Improved kit lenses!

in my dream I saw on my E M-5 a 135-270mm/f4-5.6 ....

go figure.....

junk1 wrote:

Yep - people often tell me I must have a good camera when they see my pics, as if the camera did all the work.

As for lenses, people who do buy lenses too often buy a slow "super-zoom" - even posters on here who ask for advice end up buying a super-zoom (even though nobody advised them to do so).

Heck, even the pro photographer (local guy who takes pictures at YMCA and schools) uses a slow super-zoom for portraits...crazy.

It's only crazy if you aren't getting the photos you want!

jim stirling wrote:

Jere Landis wrote:

Anyone else notice how the kit lenses in M4/3s are improving. I notice most people are keeping the kit lens anymore and using them. Just like the Panasonic 14-42 II and the 12-32, they're actually kind of scarce on the used market.

I think we have been very fortunate with the kit lenses in mFT , most are pretty good especially for "kit" lenses. My first mFT purchase back in 2009 was the GF1 with 20mm F1.7 and the 14-45mm , both lenses are very good performers even nowadays.

I agree that m4/3 kit lenses have been pretty good. The only really mediocre lenses were the original Olympus 14-42mm and the original Panasonic 14-42mm.

junk1 wrote:

Yep - people often tell me I must have a good camera when they see my pics, as if the camera did all the work.

As for lenses, people who do buy lenses too often buy a slow "super-zoom" - even posters on here who ask for advice end up buying a super-zoom (even though nobody advised them to do so).

I also once doubt on superzoom. In the old days a good superzoom must be prohibitively expensive, very large and heavy. IQ would also be weaker than normal zooms (2x/3x) or so.

Few months back while I convinced my wife to replace her old FZ28 (a superzoom compact) with my back up (GF3), I bought her 14-140 MII for a partially compensation on the lose of the wide spectrum of focal length coverage by her old camera. To my surprise, the IQ of such a 10x, relatively small and light weight superzoom indeed could be comparable to my good good 14-45. In the long reach, it is also better than the similar fl of my 45-200. 45-200 is not excellent in its longer end, but it is still very nice upto 150mm beyond. As per many good forum members' opinion, its IQ is even close to a lot of primes!

So, as long as their good IQ, whats wrong to use superzoom (a fact that most M43 zooms are good as primes). The only disadvantage would only be slower speed and still relatively larger and heavier.

Heck, even the pro photographer (local guy who takes pictures at YMCA and schools) uses a slow super-zoom for portraits...crazy.

Renatoa wrote:

You can think to Oly 4/3 (non MFT) 14-54 2.8-3.5 as your dream lens.

But is 435 grams and 67mm front lens thread !

The combination on my E-M10 is still lighter than those "Steampunk" Canon and Nikon DSLRs, and many of us don't use filters.  The 14-54 RARELY left my E-30, and before that, it rarely left my E500.  And now it rarely leaves my E-M10.  The cost of filters is minimal to me, but a faster focusing, native mount 14-54 would be invaluable to me.

Are we sure we want this ?

I don't know about "We", but I do know about "Me"!

P S wrote:

No one mentioned the Olympus 12-50mm lens. I know it didn't get great reviews, but it is splash proof and has a macro mode. It is a very useful walk around lens.

I love mine. I find it pretty sharp across the range, getting a bit soft on the corners wide open. If it were a tad bit smaller, it would have stayed on my E-M10 all the time. Maybe when I switch bags, It'll come back to be the lens-to-store the camera with. Right now is the 14mm, since is so tiny, it fits in a pocket made for the body with no lens.