Support
You can support this site without any cost or disadvantage at all by clicking this link to Amazon or the one on the left before buying anything – be it underpants, a cupboard, a TV, a pen, a lens or a camera. Amazon is the only shop worldwide, I’m really satisfied with to a 100%, so I have no caveats advertising them. Of course, you can also directly donate a small amount of money, e.g. the amount you would have spent for a magazine, with the button on the left.
Panasonic X Vario 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 PZ Asph.
Before the Olympus 14-42mm EZ came, this was the thinnest zoom for mFT, apart from the Panasonic 12-32mm, the KIT-lens sold with the GM1, which lacks a manual focus-ring or lever.
A tiny standard-zoom for mFT, with optics on a good modern standard-KIT-lens-level, slow like all KIT-lenses. It's from Panasonics "luxury"-line of lenses, an "X Vario" vs. the normal "G Varios", feeling very fine mechanically, but not on one level with professional lenses from professional manufacturers like Canon. It is completely motor-driven: It uses a lever for zooming, like a point-and-shoot, which is quite unusual. Even more strange: Manual focus is done with an equal lever, too.
Indeed, it's size was the one and only reason for me to own it for a while, before the Olympus 14-42mm EZ came, even if I barely use standard-zooms in general, and even only for my second system. This X Vario is so short, that I can leave my most-used 9-18mm mounted on the camera and have this in the pocket of my jeans, for when I need to shoot people or something else more "normal" than 35mm equivalent.
Here it is side-by-side to the Canon 28-80 USM, the most comparable "fullframe"-lens I have:
This designation in my selection of mFT-lenses also is the reason why I prefer it to the Panasonic 12-32mm, the KIT-lens sold with the GM1, which is a bit more expensive used, but is 1 or 2 millimeters shorter and smaller in diameter: I want it as a "normal", barely used lens for "backup"-situations, while I primarily use an ultrawide, or maybe a tele. So the 24mm equivalent (12mm), while very nice in general, is no gain to me with such a lens, as I carry an ultrawide anyway, and 64mm (32mm) is even shorter than the not-very-long-also 84mm (42mm) of this lens, being too short and slow (remember it's already f/5.6 at 32mm) for portraiture and other things for which I might wish to have a long(er) lens. Another show-stopper of the 12-32mm is the missing focus-ring, by the way.
It is a bit longer than the Olympus 14-42mm EZ, which follows the same concept but with rings instead of levers for zoom and focus and without built in image-stabilization for Panasonic-bodies. The Pana is bigger in diameter and a bit longer, too, but only one or two millimeters, and a lot more ugly than the Olympus - the Oly at least looks like a normal lens:
My sample of the Olympus is optically better than my sample of the Panasonic, but not by much. Both are roughly on a level with the other 14-42mm - KIT-lenses by Olympus and Panasonic, closer to the second generation (14-42mm II R MSC), than to the first (14-42mm ED L).
The lens' tiny size is only it's transport-position, like all the Olympus KIT-lenses - all extend to about twice it's size when the camera is turned on. That's no problem - it doesn't bother me to hav a longer lens, when holding it, size matters when carrying it.
I have sold it in the meantime, mainly because of it's far inferior ergonomics vs. the Olympus-variant. What you can clearly see here is, what I have also said about the Panasonic GM1: It is, where Panasonic comes from and what they are: Panasonic is an electronics-company. A good one, but an electronics-company. They build (consumer-)electronics. They built the GM1 and the 14-42mm PZ with technics in mind: The goal to built the smallest possible camera, or a small zoom-lens. They simply didn't realize, that the compromise got too big and so is now limiting the usability to a maybe barely acceptable, but really annoying degree. That's the difference to the second manufacturer of mFT - cameras and -lenses, Olympus: Olympus is a camera-manufacturer with tenth of years of experience with real photography and the demands of photographers. When they build such a lens, they take more time to develop it, but what comes out is a lens with the best compromise imaginable between size and function. They keep the demands of the user, the photographer in mind.
