You know, they still make . . .

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by Mellow, Aug 20, 2013.

  1. Mellow

    Mellow Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 27, 2010
    Florida or Idaho
    this lens.

    And this one too.

    Sure, you need an adapter, but if they focus as fast as native lenses on the new E-M1 then they're valid options for someone looking for fast zooms in the m43 system. And we all know how often that request comes up.

    My point is . . . I'm not sure the E-M1 will only be for people who already own a bunch of 4/3 glass. If you're one of those people values IQ over size/weight (and there seem to be a lot of you), then these lenses will be interesting to you simply because they're so outstanding. Assuming the PDF-on-chip sensor works as advertised, the "m43" lens lineup just got a lot more interesting.
  2. MAubrey

    MAubrey Photographer

    Jul 9, 2012
    Bellingham, WA
    Mike Aubrey
    I bought a 50-200mm SWD for $650 a year ago in anticipation of this. No regrets now.
  3. dougjgreen

    dougjgreen Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 5, 2013
    San Diego
    Doug Green

    I agree - IF the new Olympus body supports PDAF with good performance, and you don't mind a big bulky lens, those two lenses would be the two most desirable 4/3 lenses for use on that camera. The 4/3 lens 11-22mm f2.8~3.5 also would be no slouch.
  4. slothead

    slothead Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 14, 2012
    Frederick, MD
    "If" they focus as fast.... My experience is that no Zuiko focuses as fast as a M.Zuiko. In fact, the lenses I have tried have been sorely slow - but that's only my experience.
  5. nstelemark

    nstelemark Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    May 28, 2013
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    The 14-54 is a better choice IMO. The 12-60 is just a bit bulky/heavy.

    The 50-200 unfortunately has no equivalent in the m43 space. It is the one lens that is making seriously think of the E-M1. If the 150 Panny or PanaLeica comes out at roughly the same time it will be hard choice - upgrade the body or buy the 150 native lens.

    The problem is the 50-200 + 1.4 TC. If the choice was just the 150 or the 50-200 I could live with the 150. The 1.4 TC adds that extra reach that really has no equivalent.

    And with the 1.4 TC the 150 4/3 starts to look very interesting. 210 mm @ f2.8....

    If the E-M1 works as advertised there is a whole range of lenses that look interesting.
  6. b_rubenstein

    b_rubenstein Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 20, 2012
    Melbourne, FL
    You probably switched over to one of the mainstream DSLR's.

    In their best year, Olympus had maybe 1 - 2% of the DSLR market. There just isn't all that much good glass out there. The people who are all excited about using 4/3 lenses are a small subset of a lunatic fringe group.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Mellow

    Mellow Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 27, 2010
    Florida or Idaho
    Me? Nah, I'm the guy on the other side . . . I'm the one always pushing the smallest camera and smallest lens combination.

    HOWEVER, I read this forum, and others, and there's certainly a lot of interest among m43 users for a: (a) a fast zoom; and (b) excellent ("pro-level") glass.

    I agree the 12-60mm is rather large, but it's a great lens, and I suspect many people would buy it. The 14-54mm is also supposed to be good (though not as good), but it's more limited range might limit its appeal despite its more compact size. And the 50-200mm . . . has no equivalent at all.

    I'm not necessarily suggesting (or advising) that people will buy these lenses to mount permanently on their m43 cameras, but part of the fun of an interchangable mount camera is interchanging lenses, and I can definitely see some people keeping one in the arsenal for those times when they really want high IQ.
  8. Bhupinder2002

    Bhupinder2002 Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Have u actually used Olympus 14-54mmII ? It's AF in quite acceptable even with current generation of MFTs and IQ is good enough to give any prime in that FL a run for money .I sold 14 mm Panasonic , PL25 after getting this lens . 14-54mmII is the best zoom lens out there and even new Panasonic doesn't offer anything from IQ point of view rather than 2 mm extra and light weight. I sold it and started to regret immediately and now looking for it . I handled and used a friend's Canon 6D with 24-105 and believe me OMD with 14-54mm II is still smaller and lighter , just remove the lens and one can easily carry them without much of space .
  9. Mellow

    Mellow Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 27, 2010
    Florida or Idaho
    I read your review of the 14-54mm II with great interest, and enjoyed your images. For me, however, I just don't think it's sufficiently better than the 14-45mm, which I love. But there's a big difference between 14mm and 12mm (especially for what I like to shoot), which makes the 12-60mm of more interest.

