14-42 on the GH2, do you have it, is it any good?

C

ChipThome

Well-known member
Unique Photo has a nice discount on the GH2 body only, and Provantage has a pretty fair discount on the kits with the 14-42 lens. The difference in these is about $150. compared to the list price discount of $100.

I want three GH2s and already have a pair of the 14-140 lenses. I want to be able to work in a third that will be compatible "enough" for now. I had used my 45-200 with the 14-140 on another and it was close, but no cigar for my use and needs.

Amazon has the 14-42 new in the box for $179, so we know it's a cheapo lens.

My questions to you, did you get a GH2 with the 14-42 and is it any good, or is it just a "get me by" ???

Would the 14-45 be a better investment ??? Does it function perfectly on the GH2 ??? That one is a shade over $300.

Being a lens newb, I am looking at the Lumix brand only for these. I am out trying to learn and wish to experiment with others, but for now I have to have something guaranteed to work.

Your input is always much appreciated !!!!
 
I got it and I will say this. In decent light I find it perfectly acceptable, even surprisingly good. The OIS is nice. Video and photo's are quite sharp....in good light. But in lower light (which doesn't take much at F3.5) the image seems to suffer more than other lenses at same iso's. I've seen examples of the 14-140 wide open at 14mm in high iso and the image is much sharper than the 14-42 at same settings. But the 14-140 is $800 so it should be much better.
 
Get the body, then pick up a prime like a 50 mm rokkor, if you want the zoom, get the 14-45 which is a better lens all around than the 14-42.
 
Thanks for your input guys.... Dave what about the 14-45 is better ??? Most all I could find about it online was confined to the discussion of shooting stills. I am more interested in shooting video with it, and if it functions like the 14-140 in the auto modes.
 
I had the 14-42 for quite some time and it worked very well on the Gh1 and on my GH2. The AF isn't quite as fast as the 14-140 but it's pretty much as silent. Optically, it's not bad at all for the price. Possible the best kit lens I've used (I've had Canon and Nikon cameras). I've upgraded to the 14-45 which is quite a bit sharper wide open. You have to stop down a bit on the 14-42 to get optimum sharpness. Thing is, this is most significant when shooting high res stills and not much of an issue with video at all. As far as AF and silent focus goes the 14-42 and 14-45 are identical. The 14-45 has a metal mount and it slightly more solid but there isn't much in it.

If it's primarily video you do then I'd suggest the 14-42. Spend a bit more to get hold of a couple of prime lenses. Get the 20mm f1.7 if you can afford it! If not, something like a 50mm f1.4 or f1.8 and a 28 or 35mm Olympus, Pentax, Canon FD etc would do well for low light shooting. I've got some Vivitar primes which are cheaper and also generally very good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top