E-Zuiko 14-45 f3.5 vs 14-54 f2.8

[amosstarz]

Is there a comparison available between the 14-45 f3.5 and 14-54 f2.8? I received the 14-45 f3.5 with my E-500 body. However, in looking for a decent portrait lenses...I noticed the 14-54 f2.8. Besides being brighter...is it worth the extra $$?

I am sort of stuck between the 14-54 f2.8 and 50mm F2.0 Macro. Both cost around the same...tho the 50mm has a rebate right now.

I am not going to do heavy Macro work...I own a Sigma MF OM Mount 50mm Macro, which will probably work well for Macro shots.

Just a bit confused on what I should invest on right now.

• Ali

 

[mcvector]

50mm is much sharper, but focuses a lot slower in low light than the 14-54mm. 50mm tends to hunt in low light.

14-54mm gives you a very flexible zoom, reasonably sharp, and can also do some macro work. It can focus very very near to the subject, sort of like poor man's macro.

Both are good lens.

--
***********************************************

Those who are fools who know they are fools are considered to be wise to an extend.
Those who are fools who think they are wise men are the real fools.

http://www.vectorlab.blogpsot.com
http://www.myfourthirds.com/user.php?id=1076&page=user_images

 

[BorisK1]

For portraits, the 50mm offers higher optical quality and shallower DOF than the 14-54. On the other hand, being a prime lens, it's less flexible (you need to zoom with your legs).

If you get the 14-54, your 14-45 will never again get on the camera. 14-54 does all the same things 14-45 does, only better (some say, slightly better). The 50mm is a different animal - more specialized, and a lot faster (than 14-54 at the long end). So you'll still need the 14-45 for wide-angle coverage.

To me, the improvement that you get with 14-54 isn't worth the price - but I use the 11-22mm + 50mm + 40-150mm combo, so my 14-45 is gathering dust.

Hope this helps!

Boris

 

[jscott]

Is there a comparison available between the 14-45 f3.5 and 14-54
f2.8? I received the 14-45 f3.5 with my E-500 body. However, in
looking for a decent portrait lenses...I noticed the 14-54 f2.8.
Besides being brighter...is it worth the extra $$?

Yes, the 14-54 f2.8-3.5 is worth the extra money. Having said that, the ZD 50mm f2 makes an excellent portrait lens and the extra speed is useful for controlling DOF. You can see test comparisons of the lenses here:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/olympus_50_2/index.htm

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/olympus_1445_3556/index.htm

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/olympus_1454_2835/index.htm

The ZD 50mm f2 focus quickly at normal distances (3ft - infinity). It is not particulary prone to hunting, but if the camera doesn't aquire focus it will, of course, continue focusing to it's closest focus distance then back to infinity which is time consuming. The trick is to take your finger off the shutter release as soon as you notice it didn't acquire focus, find a higher contrast target and try again.

I am sort of stuck between the 14-54 f2.8 and 50mm F2.0 Macro. Both
cost around the same...tho the 50mm has a rebate right now.

For use as a portrait or macro lens, get the ZD 50mm. If you want a faster "normal" zoom that is close focusing, get the ZD 14-54mm.

I am not going to do heavy Macro work...I own a Sigma MF OM Mount
50mm Macro, which will probably work well for Macro shots.

Just a bit confused on what I should invest on right now.

Unless you are a professional (or buying high quality limited production items), camera equipment is not an investment but rather an expense.

--
As we celebrate mediocrity all the boys upstairs want to see
How much you'll pay for what you used to get for free

• Tom Petty

 

[amosstarz]

Thank you for your info. I am sort of flip flopping back and forth. I own a Sigma OM MOUNT 50m Macro lens which will probably do excellent macro work on the E-500 coupled with the MF-1 adapter (which I own). After reading the reviews from the previous reply....seems that the 14-54 f/2.8 might be the way to go!

