4/3 14-54mm - weight hanging off an OMD-E5

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by Ricoh, Dec 18, 2013.

  1. Ricoh

    Ricoh Mu-43 Top Veteran

    906
    Nov 2, 2013
    UK
    Steve
    I'm considering the MkII 14-54 4/3 for the OMD-E5, but at 450g (approx) is the camera mount robust enough to support such a mass?
    Previous threads have spoken about the need to support both the camera and lens together and I'm assuming that's more to do with stability rather than protecting the camera flange, but it's an assumption on my part. Can someone advise on the strength of the mount holding the lens without the other hand supporting it.
    Many thanks,
    Steve.
     
  2. RnR

    RnR Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 25, 2011
    Brisbane, Australia
    Hasse
    I have never seen a max weight value be published. I've had lenses over a kilo mounted on my PM1, but I always carry the camera by the lens, and when shooting, cradle the lens in my left hand. If you want to shoot regularly with a heavy lens *and* adopt the ipad stance, perhaps reconsider.
     
  3. biomed

    biomed Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 22, 2013
    Seattle area
    Mike
    You should be OK with handheld shooting. I am cautious using a heavy lens with the camera mounted on a tripod. I have used my Nikkor 200/4 lens handheld, but would never use it with a tripod. This puts a lot of stress on the base plate and the lens mount. I don't think any of the native u4/3 lenses are heavy enough to be of concern. If you want to use a heavy adapted lens on a tripod find one that is equipped with a tripod collar.

    10815503056_49af5d86bc.

    Mike
     
  4. flash

    flash Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 29, 2010
    1 hour from Sydney Australia.
    Gordon
    I had the 14-54II slung off my shoulder for over a year on a GH2. It's not a problem for any m43 camera.

    Gordon
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. nstelemark

    nstelemark Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 28, 2013
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    Larry
    +1 on Gordon's comment.

    I have use the 14-54ii, the 12-60, and 50-200+ECs for some time and I have had no issues with the lens mount. I can't see any issues from this.
     
  6. hkpzee

    hkpzee Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 5, 2011
    Hong Kong
    Patrick
    With the heavier 4/3 lenses (50-200SWD or 150/2.0), I try to use one hand to support the lens whenever possible while hanging the camera on a neck strap just as a precaution, and also to relieve some pressure on my neck. I wouldn't worry about the 14-54 on your E-M5 though... It is lighter than the heaviest m4/3 lenses, like the 100-300...
     
  7. Bhupinder2002

    Bhupinder2002 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Hi Ricoh
    I had this combo for one year . Olympus 14-54 mm balances very well on EM5 especially with HLd6 attached. I sold this lens but gonna buy again .
    Cheers
    Bhupinder
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. photo_owl

    photo_owl Mu-43 Regular

    164
    Nov 8, 2013
    the unwritten rule is that you should always support the heavier item; the camera's mounting flange will fundamentally support the weight of the camera but cannot be guaranteed to support the weight of any possible lens you stick on the front!
     
  9. Ricoh

    Ricoh Mu-43 Top Veteran

    906
    Nov 2, 2013
    UK
    Steve
    Thanks guys, it's good to get real user feedback on this.

    Ideally I'd like the m4/3 12mm, but the cost is a bit 'spicy'. Legacy 35mm isn't an option for wide, hence my interest with the 14-54 II. For less money i get 14mm wide angle and a portrait 54, and everything in between. From what I've seen the image quality is reasonably good (probably better than my ability!) so will get one if possible at the right price. Theres one on the bay for £300 ($480 approx). It's classed as pristine, does that seem fair?
     
  10. flash

    flash Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 29, 2010
    1 hour from Sydney Australia.
    Gordon
    It does. And it's a very good lens optically. You will need to factor in the cost of an MMF adaptor.

    Gordon
     
  11. Ricoh

    Ricoh Mu-43 Top Veteran

    906
    Nov 2, 2013
    UK
    Steve
    Thanks Gordon, I've already purchased an Olympus MMF-1 (awaiting delivery), so it's just the lens now.
    Are there any other 4/3 lenses which are contrast AF compatible worth having?

    Steve.
     
  12. hkpzee

    hkpzee Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 5, 2011
    Hong Kong
    Patrick
    Here's a list of 4/3 lenses that are CDAF-enabled I found online. I've no idea about the accuracy of this list, but to me, the 14-54 II is the only one worth getting because m4/3 equivalent to the rest of the list is already available:

    - Olympus Zuiko 25mm f/2.8 Pancake
    - Olympus Zuiko 9-18mm f/4-5.6
    - Olympus Zuiko 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 II
    - Olympus Zuiko 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6
    - Olympus Zuiko 40-150mm f/4-5.6
    - Olympus Zuiko 70-300mm f/4-5.6
    - Panasonic Leica D Summilux 25mm f/1.4 Asph
    - Panasonic Leica D Vario-Elmar 14-50mm f/3.8-5.6 Asph Mega O.I.S.
    - Panasonic Leica D Vario-Elmar 14-150mm f/3.5-5.6 Asph Mega O.I.S.

