Brand new Leica 14-50mm f2.8-3.5 lenses

[ThingFish]

Came across this USA based site that still has these lenses in stock at $865 brand new

http://www.videodirect.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=LES014050&Category_Code=LEICADLENS

hmmmm not sure if it's an old page or what.

 

[ThingFish]

And in the UK there's quite a number of shops that stock this lens at various prices too:
http://skinflint.co.uk/a218300.html#ps

And I thought it was so hard to find them new.

 

[MLVDE]

Do not hesitate: BUY this lens!

Groet,
Theo

 

[mfbernstein]

And in the UK there's quite a number of shops that stock this lens at various prices too:
http://skinflint.co.uk/a218300.html#ps

And I thought it was so hard to find them new.

B&H has 'em new. Doesn't seem that hard.

At nearly 2x the price of the equal-or-better performing 14-54/2.8-3.5, it's main advantage is stabilization for older non-stabilized bodies. Is advantage worth $400+? Only you can decide.

--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey

 

[wjlonien]

See http://geizhals.at/deutschland/a218300.html for price comparison.

cheers,
Wolfgang
--
using free and open source software,
and an open camera system (Olympus 4/3rds)

 

[Jan3x5]

Do not hesitate: BUY this lens!

Groet,
Theo

WHY? Why to pay huge extra over (better) 14-54 MkII for bodies with IBIS?

btw: I bought this lens brand new for EUR 375 during the sale.

--
http://www.intopicture.com

 

[Phill D]

I can't see the reason to buy the Leica 14-50 over the Oly 14-54 either if you've got in body IS. But the Leica 14-150 now that is a different kettle of fish.
--
Phill D

 

[ThingFish]

Quite debatable that the Olympus 14-54 is better. On the contrary...I have read many reviews where the Pana/Leica is considered the better. The Pana/Leica is clearer and brighter wide open and does not vignette at the corners like the Olympus. Also the Pana/Leica is sharp across the entire image without softening at the corners like the Olympus 14-54. Also the bokeh is a lot more pleasing with the Pana/Leica.

Do not hesitate: BUY this lens!

Groet,
Theo

WHY? Why to pay huge extra over (better) 14-54 MkII for bodies with IBIS?

btw: I bought this lens brand new for EUR 375 during the sale.

--
http://www.intopicture.com

 

[Ben Herrmann]

although they are expensive, I most certainly will recommend them - but only if you use them with none IS, older bodies like the E-1, E-300, E-330, E-410/420. On these bodies the Leica lens adds a new dimension with OIS. I use various Leica OIS lenses on the E-1 and the E-330 and what a world of difference it makes. And the Leica optics are very sharp.

But to buy it just to put on an IBIS newer Oly body - naaaaaa, stick with either the 14-54 or 12-60.
--

 

[ThingFish]

xactly...I am using it on my E1. Actually sold my L1 together with the Olympus 25mm pancake lens yesterday. Kept the Panny/Leica 14-50mm. Was quite sad to see the L1 go, even felt a twinge of regret.

although they are expensive, I most certainly will recommend them - but only if you use them with none IS, older bodies like the E-1, E-300, E-330, E-410/420. On these bodies the Leica lens adds a new dimension with OIS. I use various Leica OIS lenses on the E-1 and the E-330 and what a world of difference it makes. And the Leica optics are very sharp.

But to buy it just to put on an IBIS newer Oly body - naaaaaa, stick with either the 14-54 or 12-60.
--

 

[mark1000]

http://www.srsmicrosystems.co.uk/5109/Panasonic-Leica-D-Vario-Elmarit-14-50mm-F3-8-5-6-Mega-O-I-S--Lens.html

Mark.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30657645@N03/

 

[simpy]

no text

 

[mfbernstein]

Quite debatable that the Olympus 14-54 is better. On the contrary...I have read many reviews where the Pana/Leica is considered the better.

Example? The only reputable review I can remember was photozone's, and sadly they took down all their old 4/3 reviews when they switched from the E-500 to the L10, so it's no longer available.

The Pana/Leica is clearer and brighter wide open and does not vignette at the corners like the Olympus. Also the Pana/Leica is sharp across the entire image without softening at the corners like the Olympus 14-54. Also the bokeh is a lot more pleasing with the Pana/Leica.

All evidence I've seen indicate that the Panasonic has poorer corners, more CA, and substantially larger minimum focusing distance.

For that price, there's the 12-60 too...

--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey

 

[mark1000]

no text

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30657645@N03/

 

[ThingFish]

Quite debatable that the Olympus 14-54 is better. On the contrary...I have read many reviews where the Pana/Leica is considered the better.

Example? The only reputable review I can remember was photozone's, and sadly they took down all their old 4/3 reviews when they switched from the E-500 to the L10, so it's no longer available.

The Pana/Leica is clearer and brighter wide open and does not vignette at the corners like the Olympus. Also the Pana/Leica is sharp across the entire image without softening at the corners like the Olympus 14-54. Also the bokeh is a lot more pleasing with the Pana/Leica.

All evidence I've seen indicate that the Panasonic has poorer corners, more CA, and substantially larger minimum focusing distance.

For that price, there's the 12-60 too...