The real issue is $$ of course...right now I actually have an OK (from the wife) to buy a lens (and she stressed affordable - so that leaves out the ZD 300mm). So I want to get the most 'bang for my $$' - just like when I bought the E-500 (that is what Olympus tells me)! )

• Ali

 

[amerac]

FWIW,

I am not a sophisticated photographer. I use my camera mainly for family snapshots and I am slowly learning the art and technique of photographly (big emphasis on slowly!). I just upgraded from the 14-45 to the 14-54 and I think the difference is tremendous for my use! I can't get over how much more quickly it grabs the indoor focus and the superior low-light performance and all-over crispness. A vast improvement for me.
Jane

 

[amosstarz]

Jane - your killing me! ) I pretty had dwindled my selection down to the 50/2. I spoke to some other people and they were speaking about the detail of the 50/2 compared to the 14-54/f2.8 as a portrait lens. They mentioned increased capability.

Your comments are interesting...thank you.

• Ali

 

[Louis_Dobson]

It entirely depends on your style. I tend to shoot WA, so I bought the 11-22. Combined with the 40-150, I'm happy. That's 44mm -80mm in old money as a gap, and the number of occasions I can see myself desperate for a lens in that range can be counted on the fingers of one foot.

I may get the 35mm Macro too, though I can't really justify it.
--
http://www.pbase.com/acam/

 

[Louis_Dobson]

I have to say I really don't like the 14-45. No focus scale, tacky construction, very low gearing in MF (eh? Why did they do that?), and my particular sample is simply OOF under all circs. The 40-150 is a nice lens, but the 14-45 is worth replacing with something nicer at the first excuse.

Even once it is fixed, I doubt I'll use it more than twice a year.
--
http://www.pbase.com/acam/

 

[shg]

i wonder why you guys having hard time accepting the 14-45, the lens is pretty good for its money and it performs well, although it is not rasor sharp but you can still bump the in camera shaprness or post process.

the AF of 14-45 in dim light with low contrast subject is not that fast, and it hunts, but if i find myself shooting in low light most often, then i will invest in fl-50 flash unit, thus i will utilize its focus asistant lamp and will have great flash, and in my opinion this investment is better than dumping the 14-45 and buying the 14-54. and actualy it seems the opinion are devided whether it is worth it or not, and i think u doubt you are going to see big different in print out. the only advantage of 14-54 it is faster, but again, it all depends how and where you gonna use your equipment.

i havent used the 14-54, nor i think i will buy it one day (i am leaning toward the 7-14 since i am wide angle guy) and may buy the 18-180 if it came out to be a good lens, although it is slow, so i may add the 50f2 for low light situation, but for the time being my first interest is to buy a flash, waiting for the new flash or i may buy the fl-50

anyways, before you buy, decide what do you need, do you need fast wide angle lens for places with no flash? or you can use flash? or you need fast telehpoto zoom?

what you are going to shoot and your prefrences decide what to purchase

most of the photos in my gallery below are taken with the 14-45 and all post processed, let me know if you consider the 14-45 is useless, keeping in your mind i am a beginner.

good luck
--
http://www.pbase.com/shg2

 

[amerac]

Oooh! Sorry to complicae your decision-making. I can't compare it to anything but the 14-45 and I know that there are plenty of other lenses out there! Could you bring your E-500 to a camera counter with the kit lens on and ask to try out the 14-54. It feels real different right away and I think you'll see what I mean. You can print and compare from each lens.

As for some of the other posts... I am not knocking the 14-45 as a kit lens. I think it was a great deal! Anyone want mine?!!
Jane

Jane - your killing me! ) I pretty had dwindled my selection
down to the 50/2. I spoke to some other people and they were
speaking about the detail of the 50/2 compared to the 14-54/f2.8 as
a portrait lens. They mentioned increased capability.

Your comments are interesting...thank you.

• Ali

 

[twilling]

The 14-45 is good until.... you purchase the 14-54. If you are getting paid for photography work using this equipment, you will be happier with the 14-54. The 14-45 is good for non-professional, family photos.

I struggled with this decision for a while, when I got tired of post processing my wedding formals to get a sharper image using the 14-45. Since then, there is less post processing becuase the 14-54 is sharper at the wide end!

 

[Lee Kok Whee]

... and was a happy man.

The build quality is excellent, It focuses faster, and is brighter. To my untrained eye, the 14-54 is a tad sharper than the 14-45, it is also able to capture more details.

Like what most have said, if you're just taking casual pictures, the 14-45 will keep you happy. but if you're a professional or a serious enthusiast or hobbyist, and depending on your style of photography, the 14-54 will be a worthwhile 'upgrade'.

