1. Reminder: Please user our affiliate links to get to your favorite stores for holiday shopping!

12-50 + 12/2.0 into 14-54 or 12-60?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by lawa222, Apr 20, 2013.

  1. lawa222

    lawa222 Mu-43 Rookie

    16
    Mar 3, 2013
    Hi everyone,

    I'm thinking about swapping my 12-50 and 12/2.0 for either a 14-54 II or 12-60 (on an adapter). My reasoning is that it would be a minimal loss in quality at widest-angle with a decent upgrade at every other focal length.

    I've got an OM-D, shoot almost exclusively nature and wildlife stills. One bonus of the adapter setup would be being able to use the 4/3rds 70-300, which is much cheaper and somewhat faster than the micro version.

    Just wondering what people think about this idea. How well do the 4/3rds lenses work on the OM-D? Are they comparable to the 12/2.0 performance-wise by the time they're stopped down to f5-11?
     
  2. juangrande

    juangrande Mu-43 Top Veteran

    805
    Dec 2, 2012
    COLORADO
    I had the 14-54 mkII and the 70-300. The former is really as good as a zoom you can get for m4/3. Reasonably fast AF, awesome FL range. The 70-300 was a bit more problematic with AF, probably because it's slower and longer. Maybe consider the 11-22 4/3 w/ 14-54mkII ( mkII is important). The 12-60 is supposed to be awesome but slow AF with lots of back and forth micro hunting. Could be bad for the lens. I had the 50-200 for a while and used mostly manual focus.
     
  3. MichaelJC

    MichaelJC Mu-43 Regular

    I have the 4/3 70-300 and use it a lot for wildlife. A great lens. I used it with my E-620 and now with the E-M5 since I upgraded. The AF is a bit slow but it always was. If the subject is clearly isolated then it's plenty fast enough and accurate. I tend to use a mix of AF and manual focusing, depending on conditions. AF noise is probably more of an issue for me than speed as it's a bit whiny and the animals notice :)

    I intend to try the 50-200 SWD for it's sharpness and faster aperture, but from what I've read I'm expecting AF to be pretty much useless and I'll rely on manual. Not sure yet whether the extra weight, the poorer AF and the reduced zoom will make it worth my while, but I'll give it a go.
     
  4. juangrande

    juangrande Mu-43 Top Veteran

    805
    Dec 2, 2012
    COLORADO
    The 50-200 SWD is incredibly sharp and renders beautifully except the bokeh, which is sort of edgy instead of soft. I sold it and got a 75 1.8 and a nikon 180 2.8. I sold the 75 and am considering the 35-100, but......:eek:

    BTW, the 50-200 blows away the 70-300 even cropped to the equivalent FOV. Manual focus is a must. Ned says the 1.4x teleconverter works great on it, too. I'm not sure if the extra $200- 300 for the SWD is worth it. I know the SWD is a mechanically linked focus ring. But the "by wire" on other lenses is totally useable. Otherwise, for m4/3 purposes, they are the same.
     
  5. MichaelJC

    MichaelJC Mu-43 Regular

    Yes, it's the mechanical focus ring that makes me want the SWD. I find the "by wire" focus a bit 'jumpy' especially when trying to get spot on at long focal lengths so I'm hoping the mechanical linkage will be smoother.

    But anyway, trying not to hijack the thread too much, the 70-300 is a great lens that I'll find difficult to give up. It's macro capabilities make it very versatile too when out hiking etc.
     
  6. lawa222

    lawa222 Mu-43 Rookie

    16
    Mar 3, 2013
    The 50-200 is a bit (say, $1500!) out of my price range. Otherwise I would most definitely be looking into it.

    Anyhow, thanks everyone for the advice. I think I'm going to go with 14-54, 70-300, then grab a cheapish m4/3 prime for when I need to keep the camera tiny.
     
  7. kenez

    kenez Mu-43 Regular

    125
    Apr 18, 2012
    You can actually pick up a used 50-200mm non SWD at B&H for $529. Before my EM-5 was stolen I used the SWD version on it but found the focus too slow and erratic. I think the non SWD version may be better though. I ended up buying an inexpensive Panasonic 45-200mm designed for m4/3 for under $200 and it did a credible job. I also used a 14-54mm Mark I and that lens stayed on the camera more than any other.
     
  8. lawa222

    lawa222 Mu-43 Rookie

    16
    Mar 3, 2013
    Ahh, yeah, now I see they're much, much cheaper (especially non-SWD) on the used market than new on Amazon. Still I'm thinking the 70-300mm is a slightly better match for me since it is so much lighter, although the pro-grade sealing and sharpness would definitely be nice.
     
  9. juangrande

    juangrande Mu-43 Top Veteran

    805
    Dec 2, 2012
    COLORADO
    I bought a 70-300 refurbed from Cameta for $229 about 2 mos. ago.