Reading mode: Light Dark

14-54 vs 14-50 wow

Go to last post
J

jackfrost15

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
332
Reaction score
0
Location
NY, US
Yes. At twice+ the price, your 14-50mm seems to be sharper than your 14-54mm. You have a fine lens. How is it in the rain?

--
Cheers,

Jim Pilcher
Colorado, USA

'Begin each day as if it were on purpose.' -- Mary Anne Radmacher
 
No offense intended, Alberto, but it's painfully clear that your 14-54 shot was either out of focus, the victim of camera shake, or both. Next time, use a tripod and focus manually.

Steve
Alberto Battelli said:
I just got the 14-50 Leica lens. It's bigger than the 14-54 but
there seems to be a difference in sharpness. see these too shots,
the closer one is the 54. both at f3.5 and 1/10th, ISO 100:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/albert-one/2102502508/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/albert-one/2102502208/

--
GMT -5
'No Man Is Rich Enough To Buy Back His Past'
Click to expand...
 
The picture of the barometer seems to be at different apertures, and distance and/or focal lengths. If you look at the two monitors on either side, they are clearer in one photo over the other ... which indicates to me a different aperture.

----------------
Zalllon
'If you knew you wouldn't fail, what would you try?' - someone
 
thanks for the test, I've wondered how good the 14-50 was, it appears to be very good.

But I do agree either your sample of your 14-54 is not a good one, or there was some type of out of focus or motion blur. What was your testing procedures?

The second says 1/45th for the 54 and 1/30 for the 50, that would give the edge to the leica, did you use a tripod? Autotimer? Sometimes just the act of pressing a shutter button will blur the shot.

Or did you have IS on? If so, that could attribute to the softness.

Oh I would also suggest if you do it again, do the following, live view, IS off, with a tripod. manually focus with 7x or 10x magnified focus assist. Also turn anti-shake on say 4 seconds, and then just press the shutter.

The mirror will flip up, wait 4 seconds as the camera settles, then filp the shutter.
--
Cloverdale, B.C., Canada
Olympus e-510
http://joesiv.smugmug.com
 
You have to make certain the focal length is the same and the aperture is the same. As others have mentioned it's either a different aperture or a defective lens. There is just a bit too much inconsistency. The closer one seems to have a more shallow DOF. I use the 14-54 all the time and this is not a good example of a kit lens much less the 14-54. sorry

--
My soul is painted like the wings of butterflies..
 
Well, I don't see why everyone is so defensive about this. I'm no pixel peeper, I just got the lens and decided to take a couple of unscientific shots, that's all. The 14-54 has served me very well since I've had it and I don't think it is a bad copy. Maybe my hand was shaking when I took that shot. I will go out today and use the Leica and see if I like the pictures better. I wouldn't mind sending it back and continuing to use the 14-54 if the images are comparable, it's lighter and less expensive.

I would also appreciate some constructive criticism, like maybe a link to somewhere where someone has conducted this test in a more "controlled" manner.

Also, as someone has suggested, is the 14-54 weather proof? I wasn't aware of that.
--
GMT -5
'No Man Is Rich Enough To Buy Back His Past'
 
Looks like the closer one is focused on the lighter not the text on the pen like the other one.
--
Dave Lewis
 
weather proofed.

Your 14-54 image seems to have a different focus point(closer) than the 14-50 making it look less sharp.

Manual focusing both lenses and zooming the 14-54 to match the FOV of the 14-50 would make for a more valid test.

There is a professional review comparing both lenses, making the 14-54 a great value, given the price difference.

Jeff.
 
I have both lenses and I plan on doing a test, anyway.. ;)

I bought the l1 back in late summer when they were selling them for $1k. hard to say no at that price. but little did I know the e3 was going to be so good (grin) and that even the 510 would be down to $500 with lens.

I was originally thinking of using the 'leica' lens with the e3 and just not buying a lens FOR the e3. but when I found out the oly version was better sealed, that did seal the deal for me ;)

I have not found one lens to be head and shoulders better than the other. I think the diff, if any, is splitting hairs. they both are great mid-grade lenses. the pany costs a lot more because of the IS inside; and also a bit because of the leica name on the plastic.

I'll do an a/b test between the 2 but I'm not expecting a huge diff. if you get a huge diff between them, I would suspect the test, itself, before the lenses.

--
Bryan (pics only: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works )
(pics and more: http://www.netstuff.org ) ~
 
Alberto Battelli said:
Well, I don't see why everyone is so defensive about this.
Click to expand...
Alberto, I don't think that anyone is really "defensive" about this topic, myself included. It does, however, annoy me a bit to see poorly done comparisons like the one you have posted, especially by folks that should know better. No offense intended, but judging from your posting history and apparent ownership, past and present, of a great variety of camera bodies and lenses, I would have imagined you being in the category of folks that should know how to set up a proper test.
jackfrost15 said:
I'm no pixel peeper, I just got the lens and decided to take a couple of
unscientific shots, that's all. The 14-54 has served me very well
since I've had it and I don't think it is a bad copy. Maybe my hand
was shaking when I took that shot. I will go out today and use the
Leica and see if I like the pictures better. I wouldn't mind sending
it back and continuing to use the 14-54 if the images are comparable,
it's lighter and less expensive.
I would also appreciate some constructive criticism, like maybe a
link to somewhere where someone has conducted this test in a more
"controlled" manner.
Click to expand...
I don't know if the search engine is working today. However, if it is, you should be able to find forum postings with comparisons of the two lenses in question. My recollection is the general consensus opinion is that the difference in IQ between the two lenses is negligible to nonexistent and that choosing one over the other comes down to determining which features (e.g., IS, weather-resistant seals, weight) are a priority. Certainly, if you own a tripod, I'd advise you to repeat your comparison tests to determine how your particular samples of these lenses compare. Just be sure to use manual focus, taking advantage of the focus precision provided by the Live View feature of your camera(s).

FWIW, here are links to what IMO are two professionally done tests of the Oly 14-54mm zoom lens:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/33/cat/15

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

Of course, your sample may vary in quality from the ones used for the above tests.

Steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top