|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 721
|
![]()
From my research it appears that the 14-54mm lens is the better of the two. Can anyone verify that, and it it worth the extra money?
Any Macro Lens suggestions? Sarah Joyce |
![]() |
![]() |
Sponsored Links |
|
![]() |
#2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 824
|
![]()
Sarah, as you know the two lenses cover basically the same range, but the 14-54 has the following advantages:
1. 10mm more reach :-) 2. Weathersealing 3. Brighter f-stop 4. Much closer focusing (cm instead of meters) 5. A bit sharper, with slightly less CA (neither one has any remarkable CA problems, but the 14-54 is said to be better). For my money, this made it well worthwhile, and I'm not disappointed. It's been called the perfect walkaround/wedding lens, and doubles as a quick macro when you don't have one around quick. Here's a shot I took with it recently: ![]() Oly e-300, 14-54mm (@54mm), 1/100s @ f8, ISO100, Silkypix However, on other fora I have seen some really nice work done with both of the kit lenses, so if you don't have the need for the close focusing and a stop brighter exposure, I'd highly recommend them. The only true macro currently available for 4/3 with digital mount is the 50mm f2, which doubles as a very nice portrait lens (converted focal length of 100mm). Here's a couple more recent shots with it: ![]() ![]() ![]() (both shots Oly e-300, ED 50mm macro, etc.) On the other hand. . .Oly is coming out with a new 35mm f3.5 macro in its budget class, due on sale in November: It's supposed to sell for around $250, so you might want to wait and see what it's like. Best wishes, |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 721
|
![]()
Hi Norm-
Well I have officially joied the E-300 group. I bought one this morning which has the 14-45mm kit lens with it. I also located a 14-54mm that I am watching. I also found the other portion of the 2 lens kit, the 40-150mm at around $140. Thanks also for posting the great photos. I will wait for a bit on the macro. Thanks again for your help. Sarah Joyce |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 824
|
![]()
speaklightly wrote:
Quote:
http://www.molon.de/E300/#Firmware |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 30
|
![]()
I have a question about the 14-45mm vs the 14-54mm, and didn't want to start a new thread, so I hope a few people are still watching this one
![]() I'm thinking of getting an E-500 (for the simple reason that I have gotfed up with having to spend endless moneyon cleaning the sensorof my current DSLR all the time!) and am trying to decide if I should spend the extra to get it with the 14-54mm instead of the 14-45mm. My main question is about distortion: is there less barrel distortion on the 14-54mm or is it basically the same at the 14-45mm kit lens? Thanks in advance for any replies! Edward http://photos.edgladwin.com/- My Gallery & Shop |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 112
|
![]()
This site has a pretty good technical review of both lenses:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html The kit lens bundle pricing is a good deal, but I'd suppose in the end, it's all up to your budget and needs. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|