What is the difference between this lens and the 14-42mm that is NOT "version ii?"
1606296
I've had both. They both have the same light gathering abilities, but the version II is smaller and is a bit better optically the the original 14-42, although I think you'd be hard pressed to see the difference in most situations. The version II is a smoother lens, mechanically.
1606297
This lens is a little smaller in size,and according to reports takes sharper photos than the old one.
1606298
This lens is a bit smaller in size,and takes sharper photos than the NOT "versionⅡ".
1606299
I have all 3 lumix 14-42 lenses, the only diferance I can see is the size. Eric.
1606300
The version II lens is smaller, has significantly better image quality IMO, takes a 46mm filter instead of a 52mm filter, and when you zoom it in and out, it only extends about 1/4". IMO it is a much better lens than the original version. The "kit" version of the v.II lens that comes with Panasonic cameras has a plastic lens mount, but I would still take it over the original 14-42mm lens without a second thought.
870299
It's a zoom lens, to start with. The Canon is fixed focus, but the Olympus goes from 14-42 mm - wide angle to relatively normal viewing angle. You may get somewhat sharper pictures with the Canon (I don't know the specs, the difference is probably not very noticeable unless you go to a high enlargement) but the versatility of zooms makes them more attractive. The battle rages on the blogs which is best -a fixed prime or a flexible zoom. I go with zooms but pay premium. Since you didn't specify exactly which Canon lens this was, I guess you are talking about $200 vs $300, which is significant at this level, but becomes less so as you investigate high-end lenses. It's a zoom lens, to start with. The Canon is fixed focus, but the Olympus goes from 14-42 mm - wide angle to relatively normal viewing angle. You may get somewhat sharper pictures with the Canon (I don't know the specs, the difference is probably not very noticeable unless you go to a high enlargement) but the versatility of zooms makes them more attractive. The battle rages on the blogs which is best -a fixed prime or a flexible zoom. I go with zooms but pay premium. Since you didn't specify exactly which Canon lens this was, I guess you are talking about $200 vs $300, which is... » Read More It's a zoom lens, to start with. The Canon is fixed focus, but the Olympus goes from 14-42 mm - wide angle to relatively normal viewing angle. You may get somewhat sharper pictures with the Canon (I don't know the specs, the difference is probably not very noticeable unless you go to a high enlargement) but the versatility of zooms makes them more attractive. The battle rages on the blogs which is best -a fixed prime or a flexible zoom. I go with zooms but pay premium. Since you didn't specify exactly which Canon lens this was, I guess you are talking about $200 vs $300, which is significant at this level, but becomes less so as you investigate high-end lenses. « Show Less
1789339
14mm f/2.8L is a "fish eye" type of lens...then, your choice...the glass is a masterpiece...I did never use 16-35mm f/2.8L II, but it is providing some zoom flexibility...
759247
Even better. The 1.4 is rock solid compared to the flimsy 1.8, and slightly faster. Ten times as expensive, but may be worth it. If you're still thinking of adding a new zoom to your arsenal, look at the 24-105L, as well. It's pretty much a coin toss, as far as IQ, with the 24-70L, but it adds IS. So, it's one stop slower, but it gains about 3 stops due to the IS, so it's actually better for low-light than the "faster" lens. And longer, too.
763551
It's about the same this lens is what the earlier models came with I think I have the 16-50 lens too this one is just all manual and it feel there's more attachments for it like wide angle and fish eye instead of buying a whole new lens for both of those options.
766703
Decent, but not as good as the 14-24mm f/2.8 Having one stop better means the difference between ISO 6400 or ISO 12800. It could mean the difference between 1/15th of a second and 1/30th of a second. I think the purpose of this lens is more of landscape than a low light performer.
173419
I have Lumix DH3 ; I am using with it 14-45mm lens much more often than 45-200mm. I agree with others that 14-45 is a great lens, sharper than newer 14-42.
1330640
The big difference is image size on your cameras sensor. With this lens you can get a one to one size reproduction. With your 50mm that image size is going to be much smaller and with less detail.
2175608
You will get more coverage with the 14. I have the lens and I am very impressed with image qulity and the minimal distortion from such a wide lens...its still not cheap but is a great lens.
354386
I wouldn't say that it is a wider angle than the low-end 14mm, but the image clarity is higher than a zoom lens at 17mm being a dedicated prime. It is certainly more compact.
2166215
Title and description lies. It is the 14-42mm II R Lens. I suggest ordering just the body and a different lens anyway, this one is not very good.
1063911
I bought it brand new but I got rid of it already and bought the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS. Much better lens! Super sharp all through out the zoom range.
528654
I ended up with the 20mm and love it. I used it for 2 weeks before getting the additional 14-45mm lens. Why did I get the 14-45mm? Well, as Gary D. Wright stated above, the 20mm is great for family photos and photos that get you interacting with what you're taking pictures of. However, a major family event was coming up where I needed to get the zoom. the 14-45mm, although much bulkier, fit the bill to get photos (in this case I was taking pictures from a pew of family members on the alter). As for image stabilization, I haven't noticed a difference between the two since the 20mm isn't being used in 'zoom' as I would be for the 14-45mm. I used the camera much more when I have the 20mm on it. I ended up with the 20mm and love it. I used it for 2 weeks before getting the additional 14-45mm lens. Why did I get the 14-45mm? Well, as Gary D. Wright stated above, the 20mm is great for family photos and photos that get you interacting with what you're taking pictures of. However, a major family event was coming up where I needed to get the zoom. the 14-45mm, although much bulkier, fit the bill to get photos (in this case I was taking pictures from a pew of family members on the alter). As for image stabilization, I haven't noticed a difference between the two since the 20mm isn't... » Read More I ended up with the 20mm and love it. I used it for 2 weeks before getting the additional 14-45mm lens. Why did I get the 14-45mm? Well, as Gary D. Wright stated above, the 20mm is great for family photos and photos that get you interacting with what you're taking pictures of. However, a major family event was coming up where I needed to get the zoom. the 14-45mm, although much bulkier, fit the bill to get photos (in this case I was taking pictures from a pew of family members on the alter). As for image stabilization, I haven't noticed a difference between the two since the 20mm isn't being used in 'zoom' as I would be for the 14-45mm. I used the camera much more when I have the 20mm on it. « Show Less
33385
It's still a fisheye lens with curvature! 14mm prime lens is as far out as a wide angle or you are looking at the 16mm to 35 mm 2.8 f stop wide angle lens if you want wide angel variation or go with the 17mm to 40mmm f4 wide angel they are both l Lenses.
1780601
One other option for you might be the 50mm 1.2L. It's just as superb (and erratic) as the 85mm 1.2.
141563
As near as I can tell it is the same. Note: Canon came out with a new version of the same 55-250 lens with an STM motor so the older IS II version can be found for a good price. I am happy with my 55-250 IS II.
180561
Is a older lens.Little heavy with all metal part.Little shorter and little wider.Both is a very good lens.