    Meanwhile, it's probably too late, since you already got your MMF-1, but if you use the MMF-3 instead, the 14-54 II + MMF-3 + E-M5 combo would give you a weather-sealed system, but the MMF-1 is not weather-sealed.
     
  13. Ricoh

    Ricoh Mu-43 Top Veteran

    906
    Nov 2, 2013
    UK
    Steve
    Thanks hkpzee, quite a few there but as you say there are equivalent M43 available, but the cost can be off putting - here in the uk at least.
    I went for the MMF-1 for its superior build quality, metal instead of the plastic -2 and -3 I believe.
     
  14. iluvgf5

    iluvgf5 Mu-43 Regular

    31
    Aug 31, 2012
    I just opted for a used 14-54 mk2 lens over the 12-40mm as the cost of a used one is very good considering the amount of positive review this 43 lens had.

    Furthermore with the MMF3 I have a fully weather sealed system same as with the 12-40 pro lens.

    I will be shoot landscape at 14mm and it gives a f2.8 which is great for me, otherwise I believe it will make a good walkabout lens too with its focal length.

    However the drawback is the weight but I do not mind this. For my upcoming travel I will bring this plus my 25mm and that should be good enough.
     
  15. kenez

    kenez Mu-43 Regular

    125
    Apr 18, 2012
    With my EM-1 I shoot frequently with the 14-54mm Mk II (I have also used the Mk 1 version and see no real AF difference). I also use the 50-200mm SWD, 35-100mm, 9-18mm. While the 35-100mm is a little unwieldy unless you use the optional grip in general the extra heft of the 4/3 lenses doesn't bother me. Especially given the better optical performance of many of these lenses. I wouldn't hesitate to use any 4/3 lens on an EM-1 especially if you can pick it up at a good price. I also use the EC-20 teleconverter when I need more reach. Low light AF may be a a tad worse than with native lenses but its generally acceptable.
     
  16. Ricoh

    Ricoh Mu-43 Top Veteran

    906
    Nov 2, 2013
    UK
    Steve
    Just bought the 14-54 Mk II off eBay and I'm looking forward to it arriving so I can start using it.
    I like the ZD 9-14 as well, but I'm holding my horses, as they say, until I can evaluate the 4/3 glass on an EM-5.
    I don't understand how a lense can be 'optimised' for contrast assisted focusing. Isn't that a facet of the camera's 'brain'?
     
  17. photo_owl

    photo_owl Mu-43 Regular

    164
    Nov 8, 2013
    the lenses have brains too - inc firmware and updates

    there are also so fundamental ways in which PDAF and CDAF work that motors, servos and gearing (as examples) are all factors.
     
  18. flash

    flash Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 29, 2010
    1 hour from Sydney Australia.
    Gordon
    Lenses need to be able to handle the different AF systems as well. The way CAF focus, places a lot more torque, on a lens motor than PDAF, for example. CADF relies on several changes in focus direction to acheive perfect focus. PDAF requires a single movement. That's why most PDAF lenses on DSLRs still suck in live view and why mosy CDAF lenses will stuggle with CAF regardless of how well the body focuses.

    Newer lenses tend to do better due to better design for the increased speed required of them.

    Gordon
     
  19. Ricoh

    Ricoh Mu-43 Top Veteran

    906
    Nov 2, 2013
    UK
    Steve
    Lenses have computer chips (eg DSPs) and software? (I associate firmware with FPGAs.)

    Motors and gearing are constants surely, just mechanisms. 'Servo' is an abreviation for a closed loop control system, and I assumed that the loop is closed by the camera's 'brain'.

    Just read your post Gordon which arrived as I was typing mine, an overlap to a degree and my words above don't flow from your message. I would imagine CADF optimised lenses need reduced inertia and higher torque constants c.f. PDAF. I wonder if the MkII has either.
     
  20. Ricoh

    Ricoh Mu-43 Top Veteran

    906
    Nov 2, 2013
    UK
    Steve
    Back on topic!
    What does the 'team' think about tripod mounting an EM-5 with a 14-54 II attached? It's 450g with a CoG of 75mm (approx) from the camera mount, so not an inconsiderable moment acting.