COMPATIBILITY
As a classic, genuine Panasonic X Vario. it works perfectly with every mFT camera, Panasonic or Olympus. There are no known issues in any combination, but remember, that, other than Olympus, most Panasonic-bodies don't have stabilization built in, so you don't have any with a Olympus lens.
PRICE
This lens' pricing is still influenced by it's relatively new age and low supply, but drops since the Olympus is out: At this moment it's sells for around € 150,- used. It might be worth it, I think.
ACCESSORIES
As usual, this original X Vario is shipped without the shade, I wouldn't use anyway. They charge obscene prices for this cheap plastic-barrel, so I'd always buy third-party if you insist in having a fixed shade, or use my favourite, a collapsible rubber hood instead. But honestly: Do you really buy such a tiny lens to destroy it's size with a shade?
It uses 37mm filters, which seems to evolve as a smaller standard for mFT-lenses: The Oly 45/1.8, the 14-42mm R MSC and the Oly 14-42mm EZ use it, too and I'm especially happy about the 45/1.8, because I think it's a nice addition to this lens. My other two "standard"-lens-selections are the 9-18mm and the Panasonic 45-150mm, which both use 52mm-filters, so I just have to carry two small (cheap) sizes. Of course it'd be better to just have one size of filters, but that's the price you have to pay for the size-advantage: You can't built a 90-300 equivalent lens or an ultrawide with 37mm filters and bigger filters would destroy the size-advantage of the 45mm or the 14-42.
It's worth mentioning, that even a normal filter is so thick in comparison to this lens, that this, together with the Oly 14-42 EZ, is the only lens I use without an UV-filter for protection. I just have a grad and a CPL with me. In this case, size is more important than protection to me. With all other lenses, the gain in size is just irrelevant and see "UV-filters" for the reasons to use it.
Like on all mFT-lenses I know of, the manual focus is done by actuating the motor. So the method with the lever is just another ergonomic implementation of this standard ... but a bad one: Even if it actually works fine, it feels crappy.
The filter - thread doesn't rotate, making the use of grads and polarizers uncomfortable.
MECHANICS
Made in China.
Metal lens mount.
The build-quality is great for this type of lens. It is a completely different world than e.g. Canon-KIT-lenses or the KIT-lenses. While being built of plastics, is has no apparent tolerances, nothing has play or wobbles, not even in it's erected position. Sadly, the zoom-motor doesn't sound all too convincing regarding it's lifetime, a bit "scratchy" and stressed, while the Olympus sounds smooth and silent. The plastics feel high-quality and sturdy.
The levers feel exceptionally smooth.
Far from Canon-L-standard, but great.
Plastic filter thread.
The AF-motor is extremely fast and very silent. Fulltime manual override is possible. It doesn't "feel" as fast as on Canon DSLRs, but this is due to the system itself and not a fault of the motor: Contrast-AF (used in all cameras that focus relying on the sensor-image), while being absolutely precise, in comparison to phase-detection-AF used in most DSLRs, does not "know" in which direction to focus, so it always moves in both directions (near and far) before it locks, while in most situations, when focus isn't completely off, DSLRs at once turn in the right direction, but don't have such a high precision. AF-fine-tuning (or Micro-Focus-Adjustment, MFA, as Canon calls it) simply isn't necessary on mFT.
This lens' built quality is perfect for me: If I had the chance to decide, I would have built this lens of plastics, too, to safe weight, and it still is built very well.
GREAT!
ERGONOMICS
It feels great, but handles awful, even for it's size.
This is an extremely small lens and weighs next to nothing. Size DOES matter, also see Lenses: What's important?.
Fulltime manual focus override is possible, as it always is on mFT.
The problem with this lens are the levers. While you can find a position, that is OK for giving stability and actuating the zoom-lever at the same time, it's completely impossible to also use the focus-lever in this position. This is the same the other way round. When you want to change the lever actuated, you have to change the position of your hand. Every "real" photographer I know holds the camera with the right hand at the shutter-button and holding the other with thumb and pointing-finger in front, resting the lens/camera on the palm and turning the rings between thumb and finger. This is impossible when you want to "change" levers.
