Lens advice.

[snappyantz]

hi all, thanks for the enlightening comments
guess drakon09 and olyflyer got it right, I am a P& S convert to DSLR... couple months back.
In fact, i was holding on to a sigma 55-200mm but on various occasion, changing lens cause me to some valuable shots which prompt me to get an 18-180mm esp after seeing that it has ED lens and the review at popphoto => http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/2695/lens-test-olympus-zuiko-digital-ed-18-180mm-f35-63-af.html

But then... again... targeting...11-22mm now haaa.. poison... spreading... on...

 

[chainsmoker]

U'd love the 11-22, heres some poison for u, but mine is quite mild(bad skills mah). Lol
Wat exactly is olympus color, how izit achieved? Anyone has a sample, do share - dats wat we do here rite. lol =)

Let me know if WB is off etc... Thanks ;p

 

[wind30]

50mm Macro (for the bokeh and superb resolution at f4.0)
50-200mm (general tele)
optional : 8mm Fishie. Fun lens to use.

If you have the 50-200mm, is the 50mm Macro a big difference at f4? From what I remember the 50-200mm is sharp even at f2.8. If you stop down to f4... And the bokeh is quite nice too.

I think 11-22mm and 50-200mm is the way to go. Not too expensive and easy to carry so you will not leave your lens sleeping in the drycab.

 

[microcosm]

If you have the 50-200mm, is the 50mm Macro a big difference at f4? From what I remember the 50-200mm is sharp even at f2.8. If you stop down to f4... And the bokeh is quite nice too.

I think 11-22mm and 50-200mm is the way to go. Not too expensive and easy to carry so you will not leave your lens sleeping in the drycab.

The sharpness and macro capabilities of the 50mm Macro is a world of difference compared to the 50-200. Also, it can shoot at f2.0 under low light situation. And it is a very small lens. There are times when I only need to use this lens and nothing else.

 

[Blu-By-U]

Got the lens and camera back yesterday.. lens, 14-45 = terrible. The zoom ring is slightly better but still loose and moves at certain zoom range during focusing. Worst when at any angle above 45deg.

Still undecided on the 14-54, 18-180 or 50mm prime. the deciding factor is still the pocket...Hole already very big!!!

14-54 is a good bright lens. Also weather sealed.
18-180 good zoom range. less lens changes required during general use/outings.
50 Fantastic macro, bright and very fast.

How to make a decision as all of them have good plus points :dunno:

New stock of 14-54 are assembled in China. Any one using them yet? Will they be of the same Japan made quality? Currently only a few shops have the old stock of the Japan made lens left.

Heard the 18-180 is also be same. The unit I saw in KL is Japan Made.

50-200 is way over the current budget..unless I live with the faults of the 14-45 for another year or two, it may then be within reach. :think:

Or maybe, just maybe, settle on the Leica :sweat:

 

[CTN]

The 14-54mm I got from CP peninsula last month was the Made in Japan version.
Very happy with it. To me, it is much better than the 14-45 kit despite what the reviews said.

 

[OlyFlyer]

If you have the 50-200mm, is the 50mm Macro a big difference at f4? From what I remember the 50-200mm is sharp even at f2.8. If you stop down to f4... And the bokeh is quite nice too.

I think 11-22mm and 50-200mm is the way to go. Not too expensive and easy to carry so you will not leave your lens sleeping in the drycab.

According to my experience, there has always been a big difference between a prime and a zoom. Even if zooms of today are better than zooms of 1970's 1980's but so are the primes, so the difference is still there. I believe there is a huge difference between the 50mm and a zoom set to 50mm, even if you compare in comparabel settings, like same distance, f-stop and so on. I will soon compare that with my 40-150 set to 50mm to see if I can see any difference.

As the 11-22 and 50-200 being the only two lenses, well I think that is a mistake because the most useful range is missing, that between 22 and 50mm. I think in that case the 18-180 would be much better.

 

[drewdam]

The sharpness and macro capabilities of the 50mm Macro is a world of difference compared to the 50-200. Also, it can shoot at f2.0 under low light situation. And it is a very small lens. There are times when I only need to use this lens and nothing else.

hmm...mayb i should have buy the 50mm instead of 35mm..

 

[OlyFlyer]

hmm...mayb i should have buy the 50mm instead of 35mm..

No and yes. The main thing is that you are happy with it. But I suppose, yes the 50mm is better but it should also be so since it is more than twice the price also. On the other hand, if you want to take 1:1 image you can do that with your 35mm, I can't without the EX-25. I already have the EX-25 but if you would have the 50mm you'd need to add the EX-25's price to the costs also.

So there are many ways to look at it. What I think is the wrong way is if reading CS or any other forum makes you feel bad and makes you regret your choises. For me, I almost ordered the 35mm, then different circumstances happened almost the sam time and I changed my mind and placed an order on the 50mm. I think there are very few who actually own both the 35mm and the 50mm and I am very sure that even the 35mm is a very fine lens, better than any zoom at 35mm.

 

[cire07]

The 14-54mm I got from CP peninsula last month was the Made in Japan version.
Very happy with it. To me, it is much better than the 14-45 kit despite what the reviews said.

Hi,

Care to share what are the areas/factors u feel that the 14~54 is "much better" than the 14~45?

Thanks mate,
Eric

 

[drewdam]

No and yes. The main thing is that you are happy with it. But I suppose, yes the 50mm is better but it should also be so since it is more than twice the price also. On the other hand, if you want to take 1:1 image you can do that with your 35mm, I can't without the EX-25. I already have the EX-25 but if you would have the 50mm you'd need to add the EX-25's price to the costs also.

So there are many ways to look at it. What I think is the wrong way is if reading CS or any other forum makes you feel bad and makes you regret your choises. For me, I almost ordered the 35mm, then different circumstances happened almost the sam time and I changed my mind and placed an order on the 50mm. I think there are very few who actually own both the 35mm and the 50mm and I am very sure that even the 35mm is a very fine lens, better than any zoom at 35mm.

hey...am just joking about the buying...the one reason that i bought the 35mm is for the 1:1 macro n also liek what u have mentioned, cost. ture that i have attach this little 35mm to my Cam most of the time except if i need the zoom to shoot sport/action or WA(14mm)..

this pic was tken using 35mm...not a good one but am happy with the color...just resize.

hmmm "think 35mm still not bad. ya"

 

[cjtune]

For me, the 14-54's few extra stops of shutter speed at low light is really an enabler to capture candid shots that the 14-45 can not. Close minimum focus range (about 6-7 cm?) is better than that of the 14-45's too (20+ cm), so much so that I don't often need to pull out my 35mm macro. As for image quality between both lenses, well, except for the more obvious vignetting, the 14-54 has much less flaring, ghosting, distortion, and chromatic abberation. Sharpness and contrastiness, I can't say it's much better than the 14-45 as my skill at photography are the primary limiting factor to that at the moment. The 14-54 stays on the body about 90% of the time now. 9.8% of the time, the 40-150, and 0.2%, the 35mm macro. My 14-45 sits in the dry cabinet now.

For a setup with the 11-22 and 40-150, there might be a large focal gap between 22-40 that might result in more frequent lens changes between the 11-22 and 40-150, and more frequent stepping back and forth to get the correct framing or more need to crop the image digitally later. I find I take the most pictures in the 25-54 focal length range of my 14-54, maybe a habit carried over from my P&S days when I also usually used the 2-3x zoom to get a shot. 1x on my old P&S being about 35mm @ 35mm film equiv.

 

[drewdam]

.

Still undecided on the 14-54, 18-180 or 50mm prime. the deciding factor is still the pocket...Hole already very big!!!

14-54 is a good bright lens. Also weather sealed.
18-180 good zoom range. less lens changes required during general use/outings.
50 Fantastic macro, bright and very fast.

How to make a decision as all of them have good plus points :dunno:

New stock of 14-54 are assembled in China. Any one using them yet? Will they be of the same Japan made quality? Currently only a few shops have the old stock of the Japan made lens left.

Heard the 18-180 is also be same. The unit I saw in KL is Japan Made.

50-200 is way over the current budget..unless I live with the faults of the 14-45 for another year or two, it may then be within reach. :think:



hey....Blu..some 1 selling 18-180mm in CS...:devil: :devil:

 

[OlyFlyer]

this pic was tken using 35mm...not a good one but am happy with the color...just resize.

hmmm "think 35mm still not bad. ya"

Well, if that is not a good one which one is? Anyway, considering it is compressed and maybe jpeg out of the camera, I think it is a good one.

