiko for the situations when I want stabilized AF zoom .</p>

[ukhov]

<p>Very good and nothing wrong unless on what it mount.<br>

Here some sample with the structure in respond-</p><div></div>

[ukhov]

<p>The cameras you own not in any good match to wonder about this lens, say not wide for 8-19 mm and not a super telephoto to kick bird smile @600 mm focal</p>

[r.t. dowling]

<p>I've been using the E-PL1 + 14-42 combo for the past three days and I'm pretty impressed thus far. The 14-42 seems to be at least as sharp as my Pentax 18-55, which I consider one of the best kit lenses ever made.</p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y144/mec407/sbc/04-15-2012/P4150108.jpg" alt="" width="799" height="599" /><br>

<strong>E-PL1 + 14-42 @ 14 5.6</strong></p>

[r.t. dowling]

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y144/mec407/P4150104.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<strong>E-PL1 + 14-42 @ 24 5.6</strong></p>

[r.t. dowling]

<p>100% crop from above</p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y144/mec407/cP4150104.jpg" alt="" /></p>

 

[johnfarrar]

<p>I've had the EP1 + original 14-42 for a couple of years. It's sharp (more so at 14 than 42), small and light. Optically, no complaints, and the extend/collapse operation soon becomes second nature. My one problem with it is that my specimen has such a weedy focus motor that it will just not focus properly at the long end if I put a lens hood or filter on the lens; and for me this is a serious fault. Also pretty flare resistant and lowish CA. Pretty good for close-ups at 42 mm. I'll keep and use it as a versatile very light lens.</p><div></div>

[johnfarrar]

<p>Just re-read your q: I got the EP1/14-42 to replace my G9 and have never regretted it. The IQ is so much better because of the larger sensor, and dynamic range is much better. The camera is substantially bigger, though, and I miss the built-in 3 stop ND filter of the G9. But if you want better IQ in a small package, it's a good move.</p>

[matthew_newton]

<p>It is quite good. At 42mm it is a little soft, at wider focal lengths it is quite sharp. It is not an outstanding performer, but for a kit lens it is very good. The only two real complaints I have are that it is a little noisy when focusing compared to most of the MSC/silent focusing lenses in micro 4/3rds line up and it is also slow to focus compared to most other micro 4/3rds lenses, in good light on my wife's E-PL1, I'd say maybe 1 full second, in poor light with good contrast I'd say maybe an extra quarter second. From what I have read and the little I have experience (so far) of other micro 4/3rds lenses, most of them on an E-PL1 will focus about 20-40% faster.</p>

<p>No real CA issues and flare isn't a big deal. There IS a fair amount of veiling in strong backlit situations, but generally there needs to be at least 5 or more stops of contrast difference to show any veiling issues (example, shooting someone standing in front of a window inside and not using fill flash to balance exposure).</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>Optically, it's a fine enough lens. Autofocus is pretty slow. The E-PL1 has no dials, all buttons; it's regarded as the worst PEN made for its slower operation and handling shortcomings. However, it has the same sensor as all PENs and for the most part produces identical images.</p>

<p>However, while your Sony kit seems bigger, a side-by-side comparison tells a different story. Look at these photos:<br>

NEX-3 compared to E-PL1<br>

http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/SonyNex5Nex3/images/NEX3-compared.jpg<br>

Photos of the NEX-C3 compared to the E-PL3, but the size comparison carries over to previous models:<br>

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonynexc3<br>

Here is a reviewer with side-by-side photos as well:<br>

http://www.davidchuaphotography.com/2010/09/25/sony-nex-3-vs-olympus-e-pl1/<br>

So, if I were you I would skip the E-PL1 kit. You wouldn't gain anything over your current NEX-3; it's already very small.</p>

[meissner]

<p>There is a feeling that the original 14-42mm had a wobble at certain shutter speeds. If you shot faster or slower than those speeds, things were great. Olympus did put out a firmware release for some of the camera bodies to make it less likely, but I did see reports that it still existed.</p>

<p>If you have a choice, the second version of the 14-42mm that started as a kit lens for the E-PL2 seems to have fixed the problem. Note, this version of the lens can also take 3 new adapters (fish-eye, wide-angle, and macro) that can be cheaper than getting a dedicated lens.</p>

[djphoto]

<p>I bought an E-PL1 almost two years ago with the original version of the kit zoom.<br /> <br /> If you like, take a look at the Blurb online version of my book <em>Georgia: A Backroads Portrait</em> <a href="http://www.blurb.com/books/2390260" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.blurb.com/books/2390260</a>. Most of the photos in the book were made before I got my E-PL1, but the wedding photo on page 25 was made with that camera and lens. The mill on page 46 was chosen over a 5D shot of the same scene, and the tree on page 127 was picked over a Rolleicord Vb shot. The full-page photos are 12x12 in the book. All of these were made with the kit zoom.</p>

[djphoto]

<p>By way of correction, Ariel, the E-PL1 is considered to have the best image quality of any Pen because of the weaker AA filter.</p>

[ken_max__parks]

<p>What concerns me about the this particular kit lens, 14-42mm and subsequent lenses is the workmanship. The kit lens is made in China and has plastic moving parts, internal and external. Basically, they are cheap and have a shorter life expectancy than the higher quality and higher priced Olympus lenses.</p>

<p>During the days of shooting with the E-3 and E-30, I rarely used these cheap kit lenses. Instead I favored the higher quality Olympus lenses or went with third party lenses such as the Tamron 70-200mm, f/2.8.</p>

<p>Even the E-3 and E-30 bodies are made... in China! DAMN!</p>

<p> </p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>No Dave, the E-PL1 doesn't have a weaker AA filter of all PENs. It is the first PEN to use the weaker AA filter, but every other one since then has also had this. That list is comprised of every Olympus m4/3 camera except for the E-P1 and E-P2.</p>

<p>Ken, I haven't seen any evidence that Olympus' made in China lenses have proven to be any less lasting than their made in Japan ones. I haven't seen that evidence with anyone else's lenses either, for that matter.</p>

[teos]

<p>Thank you all for your answers ! You helped me to make a decision.<br>

I can tell you that starting from today I joined the m4/3 gang .<br>

I am waiting for a Oly EPL1 body (got it reasonably cheap 150 E transport included). I intend to use it as an upgrade for my G9 .I'll prefere the 14-42 first edition because it's more compact than the second edition ,and I am planning to get also a 14/2.5 and maybe a 20/1.7 when the finances are going to allow . The NEX3 is going to be ,as it is now ,my beloved camera for manual focus with my legacy lenses</p>

[meissner]

<p>When the lenses are folded down, I don't really recall much difference in size. The Olympus specification page said the mark 1 was 60x43.5mm and the mark 2 was 55x50mm. The 7mm difference in length doesn't seem like it would make much difference.</p>

[teos]

<p>Y've got the last version of the 14-42mm ,Michael ! Just got one for 102 Euro without transport.</p>