This is the main difference to the Olympus: While, of course, everything is extremely crammed together there, too, it is worlds ahead of the Panasonic PZ (or the 12-32mm, which doesn't have manual focus at all!). The Oly might be even smaller, but the focus-ring and the ring to actuate the electric focus are reachable with one hand without changing it's position. It is even designed in a way, that enables you to feel which ring you are turning at the moment.
It's simply impossible to remain in a stable holding position and change focus on the display (you need a third hand to do so) with the 12-32mm or the actuate both levers on the Panasonic 14-42mm PZ, because they are located above each other.
The used materials, a combination of metal and high quality plastics, are great for me, combining the weight- and stability advantages of both.
There is no focus-scale, infrared-focus-indices or depth-of-field-scale.
The filter-ring doesn't move.
Overall: Awful.
OPTICS
Optics are very good for a standard-zoom, "fullframe"-lenses are usually a lot worse, but not as good as the best, which ironically are the best KIT - lenses sometimes.
While it behaves completely as expected, the main thing is, that it's perfectly usable at every setting. Basically, this is all you need to know and you can stop reading here.
The minimum focus distance is 0.2m, so at 42mm, the maximum magnification is aprox. 1:4, which looks like 1:2 on fullframe and as such isn't as good as the very best technically, but in it's appearance makes a seperate macro-lens obsolete, apart from the need for working-distance.
Distortion is automatically corrected by mFT-cameras and therefore on an irrelevant level. I don't really care for the uncorrected values, because for me, the results is what counts, but if you insist, it's awful, exorbitant barrel on the wide end changing to visible pincushion on the tele-end.
Vignetting is very clearly visible and relatively annoying, with dropping, uneven luminance over most of the frame and rapidly further dropping brightness in the corners:
This diminishes when zoomed in or stopped down.
The aperture is made of 7 rounded blades, giving you smooth out-of-focus highlights with hardly any magnificent 14-ray-light-stars.The Panasonic is much better than the Oly here, with it's 5-blades and 10-point-light-stars.
I don't have any information about this lens' usability for infrared-photography, sorry.
Flare is nothing to worry about. May it's because of the all-so-tiny elements, but it's hard to produce any flare with the light outside of the frame. While I think, that a lens less prone to flare and especially ghosting is not always better, as at least ghosts can be a very nice tool to show the lighting conditions in your pictures, this lens only flares and produces ghosts, when the light-source is in the frame. But you can shoot directly into the sun and if you don't burn your sensor doing so, the pictures look great all the time, with just some ghosts in the opposite corner of the photo. If you really manage to "glow-out" your picture due to flare, it is easily shielded by one hand or avoided by changing the angle a bit, because it is so light and small.
It's color reproduction really seems to be a bit warmer than the Oly EZ and my other M.Zuiko's. That's quite odd. Maybe this is due to the strong vignetting "cheating" the eye with darker colors?
Lateral CAs (purple/green fringes along high-contrast edges), are very stroong. The fact, that CAs are visible at all, leads me to the thought, that this aberration may be uncorrected by my PEN, what would be quite strange, because this is easy to do in fact, but when corrected, it should be absolutely zero. It may be above two pixels wide at max here, which is really strong and worse than the Oly. It's worst at the wide end. I'd always correct this in postprocessing, otherwise it annoys me.
Sharpness is one of the most overrated qualities of lenses. That being said, this lens is great, but a tiny bit behind the Oly. Of course it's worst setting is the wide end, where the corners are a bit softer wide open as expected. But that's never to a degree that could be really disturbing.
Here are some samples for CA and sharpness:
100% Crop from 16MP JPG (E-PM2), 14mm, roughly the center, f/3.5 (wide-open).