 

[Zalllon]

Then save your money and get the 40-150mm. It is an excellent lens in spite of it's cheap price. At the low end, it is F/3.5 which is similar to the 14-54mm at the high end. I have the 14-54mm, and if I were strictly doing portraits then I wouldn't have made the jump to get the 14-54mm, but I shoot cars in small spaces and I need the wide angle. If you wish to use a wide angle for your shooting, then get the 14-54mm ... but if your considering the 50mm F/2, then don't hesitate to look at the 40-150mm F/3.5-4.5 for less than half the price (they're always on eBay selling for around $150-180).

Save your money and spend it on lighting.

--
Zalllon
http://flickr.com/photos/zalllon/page2/

'It is not enough that I succeed -- others must fail.' - Genghis Khan

 

[Lee Kok Whee]

... between the 14-45 and the 14-54. It's in Chinese though, but the pictures tell the story.

http://www.olympusfans.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=8700

 

[Stacey_K]

I just tested a 14-54 vs the 50 F2 (I own both) and was amazed the zoom was almost identical in sharpness to the prime macro lens. Also it focuses MUCH closer than the 14-45 so is useful for all sorts of photography.
--

Stacey

 

[Louis_Dobson]

I don't think anyone says it is useless, but you've just listed a load of flaws, and I've listed some others. It is a budget lens - more expensive ones are sharper and have less operational quirks.

I'd have kept mine quite happily but a) my individual sample is faulty and I don't want to be without a main lens while they fix it, b) I've got more into this photography excercise than I expected and have increased my budget accordingly, and c) I mainly shoot WA, so an 11-22 is a better walkabout lens for me than a 14-45.

Relax, enjoy the lens

But if someone says "I don't mind paying for a better lens, are the other more expensive Oly lenses better?" then the answer is "Yes."
--
http://www.pbase.com/acam/

 

[nine44]

it is sharper has has nearly the macro capability of the 50 (especially for someone who identifies themselves as not shooting 'heavy' macro work. The 14-45, as I recall had no real macro capability.

Is there a comparison available between the 14-45 f3.5 and 14-54
f2.8? I received the 14-45 f3.5 with my E-500 body. However, in
looking for a decent portrait lenses...I noticed the 14-54 f2.8.
Besides being brighter...is it worth the extra $$?

I am sort of stuck between the 14-54 f2.8 and 50mm F2.0 Macro. Both
cost around the same...tho the 50mm has a rebate right now.

I am not going to do heavy Macro work...I own a Sigma MF OM Mount
50mm Macro, which will probably work well for Macro shots.

Just a bit confused on what I should invest on right now.

• Ali

 

[Alberto Lopez]

Amerac,

You nailed my dilemma right in the head, which is why I'm curious to get a little more feedback from you. Before getting the e500, I was really looking forward to taking some nice natural indoor shots without flash. However, as I have come to learn, I seem to never be able to get speeds faster than about 1/10 anywhere indoors, using the 14-45 kit lens. The subject can be standing right beside a 200 watt bulb, looking bright as daylight to my eyes, and still I'll only get 1/20 or so, at best. This has been extremely frustrating for me. Bumping the ISO sensitivity and modifying expsoure compensation has only improved the situation marginally...

I've also found that the 14-45 kit lens hunts quite a bit indoors, or in any situation that is not outdoors and bright. This has also been a cause of some frustration.

Is this the same situation that you found yourself in? If so, how has the performance of your indoor photography changed since using the 14-54? Also, what types of speeds are you getting?

Being a newbie to photography, I can only assume that I am experiencing the exact same limitations as everyone else. If this is not the case, though, and others are able to consistently get much better speeds from their indoor shots, please let me know.

Thanks for the post...very useful...

 

[amerac]

Is this the same situation that you found yourself in? If so, how
has the performance of your indoor photography changed since using
the 14-54? Also, what types of speeds are you getting?

Hi Alberto,

I haven't had a chance to experiment yet with varying exposure and ISO etc. and have mostly relied on the on-board flash indoors and am still getting superior results because it's locking a focus way more quickly. I can take several shots of my kids in motion and they all come out great. I will try some indoor at night, flashless pix as well as daylight indoors, and let you know my settings. Might take a day or two.
Jane