That is actually another thing where the 35mm is better than the 50mm. You can have that lens as a normal, using it for most of the time. I don't think I will be able to have my 50mm on all the time, since it is a short tele, while the 35mm is just a bit more than a normal. I wish Oly would make a good 60degree (about 25mm) lens, that would definitely be my second prime. Yes, I know what some say, get Leica... but again, what else is good in Leica other than the price, compared to Oly? :dunno:

 

[OlyFlyer]

...I find I take the most pictures in the 25-54 focal length range of my 14-54, maybe a habit carried over from my P&S days when I also usually used the 2-3x zoom to get a shot. 1x on my old P&S being about 35mm @ 35mm film equiv.

I think you are right in almost everything you say here. The minimum focusing distance of the 14-54 can not be 6-7 cm, that is before the lens front element. The minimum focusing distance of the 14-45 is 38cm, not 20. Focusing distance is always measured from the film (sensor) plane, the "-o-" mark (on the left top of the E-500).

I think the reason why the most used focal length is between 25-40 (I don't think 54 is often used) is not that you come from P&S but the fact that the human eye has an angle of view of about 60 degrees, where we see everything sharp. That's why 25mm is normal for us and 50mm was normal for film. That focal length gives about the same angle. I agree, 11-22mm and 50-200mm is not a good choise since the most used focal length is missing. In that case it is more useful with 11-22 and 14-54 or 14-45. As for your 14-45 in dry box, why not selling it? What is the point in having two zooms with the same range? Spare lens?

 

[Blu-By-U]

Won't advice you to sell the 14-45. If you decide to upgrade the body in the future, you will be stuck without a lens to give with it. At the very least, let the new owner start immediately into photography rather than start looking for a lens. And the 14-45 won't command a good price anyway.

After reading all this, think the 14-54 is the way to go.:embrass:

Went to the buy sell section...that 18-180 can fetch a pretty high price. :bigeyes:

 

[cjtune]

I think you are right in almost everything you say here. The minimum focusing distance of the 14-54 can not be 6-7 cm, that is before the lens front element. The minimum focusing distance of the 14-45 is 38cm, not 20. Focusing distance is always measured from the film (sensor) plane, the "-o-" mark (on the left top of the E-500).

I think the reason why the most used focal length is between 25-40 (I don't think 54 is often used) is not that you come from P&S but the fact that the human eye has an angle of view of about 60 degrees, where we see everything sharp. That's why 25mm is normal for us and 50mm was normal for film. That focal length gives about the same angle. I agree, 11-22mm and 50-200mm is not a good choise since the most used focal length is missing. In that case it is more useful with 11-22 and 14-54 or 14-45. As for your 14-45 in dry box, why not selling it? What is the point in having two zooms with the same range? Spare lens?

Yeah, I think it's more logical when stated in the sense of the natural focal length or focal angle of the human eye.

The minimum distance (maybe not to the strictest definition of minimum focal length...) I can achieve focus lock on a subject is about 6-7cm between my 14-54's front-most element to the subject. It's really that close.

I'm really not sure what to do with my 14-45 actually. Maybe I'll just keep it as backup in-case I need to send in my 14-54 one day for servicing. Well, as long as I've space in the dry cabinet it'll have a home....

 

[Blu-By-U]

On the 14~54, at the closest, is there any magnification? The 36mm is a 1:1, 50mm have a 1.5X magnification (think I am wrong)

 

[OlyFlyer]

On the 14~54, at the closest, is there any magnification? The 36mm is a 1:1, 50mm have a 1.5X magnification (think I am wrong)

Sorry Blu, you are wrong. The 35mm has 1:1 but the 50mm is only 0.5x which is 1:2, half size. Need EX-25 to make it 1:1.

 

[CTN]

Hi,

Care to share what are the areas/factors u feel that the 14~54 is "much better" than the 14~45?

Thanks mate,
Eric

1. Build quality. Touch/feel it and you know, handling is more comfortable.
2. Being able to shoot at f2.8/3.5, performance is respectable wide open.
3. extra reach between 45-54 is useful on many occasions
4. AF faster
5. colours are better (subjective, my personal views only)