Olympus OM-D 12-50 or 14-42

Started Feb 5, 2013 | Questions thread
Sergey Borachev Veteran Member • Posts: 3,819
Re: Olympus OM-D 12-50 or 14-42

tjuster1 wrote:

baxters wrote:

Sergey Borachev wrote:

You can buy the 14-42mm lens easily and cheaply later, but not the 12-50mm.

In my opinion, whether you buy it now or later, it's the same price. I see that cameta.com sells used/refurbished 12-50's for $279 shipped on ebay. Other sellers are asking similar money.

Gaah, the 14-42 II is going for more than the $99 bundle price on ebay. That's crazy. I'd expect it to be around $75.

Exactly. There's no advantage to buying the kit lens with the camera, since body only + lens is the same price. Given that, I'd recommend you buy the body only and add a Panasonic 14-45mm kit lens, which is better than either of the Oly's. And it's only $269 new from B&H: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?is=REG&Q=&A=details&O=productlist&sku=657970.

Firstly, you can't compare used/refurbished prices with new lens prices. The real world prices are what counts and new 12-42mm can be picked up easily for around $70, due to many people throwing them or giving them away and just recouping the cost of the lens (acquired in a kit). The 12-50mm on the other hand would be around $400 new if bought separately, but only about $220 with a kit. At any rate, while you save by buying either lens in a kit, the fact is you save more with the more expensive lens. And therefore you will lose more when you have to buy the more expensive lens later, separately. That was my point - If, later, you are going to need a weather proof zoom, and/or the macro and versatility of a longer range zoom and motorised zoom, then get it now with the kit, but this was taken out of context from the rest of my original message.

The Panasonic 14-45 is better than either of the Oly's, but only in its image quality and only within its zoom range. I don't think it is better in terms of AF speed , or compared to the 14-42mm, in terms of size and weight. It is not better at 12mm or 13mm or 50mm.... and it is not better in macro, or for video shooting, and probably not in AF speed, and definitely not in flexibility as general shooting as a all-in-one lens for walking about or travelling, shooting the Niagara Falls or water sports, or desert or windy/dusty/fast changing  scenes when you cannot change lenses.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow