robminchin
Forum Enthusiast
Shouldn't that make it the 35-100 f/2.0? That's the equivalent lens to the 70-200 f/2.8 lenses that have been reviewed recently for the FF bodies.
Robert
Robert
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Andy Westlake... superhero!
- Thread starter Brian Mosley
- Start date
Vadimka
Forum Enthusiast
Leica: 14-150mm and 25mm
Oly: 50mm should also be one of the contenders for next review and maybe 7-14mm.
Please DP, it must be done.
--
Snap away
Oly: 50mm should also be one of the contenders for next review and maybe 7-14mm.
Please DP, it must be done.
--
Snap away
Olyinaz
Veteran Member
tested. The Zuiko 18-180mm is a very common first buy for Olympus DSLR shooters and the new Lumix 14-150mm lens had generated a tremendous amount of interest due to the 10x zoom, 14mm wide end and built in OIS.
Testing either one would be a great service to the 4/3rds community.
Best,
Oly
--
Testing either one would be a great service to the 4/3rds community.
Best,
Oly
--
DriftForge
Senior Member
I just happy we've got as good a share of the testing so far as we have.
The 14-150 would make for an interesting comparison with the Nikon 18-200 which I think has already been done. The impression here seems to be that it is a better lens, but it would be interesting to see what the differences are.
The 14-150 would make for an interesting comparison with the Nikon 18-200 which I think has already been done. The impression here seems to be that it is a better lens, but it would be interesting to see what the differences are.
tested. The Zuiko 18-180mm is a very common first buy for Olympus
DSLR shooters and the new Lumix 14-150mm lens had generated a
tremendous amount of interest due to the 10x zoom, 14mm wide end and
built in OIS.
Testing either one would be a great service to the 4/3rds community.
Best,
Oly
--
Louis_Dobson
Forum Pro
One of the main strengths of 4/3rds is the excellence of the glass, so let's not pick the one that is, um, compromised.
50-200 SWD, as the man says.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
50-200 SWD, as the man says.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
Louis_Dobson
Forum Pro
performers.
I have no idea why people want slow, soft primes, but apparently it is selling well so good luck to them...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
I have no idea why people want slow, soft primes, but apparently it is selling well so good luck to them...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
Olyinaz
Veteran Member
Past tests have shown it to perform well in this class of lens. I had a bum one that was poor (which can happen with any lens but especially an inexpensive one) but I fell into a second one that's flat out excellent.
Frankly, it's opinions like yours that I'd hope to see set to rest if DPR would be so kind as to test the lens because I think they're unfounded, but I don't KNOW that to be the case and I'd like to either way.
Oly
Frankly, it's opinions like yours that I'd hope to see set to rest if DPR would be so kind as to test the lens because I think they're unfounded, but I don't KNOW that to be the case and I'd like to either way.
Oly
Olyinaz
Veteran Member
Why, simply to confirm what anyone can see after shooting with it - that it's outstanding? What's the use in that?
Test the controversial or unknown entities please (the 28 pancake was a GREAT choice). I'd like to get some VALUE out of these tests and not just back slapping.
Oly
Olyinaz
Veteran Member
"PANCAKE" is why they want it. (This is somehow baffling or hard to fathom?)
I've no use for one but I certainly see why someone else would think it worth purchasing.
Oly
Juergen Hahn
Leading Member
"Why, simply to confirm what anyone can see after shooting with it - that it's outstanding? What's the use in that?"
I agree with Louis. Let's test the standard equipment that people use and that are known to work well first and see how it compares to the competition.
If you want to test the more "exotic" lenses later then this is fine, but if you only test the pancake and superzooms now then people will just say, "Gee...I thought ZD glass was good, but these tests show otherwise".
I agree with Louis. Let's test the standard equipment that people use and that are known to work well first and see how it compares to the competition.
If you want to test the more "exotic" lenses later then this is fine, but if you only test the pancake and superzooms now then people will just say, "Gee...I thought ZD glass was good, but these tests show otherwise".
kevin wilkins
Leading Member
slow and soft.
its faster then the kit 14-42mm and equal or better quality.
put that with the fact that i have a soligor 24mm f/2.5 (its not a typo) for 35mm which is rather large and much softer (wide open) then the pancake lens. yet i still use it and dont care about the soft edges when i need the extra light.
if you want pro quality and speed, you pay for it in the weight and size of the lens. just look at the 14-35mm f/2
--
if you can imagine the picture, then do all you can to make it
Timskis6
Veteran Member
I'd say the 50-200mm is much more common than the 18-180mm, for both amateurs and advanced amateurs. It is very often one of the first upgrades over the kit lenses, though the 14-54mm is usually the first upgrade.