--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey

A comparison between the Olympus 14-54 and the Pana/Leica 14-50 and the Olympus 12-60

http://www.lenstip.com/227.4-Lens_review-Olympus_Zuiko_Digital_14-54_mm_f_2.8-3.5_Image_resolution.html

14-54 vs 40-50
http://www.mytikas.org/portal/viewtopic.php?t=529

 

[mfbernstein]

A comparison between the Olympus 14-54 and the Pana/Leica 14-50 and the Olympus 12-60

http://www.lenstip.com/227.4-Lens_review-Olympus_Zuiko_Digital_14-54_mm_f_2.8-3.5_Image_resolution.html

I hadn't seen the lentip 14-50 review. They seem to have done quite well with it. I have to say some of their results are a bit odd though - for instance they claim the micro 14-42 beats the 14-54 and the 14-50 at 14mm in the corners. From my experience with the 14-54 and the 14-42, I find that claim quite implausible.

(Links:

http://www.optyczne.pl/91.4-Test_obiektywu-Leica_D_Vario-Elmarit_14-50_mm_f_2.8-3.5_Asph._Mega_O.I.S._Rozdzielczo%C5%9B%C4%87_obrazu.html

http://www.optyczne.pl/174.4-Test_obiektywu-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_14-42_mm_f_3.5-5.6_ED_Rozdzielczo%C5%9B%C4%87_obrazu.html

http://www.lenstip.com/227.4-Lens_review-Olympus_Zuiko_Digital_14-54_mm_f_2.8-3.5_Image_resolution.html )

Unfortunately I can't find the photozone link, even on wayback. Oh well...

--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey

 

[pinnacle]

I owned that lens for a couple of years. The optical quality is very good, but the 12-60 Zuiko is better. The 14-54 Zuiko will also do a comparable job against the Elmarit at a significantly lower price.

The PanaLeica also has a fairly bad reputation for having zoom ring fail. It starts to bind and then eventually locks up.

Just a word to the wise. Do some checking online about the mechanical issues before you buy that lens.

Dan
--

Will I learn from life's lessons or will I lose my faith in the goodness life's promise had to offer?

 

[ThingFish]

I owned that lens for a couple of years. The optical quality is very good, but the 12-60 Zuiko is better. The 14-54 Zuiko will also do a comparable job against the Elmarit at a significantly lower price.

The PanaLeica also has a fairly bad reputation for having zoom ring fail. It starts to bind and then eventually locks up.

Just a word to the wise. Do some checking online about the mechanical issues before you buy that lens.

Dan
--

Will I learn from life's lessons or will I lose my faith in the goodness life's promise had to offer?

That was with the early batches. Topic has been covered extensively here on DPReview and elsewhere. Later batches did not have that issue as a tiny drop of locktite was apparently used to ensure the little screw that worked loose and caused the problem would not work loose anymore. I myself have such a lens from the later batches and I have had it for 2 years and it has never given me a moments trouble at all.

 

[Jan3x5]

Quite debatable that the Olympus 14-54 is better. On the contrary...I have read many reviews where the Pana/Leica is considered the better. The Pana/Leica is clearer and brighter wide open and does not vignette at the corners like the Olympus. Also the Pana/Leica is sharp across the entire image without softening at the corners like the Olympus 14-54. Also the bokeh is a lot more pleasing with the Pana/Leica.

14-54 MkII is sharper wide-open, with less distortion, less CA. It is also built better (or at least feels better), has weatherproof, is smaller and incorporates smaller filter thread. Its max. magnification is better and zoom ring has the "proper" direction. PL was much better in terms of bokeh compared to MkI, but MkII is close as its bokeh rendition is definitely improved. PL also tends to fail quite often, which doesn't seems to be case of 14-54 MkII. Based on my experience Zuiko is better hands-down regardless on price, but for the half it is a steal.

I have used 14-54 MkI for years, 12-60 for one year, 14-50 for less than one year and 14-54 MkII just for one week, found MkII best of the bunch.

--
http://www.intopicture.com

 

[ThingFish]

Quite debatable that the Olympus 14-54 is better. On the contrary...I have read many reviews where the Pana/Leica is considered the better. The Pana/Leica is clearer and brighter wide open and does not vignette at the corners like the Olympus. Also the Pana/Leica is sharp across the entire image without softening at the corners like the Olympus 14-54. Also the bokeh is a lot more pleasing with the Pana/Leica.

14-54 MkII is sharper wide-open, with less distortion, less CA. It is also built better (or at least feels better), has weatherproof, is smaller and incorporates smaller filter thread. Its max. magnification is better and zoom ring has the "proper" direction. PL was much better in terms of bokeh compared to MkI, but MkII is close as its bokeh rendition is definitely improved. PL also tends to fail quite often, which doesn't seems to be case of 14-54 MkII. Based on my experience Zuiko is better hands-down regardless on price, but for the half it is a steal.

I have used 14-54 MkI for years, 12-60 for one year, 14-50 for less than one year and 14-54 MkII just for one week, found MkII best of the bunch.

--
http://www.intopicture.com

You speak with authority for one who does not own the Leica 14-50mm to compare. Again I refer you to look at the test performed here:

http://www.lenstip.com/227.4-Lens_review-Olympus_Zuiko_Digital_14-54_mm_f_2.8-3.5_Image_resolution.html

and you will see that your claim that the 14-54mm is sharper wide open is not what the testers found. Bokeh with the Leica is also much more pleasing. Build quality apart from not having weather proofing is equal to the Olympus imo. (I have had both in my hands to compare. I have the Panny/Leica lens by the way. Only thing the Olympus is better at is that is does not suffer from as much chromatic aberation as the Leica. But the differences between the 2 lenses image wise are not so big as to be a major issue anyway. Both are pretty good imo. Sure, price wise the Olympus is a better buy. I got my lens when I purchased the L1 which I sold yesterday with the 25mm Olympus pancake lens attached. Kept the Leica lens to use on my Olympus E1.