    EDIT: just looked up some numbers.
    14-45mm is 195 grams and 66mm long.
    14-54mm is 440 grams and 107 mm long, including the adapter. Big difference.
  10. dougjgreen

    dougjgreen Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 5, 2013
    San Diego
    Doug Green
    Actually, the 14-54 is every bit as good as the 12-60, the only sacrifice is a bit of range on the wide side.
  11. Mellow

    Mellow Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 27, 2010
    Florida or Idaho
    I've never used the 14-54mm, so the only thing I'm going on is this:
    Olympus Lens: Zooms - Olympus 12-60mm f/2.8-4 ED SWD Zuiko Digital (Tested) -!
    Olympus Lens: Zooms - Olympus 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 II Zuiko Digital (Tested) -!

    which makes it seem like the 12-60mm is a tad sharper. But I'll take your word for it. They both seem great.
  12. dougjgreen

    dougjgreen Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 5, 2013
    San Diego
    Doug Green
    The 12-60mm lens might be a bit sharper, but look at the CA, Distortion, and Vignetting charts, and you'll see that the 14-54 is clearly superior on those counts. The distortion difference is especially significant, because the 12-60 has a complex distortion pattern at the widest end that's much tougher to correct than standard barrel or pincushion distortion.
  13. flash

    flash Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 29, 2010
    1 hour from Sydney Australia.
    Small group? Yes. Lunatic? Hardly. The 35-100f2 is the fastest and sharpest pro tele zoom available, including the new ones from Canikon. The 50-200 is easily the match of the 80-400 variants from the major players but 30% cheaper, smaller and lighter. They just needs a decent sensor in front of them. Especially in the telephoto end, where the 4/3 chip is a real asset, the Zuikos are easily as good as their competitors and in some cases a full stop faster.

    A 35-100 f2 on an E-M1 in a dark wedding reception? Yes please!!

  14. nstelemark

    nstelemark Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    May 28, 2013
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    I've had the pleasure of having them both at the same time. I personally can't tell the difference in IQ. The 12 mm distortion is annoying for sure and it is bigger and heavier. The 14-54ii also is a half stop faster over a good chunk of the range.

    The SLR gear test shows that the 12-60 is likely slightly sharper in the center, but stopped down a bit the 14-54 is consistent across the zoom range and across the frame. Combine this with the other factors and it is a win for me.

    I like smaller and lighter and I kept my 25 and 14.

    The 4/3 glass especially in the bigger lenses is fantastic. It may be the only reason I buy an E-M1.
  15. DoofClenas

    DoofClenas Who needs a Mirror! Subscribing Member

    Nov 9, 2012
    Traverse City, MI
    See my signature...I've held some great glass in hopes...Just need that new body now...
  16. kenez

    kenez Mu-43 Regular

    Apr 18, 2012
    So, I have both the 14-54 Mk I and the 14-54 Mk II. I bought the Mk I way back when to use with my E-500 then it moved up to be my main go-to lens on both my E-5 and E-M5. I think the combination of size, IQ, and aperture range is hard to beat. These days you can pick up a slightly used Mk 1 for $250 give or take.

    I later bought the Mk II version with the intention of using it on my E-M5 since it is optimized for contrast detection focus but unfortunately my camera was stolen while on a trip and I never got to try it on that camera.

    So I am wondering when I buy the E-M1 if there will be any difference in focus speed between the two lenses since the camera uses both phase detection and contrast detection focusing methods. Any guesses? If not I would say others should snap up the old Mk I version while they are still cheap.

    If anyone would like to see an example of the 35-100mm F2.0 Zuiko on the E-M5 here is an OOC jpeg.

  17. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    If by 1-2%, you mean 13%, then you're right.

    My experience is that the 14-54 is sharp in the center, but the corners, especially at the wide end, are less impressive (indeed, they're not notably better than the old 4/3 14-42). It also has a good bit of CA. The 12-60's corners are substantially sharper, and CA is much reduced. Of course it has more difficult distortion at the wide end, so it's a tradeoff.

    Using PDAF, they are identical in AF performance on all existing bodies. I can't think of any reason why that would change on the E-M1. Using CDAF, the mk2 is of course faster than the mk1, but CDAF on the mk2 has always been slower than PDAF. In short, if PDAF is as good as it is on 4/3 (or even close), there is no real reason to go for the mk2 on the E-M1.
  18. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    The used price of the 12-60 has held a bit firmer than the 14-54 which can be found exceedingly bargainful.
    I got one and currently use it on my E-1,
    I'm looking forward to having it permanently on some E-M1 successor next year of the one after.
    This is a very exciting time for bargain hunters in the four-thirds system.

    I've said before : the acid test of the E-M1 will be focus speed with a 12-60, and if good the system suddenly has an awesome fast zoom : much awesomer than the Lumix 12-35F2.8
  19. flash

    flash Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 29, 2010
    1 hour from Sydney Australia.
    awesomer is an awesome word. :)

  20. zapatista

    zapatista Mu-43 Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    Mar 19, 2012
    Albuquerque, NM
    Mike Barber
    I totally agree with everyone here:
    Deciding between the FUJI 18-55 or 16-50 is very difficult.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.