Lenses to avoid/aren't worth the money - Page 4

CarlB · #31 July 5th, 2012, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linh

... I mean, some we might find useless or overlapping.. but is there anything that seriously is a "do NOT buy this lens!"?

Ahem ... the 14-42mm Oly kit lenses. They are the world's most boring lens and tend to multiply on the shelves of "early adopter" enthusiasts. "Oh, to get it anytime soon, I have to order it with the 14-42mm. Imagine that."

Sometime two years from now Oly will have this amazing new camera that everyone will want and - you guessed it - you'll only be able to get it with the 14-42 R2 IV for the first three months of its existance. Fast as autofocus, but bland image quality. Blah!!!

I've been thinking of a list of inspiring things to with the m. Zuiko 14-42 lens variants:

1) Focus sunlight onto ants on the sidewalk, but just enough to make them uncomfortable.
2) Make a hanging mobile of all the copies I own.
3) A gag-gift to another m43 owner.
4) Put three in a set for the juggler in your house.
5) Improvised bocce balls ...
6) Mount three or four under a ceramic tile as a trivet.
7) Homebrew remake of "The Trouble with Tribbles."
...

Feel free to add to this list!

DeeJayK · #32 July 5th, 2012, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dhazeghi

Don't buy any of the kit lenses in a store (14-42s, 14-45, 17/2.8, 14/2.5), unless you're getting them with a camera. The retail prices are generally 40-50% more than you pay secondhand or refurbished. The same goes for the Olympus 40-150.

The only lens that has no redeeming features is the Olympus 14-42mk1. All the others have some uses.

But it's probably better to go by what you do want than what you don't.

DH

This is pretty well spot on, IMHO. There are really very few

lenses that don't have some sort of value proposition to some users.

For me, the Sigma 19mm & 30mm lenses are pretty tough to justify, seeing as how they are basically adapted APS-C sensor lenses. I would have a difficult time justifying the S19 over the smaller and optically faster P20, but it is cheaper and that will appeal to some. The S30 seems like an odd focal length to me, but is the only prime available between the PL25 and the O45, so that might have some appeal.

And despite the disparagement of the O14-42mk1 (which is deserved, given that even Olympus has basically admitted this was a flawed lens by producing a replacement), good images can still be produced by this lens. I definitely wouldn't seek it out, but if you could buy it for maybe $50 (or get it as a throw-in with a body purchase), then I could defend that purchase.

m43dex · #33 July 5th, 2012, 10:52 AM

I like 0dBm comments because they remind you that your own usage/need should dictate the usefulness of the lens. Clearly he has illustrated a valid need for a pricey lens as well a strong value proposition for his line of work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 0dBm

"...the various f/0.95 lenses are not worth the money."
Hmmm, there's that word again... I suppose that that phrase can be used as well.

I have the CS 25mm, f/0.95. The CS 17.5mm, f/0.95 should arrive sometime next week in time for a video shoot in Las Vegas that I have been contracted to do later this month.

I've been working with the 25mm since November 2011. I have used it for both stills portraits such as headshots, video portraits, and industrial "shorts." The acquisition was high at $900 (used). Two shoots paid for it then, I wrote it off as a business expense.

I will use the 17.5mm along with the 25mm in Vegas. Another headshot session will pay for the 17.5 then it will also be a 2012 write-off.

I also used the Oly 45mm, f/1.8 nicely for the headshots; however, the 25mm was better for video. Same for the 17.5mm.

Worth the money to acquire the f/0.95? I needed and continue to need the low-light gathering capability of that aperture.

I don't worry about sheer purchase amount. It is the acquisition cost versus the opportunity lost to generate the revenue that I evaluate. If I am contracted to do a shoot that requires minimally distracting the subjects (meaning no video lights or big cameras), then having lenses with great big honking apertures to use with my tiny GH2 vice a Canon 5D or one of those even bigger dedicated videocams is my answer.

For those having much less stringent or frequent requirements than mine, particularly when there is no revenue to offset the cost, then perhaps it is not "worth it" for them.