100% Crop from 16MP JPG (E-PM2), 14mm, extreme top-left corner, f/3.5 (wide-open). Show me a standard-zoom for Canon "fullframe", that is this sharp in the extreme corners wide open. Don't be ashamed to look at any price-range L-lenses ;-)
100% Crop from 16MP JPG (E-PM2), 42mm, roughly the center, f/5.6 (wide-open).
100% Crop from 16MP JPG (E-PM2), 42mm, extreme top-left corner, f/5.6 (wide-open).
As mentioned above, there's absolutely nothing to ever think about.
On mFt, stopping down usually, at least with lenses this slow, doesn't really help sharpness, because due to the smaller sensor, diffraction, meaning the purely physical effect of softening when closing the aperture, that has nothing to do with the lens' quality, already starts to become visible from around f/5.6 on, while it is f/8 or f/11 on APS-C and "fullframe". These lenses are still perfectly usable at f/11, of course, but already getting weaker.
But if a lens is this sharp wide open, it's not necessary to worry about stopping down.
Because the comparison to the Olympus 14-42 EZ was so important to myself, I'll show you the results side-by-side, at the worst possible setting (14mm f/3.5):
Left Panasonic, right Olympus. Both 50% crops from the extreme top-left corner from 16MP JPGs (E-PM2), no further software-corrections, same sharpening, same settings. The Panasonic might be a tiny bit softer.
Vignetting, left Panasonic, right Olympus. Again, the Panasonic is a bit worse... and has a bit different color-rendition (same lighting!)
Alternatives
The most obvious alternative is the Olympus 14-42mm EZ I did always compare it with. The Panasonic has the better diaphragm, but is the same or worse optically and a lot worse ergonomically and even a bit bigger, so I'd choose the Olympus, except for if I'd need stabilization.
Und Samsung ist ja doch eher ne recht coole Marke, da lohnt es sich ja zumindest mal zu fragen…
A word about supporting this site
I don’t run this site to earn money. I have a real job to earn my living with, a completely normal job. Since everything I write about here I have bought myself, for myself and with my own money from normal shops or ebay-sellers to actually use it, how much and what I am able to write about , depends on the amount of money that I can save and invest in equipment with good conscience. I share all this, because I want to, not to sell it. But when you find this helpful, maybe even as helpful as buying a magazine or book, of course you can support me, if you want. Your benefit is, that you help me being able to afford things to write about here.
You can use the “Donate” – button on the left to directly send a small amount of money (or a big amount, if you insist). You don’t need a paypal account to do so, every method is possible. If you decide to donate 99 cents, I’m thankful for it, because 10 people being as kind as you, make one new filter tested! The default currency is US $, but it works well with € or nearly any other currency, too.
But even more simple and without any cost or other disadvantage at all it is, to simply use this link to Amazon (or the one on the left) before buying anything there. For you it’s exactly the same as going there directly by typing the web-adress in your browser, you just klick this link first! It doesn’t matter, what you buy or where in the world you buy it, be it underpants, a pen, a cupboard, a lens or a Leica M9, be it in Germany, the USA, the UK or Australia: Amazon’s servers simply realize, that you came there through the link on my page and I get a small percentage of anything you buy FROM THEM. There’s absolutely no cost or other disadvantage for you, Amazon simply pays for my “advertisement” through this. I originally didn’t want to ever do any advertising personally. But then I decided to break this rule for Amazon. I’m a completely satisfied customer and buy everything from them. It’s the only shop in the world I would personally and on my private basis really rate a complete 100% in every regard. They have perfect service, even do call you back, answer emails with real, personal writing, extremely fast delivery even on Christmas-day, always perfect and completely new items, are never considerably more expensive than the very cheapest internet-sellers, have an extremely fast refund-system without being picky or having ever displeased me in any way and sell every good I have ever wanted to buy. They work on a completely different level than any retailer I have ever tried, and deliver it directly to me, without robbing me time and money to drive to the city or mall. I wouldn’t advertise them, if I wasn’t convinced, that it is OK to do so.