14-54 or 50mm
- Thread starter disclog
- Start date
- Status
cannons, not canons.
It really is tiny, seeming even smaller than the standard OM-series 50mm f/1.8 but on the E-1 it almost disappears.
I don't pick lenses by their outward appearance so the 50mm macro is one of the three E-series lenses I have. It's also likely the sharpest of the mid-level lenses and maybe as sharp as the top-level lenses.
If I had the same choice to make, I'd choose the 50mm first and then choose the 14-54mm only if the kit lenses didn't fulfill my needs.
I agree, the ED50 is a small lens, but definitely a whole lot bigger than the OM 50 f/1.8, as you can see. Even with the UV filter removed, it is still longer.
As a matter of fact, even the OM 100, which is the film equivalent of the ED50 is smaller.
I just noticed what a terrible vignetting there is in the above images. Taken with the 14-45.
Well, since the thread popped up to the top again, I read through my posts as well, to see if I have to revise some of my words. Yes, I have to revise some, since shortly after the above was posted, I decided to buy the 14-54. Not because I dropped my 14-45, but because I felt I needed higher quality. The 14-54 is now my main lens for about 60% the ED50 is about 30% and the rest is devided between the rest of my lenses. The 14-45 is not used any more, but it is not for sale.
Anyway, now I can definitely say that the 14-45 is OK to be a kit lens, but the 14-54 is by far superior to that lens in every aspect. IQ is much better. Distortion is almost nothing, I don't want to say nothing, somebody might object, but I personally can not see any distortion. AF is much much faster, internal focusing and lastly, the aperture difference MAKES a difference. Of course, build quality is also much better.
I did a somewhat non-scientific review of the lens which you can read here.
http://olyflyer.blogspot.com/2007/06/comparing-olympus-14-45mm-and-14-54mm.html
No regrets so far.
I have used both 14-45 and the 14-54. The 14-54 gives more option for DoF than the 14-45. Used the 14-45 for awhile before switching to the 14-54. Used a D80 with a 50 macro and found that, yes, a lower f-stop is fun to play with, but its the ability to not move to zoom in that makes me value my 14-54
In all, it just depends on what kind of pictures you want to take
In all, it just depends on what kind of pictures you want to take
I did say "seeming" but yes, it's clear from those images that the 50mm macro is bigger. The OM-series bodies were very small.
The 14-54mm really is a class act for not being a top-level lens. I really appreciate it every time I use it, though I still miss the old days of lower numbered apertures, which is why I want the 14-35mm f/2.0 so much.
I agree, the ED50 is a small lens, but definitely a whole lot bigger than the OM 50 f/1.8, as you can see. Even with the UV filter removed, it is still longer.
Didn't the two of us have this discussion a few months back, saying the reason the 50mm f/1.8 is so much smaller is due to the lack of macro capability...yes, back in March you posted the SAME EXACT THING and even using the same picture.
I say the same thing I did then, from:
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=267262&p=2943124
Not quite, you're not comparing similar lenses...here you're comparing an OM 50mm f1.8 with an ED 50mm f2.0 MACRO lens. If you look at the OM 50mm f2.0 macro lens it is MUCH LARGER than the regular 50mm f1.8 lens:
http://www.pbase.com/equipment/image/61816041
It's the macro component of the lens that makes it so large.
In addition I own the 50mm you have pictured (although mine isn't so beat up), and a 28mm f2.8 macro lens, and the 28mm is a physically larger lens than the 50mm, again due to the macro component of the lens.
(new text)
In addition there's also the ED component(s) in the 4/3 lens, and things like the motor for the lens.
Yes, we did, Mike, and Yes, I used the same images. Why taking new if the old ones are OK. Bousozoku mentions the OM 50 f/1.8, and that is exectly what my image shows.
All that is true, but still, even the OM 50mm macro is shorter than the ED50. That is still a fact. Maybe you are right, it is because of the ED elements, I don't know. But it has nothing to do with AF motor and electronics. Those do not add anything to the length of the lens.
Anyway, what is the reason for the irritation? Bousozoku posted a question and I answered with two of my old images + a short text.
It was dead until you brought it back to life again...not a good thing for a moderator to do. :nono:
While it may be the lens the poster asked about, you're comparing apples and oranges, and it's what I called you on on the other post I referred to. It's like comparing a sports car with a minivan, it's an unfair comparison and that was my point...if you want to compare size of old with the new at least find another minivan to compare it to, and that's the macro lens I mentioned above.
OK, that's why I answered that even the OM 50mm macro is shorter than the ED50. I am sure there are good reasons for that, I am not a lens designer, but regarding the size, it is a fact that digital lenses are longer than OM lenses, and the length of a lens has nothing to do with AF. Unfortunately I can not post a side by side image of an OM 50 macro since I don't have that.
hellfire8888
New Member
I am a happy owner of 50mm f2.0
the pics below are all taken with noise filter = normal..tat why image a bit soft..
the pics below are all taken with noise filter = normal..tat why image a bit soft..
Me too, I am also a happy owner of the 50mm, as well as the 14-54. That's why I must say, the girls are beautiful, but as you also see, the images are too soft. The ED50 can definitely do better than that, even if it is difficult to judge from these small images.
hellfire8888
New Member
olyflyer
did you have the EX-25 with your 50mm as well??
i was thinking of getting one but i notice that with Ex-25 i have to get very very near to the subject to take foto and DOF very thin and for wild life photography like insects...i doubt the insects will stay in place for you to go so near...and i also notice that the autofocus is only usable to certain range only...
wat your opinion?
did you have the EX-25 with your 50mm as well??
i was thinking of getting one but i notice that with Ex-25 i have to get very very near to the subject to take foto and DOF very thin and for wild life photography like insects...i doubt the insects will stay in place for you to go so near...and i also notice that the autofocus is only usable to certain range only...
wat your opinion?
Yes, I do use EX-25 as well and yes, DOF is limited even more. That is the cost one has to pay in macro. While AF is possible, in many cases manual focus may be quicker. An example is insects, where occasionally MF is better than AF. I think it is difficult to say more, it all depends on the situation and the contrast.
You fellas are a sane, level headed and decent bunch, making my job here just that little bit easier! :lovegrin:
- Status
Similar threads