Based on the need to test lenses which people own and use, and which are popular upgrades, the 50-200mm is a no-brainer test.
--
Tim
'Be the change you wish to see in the world.' -Mahatma Gandhi
E3/E-1/E410/7-14/12-60/50-200/EC-14/C8080
http://www.flickr.com/photos/timskis6/
Louis_Dobson
Forum Pro
Louis_Dobson
Forum Pro
The size and weight saving is minimal, the quality loss is serious. Look at the 35mm f3.5 macro, that is a GOOD lens, and still tiny. Even the 50mm f2 is titchy. So for me the 25mm f2.8 makes no sense. By the time you've put caps on it and trousered it, it is hardly smaller than a lens with far superior performance.
However, pancakes seem to be in fashion thee days, and I'm delighted to see Oly make money (hopefully they can spend it developing lenses I actually want).
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
However, pancakes seem to be in fashion thee days, and I'm delighted to see Oly make money (hopefully they can spend it developing lenses I actually want).
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
Hi Andy,
Although it may be unaffordable for many, I think it would be great if you could review the 14-35 - this really looks like the standard zoom by which all others can be judged. I can understand if you want to focus more on the sorts of lenses people will actually buy, but don't we all love to read about the ultimate? And wouldn't you love to review it? ;-)
I know that I'm not likely to ever actually buy this lens, but in a way that makes me all the more keen to read about it - and dream about it.
Although it may be unaffordable for many, I think it would be great if you could review the 14-35 - this really looks like the standard zoom by which all others can be judged. I can understand if you want to focus more on the sorts of lenses people will actually buy, but don't we all love to read about the ultimate? And wouldn't you love to review it? ;-)
I know that I'm not likely to ever actually buy this lens, but in a way that makes me all the more keen to read about it - and dream about it.
Louis_Dobson
Forum Pro
If I wanted to carry a 14-35, which is huge, and pay the equally huge price, because I needed the light gathering ability, I would go and buy a D3 / D700 and the 24-70 f2.8.
Olympus's 12-60 and 50-200, combined with the E3, makes a package which is simply unbeatable from a performance / weight / cost / flexibility POV.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
Olympus's 12-60 and 50-200, combined with the E3, makes a package which is simply unbeatable from a performance / weight / cost / flexibility POV.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
Timskis6
Veteran Member
First of all you can't buy a D700. Second of all, the price of the D3 and 24-70/2.8 is far greater than the price of the E-3 and 14-35/2.
--
Tim
'Be the change you wish to see in the world.' -Mahatma Gandhi
E3/E-1/E410/7-14/12-60/50-200/EC-14/C8080
http://www.flickr.com/photos/timskis6/
Louis_Dobson
Forum Pro
There's a new idea!
A D700 and 24-70 won't be wildly different in price to an E3 and 14-35, will have a stop better DoF control and a stop less noise, and, once you add a couple more lenses, both will be a total pig to carry.
Give me an E3 and 12-60 in preference to either.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
A D700 and 24-70 won't be wildly different in price to an E3 and 14-35, will have a stop better DoF control and a stop less noise, and, once you add a couple more lenses, both will be a total pig to carry.
Give me an E3 and 12-60 in preference to either.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
I did say I wasn't in the market for this lens - it's way too big and heavy for me too. But don't you enjoy reading about the ultimate in a given product category? I guess not.
BTW, what's this D700 you keep taling about? The expected FF version of the D300?
BTW, what's this D700 you keep taling about? The expected FF version of the D300?
The 25 is less than half the depth of the 35. Do you honestly believe that one won't feel the difference? Remember, it's not really a comparison unless you count the cap of both lenses - so either with or without cap.
In addition, the 35 is not exactly a walkaround lens - it's a mild tele and it's a macro without a limiter. Some like it for portraits and many like it for macro, but that's it most of the time.
As for the 50, it's more than three times the weight of the 25. Have you tried a 4x0 with a small lens? 200 grams might be a small addition if one carries huge gear, but it isn't when the body weighs only double that.
--
http://flickr.com/photos/iskender
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum