_5210150 by Thomas Dekany, on Flickr
In the ways lenses are measured, it's not. At least relative to other lenses in a similar part of the wide angle universe, like the Olympus 12mm or the new Pany 15 (I don't actually know much about the 15mm, but I'm assuming Pany wouldn't have released it without a pretty notable improvement over the 14). But that doesn't mean it can't be used to make wonderful photographs, as you've so capably shown. I always liked it a lot when I was shooting m43 too, largely for it's small size and fast AF. I came to like the Olympus 12mm more, but that had more to do with the functional zone focus capability that lens gave you with it's "clutch" MF/AF focus ring than any optical quality differences between the lens. The original Olympus 17mm f2.8 (that Miguel is using so capably on his EP1) was technically as bad a prime lens as there's ever been in m43 (body caps aside), but it has it's own charms too and I've seen many incredible photo's with it. Just because a lens isn't a great lens from a technical standpoint, doesn't mean it's not still a pretty damn good one, and even bad ones can be used to make great art.
I seem to remember the 14mm scoring pretty badly on some test sites.I must disagree slightly: I think the 14mm Panasonic pancake actually seems to have a stellar reputation in many photographic circles. Not merely for the 28mm FOV, for its tiny size, or its excellent AF characteristics - but also for its sharpness, resolving power, microcontrast, yadda yadda yadda. I think no less a luminary than Roger Cicala over at lensrentals did a series of detailed comparisons between a number of micro four thirds zooms and primes a few years ago - and the tiny Lumix 14mm wound up being the star of the show, with serious numbers that if I remember correctly were only equalled by the PanaLeica 25mm lens, also a fine piece of glass but one which used to cost somewhere between 2 and 3 times as much as the 14mm.
The 17mm Olympus pancake, on the other hand, got abysmal 'numbers', both from Roger Cicala's eagle eye and measurements, as well as those of a number of other semi-respected reviewers, most of whom didn't mince words and dismissed it as somewhere between cheap and inferior. And, yeah, it's possible there were a number of bad copies of the 17mm floating around. But I've been lucky enough to own two above average copies of this same 'inferior' lens; Bill Beebe, who reviewed it for 'Thew's Reviews' a few years back also got sensational results from his 17mm Zuiko pancake, and a local friend of mine who is an astoundingly great photographer has taken some jaw-droppingly wonderful images with his lowly 17mm.
Moral of the story, for me, is that there are probably good and bad copies of every lens, something Ming Thein has also noted. But rayvonn - judging from the cool* images you just posted, yours looks like a keeper
* I really like that one of the Rolls btw
If you started your photographic life with an Olympus Trip (as I did) that seems entirely familiar. The focus choice on the Trip was; one person, two people, several people, mountain.
First outings with the new E-M10. I really like the Panasonic 12-32 lens on it, it suits it perfectly. I also found that the i-enhance picture mode is hideous, so I had to re-process everything taken in that mode with the Olympus Viewer software to "natural".
with the 12-32, all SOOC jpegs.
View attachment 110838Montacute window by Martin Connolly, on Flickr
Yankee Jack by Martin Connolly, on Flickr
View attachment 110840At Dunster Watermill by Martin Connolly, on Flickr
Dunster thatched cottage by Martin Connolly, on Flickr
this one processed with Silver Efex Pro (12-32)
View attachment 110842Victorian kitchen at Dunster Castle by Martin Connolly, on Flickr
One with the 14-45
Rosemoor #2 by Martin Connolly, on Flickr
