Buying Olympus 12-50mm when I already have 14-42 make sense?

Started Mar 16, 2013 | Discussions thread
sderdiarian
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,141Gear list
Like?
Re: Buying Olympus 12-50mm when I already have 14-42 make sense?
In reply to shihhan, Mar 17, 2013

shihhan wrote:

gamarala wrote:

Is buying Olympus 12-50mm when I already have 14-42 make sense or should I put an Olympus wide angle adapter on 14-42 and get 11mm. I am happy with 14-42 and hoping get an Olympus 12-50mm for the 12mm. Only thing I don't like about it the size of the lens.

Why trade a kit lens for a kit lens?

Yes the 12-50mm is *marginally* better (range, power zoom, fake macro, weather sealing), but at the end of the day it's still a kit zoom (with small aperture)... so unless you're absolutely sure you want ALL of these features in one lens (which seldom is a good idea anyway), there is little point in trading one kit lens for another.

better upgrade options would be:

9-18mm: for the true wide angle option ($700)

P 12-35 f2.8: for constant f2.8 aperture ($1144)

60 f2.8 macro: for true macro ($500)

Ah, the danger of putting out a post requesting opinions on a purchase:  you'll get answers spanning the spectrum ! All useful info, now you have to make a decision.

I agree with the above post in that lenses more dedicated to specific purposes are ultimately the best route to go in terms of ultimate quality, mostly if you print your photos at large sizes.

I disagree with it, however, because it doesn't seem to take into account what you may be able to afford (I've added current prices of his recommended lenses to his post above).

Regarding the mFT 9-18mm, it's not exceptional in terms of IQ (compare it at 12mm to the kit lenses in links provided earlier) and overpriced compared to its superior 4/3's sibling (currently $399 used, excellent condition at KEH).  I also now rarely find myself going wider than 12mm.

The 12-50 for $250 covers a lot of ground in allowing you to explore true wide angle (12mm is a vast improvement in coverage over 14mm, more than the mere numbers would seem to indicate), and the "fake macro" allows you to better explore this than your current kit lens.

I'd also opt for weathersealing even if you don't have a weathersealed body, it gives a level of insurance protecting you from human idiocy where one can in an instant destroy a lens (like dropping my 70-300mm into shallow water, argh!).

There's also another current thread extolling the virtues of the lowly kit lens.  Basically, if you don't need shallow depth of field (pretty tough to get in mFT in any case) and aren't prone to shooting in poor light, both the 14-42 MkII and 12-50 can provide sharp images.  Shooting at ISO 1600 now being an option with little downside also solves much of the low light compromise.

I have two bodies so I've kept both, the 14-42mm for my E-PM1 and the 12-50mm for my E-M5.  You may find you can live without the 14-42mm and sell it, but don't expect much (my guess, $50 or so).

I'd grab the 12-50mm, enjoy it and then add to my lens collection both as money allows and improving skills justify.  Good luck with your decision!

-- hide signature --

Sailin' Steve

 sderdiarian's gear list:sderdiarian's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ Olympus M.Zuiko ED 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 II
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow