Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 31, 2007, 8:00 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,531
Default

I've been thinking lately about the two new lenses announced by Oly and Panaleica at PMA and which lens would be my next purchase. Both the 12-60ZD and the Leica D14-150 on paper both look very promising, in terms of build, image quality, size and hopefully price. I therefore decided to check up on the nearest competitors to both lenses :

Zukio 12-60ZD (24-120mm) - the nearest equivalent is the Canon 24-105 F4 L IS USM @ 1100.00 USD. From all reports the Canon is a cracker of a lens - sharp wide open at 24mm, next to no vignetting, minor distortion and pin cushion and some CA.

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/145/cat/11

For this focal range, I think the 12-60ZD should easily be on par or better than the 24-105F4. Price wise its highly likely then that the 12-60ZD could be anywhere between 600-1000.00 ? Or am I off the pace with that ?

The Leica D 14-150 - the nearest equivalents would be the Nikkor 18-200 IF-ED VR f3.5-5.6 and the Canon is the 28-200 f3.5-5.6 USM which is from all accounts at 500USD a poor lens indeed. The Nikkor lens costs approx $900 and seems to sell extremely well. Optically it seems to be so-so: quiet a bit of distortion at the tele end, its soft wide open, and not as sharp as it should be, exhibits lens creep and some CA but nothing serious. At first looking at the Nikkor 11x optical made me think twice about the Leica D but then I woke up and remembered that Panaleica have been producing excellent 12xOptical lenses for the FZ digicam's for several years now. Could the Leica D (even though its consumer grade) be a much better lens than the Nikkor ? I think it will, hopefully they would have nailed the distortion that the Nikkor has and yet still be tack sharp although I do wish it was faster at f2.8-4 and pricewise the $800USD mark.

If both lenses are way overpriced, I'll just save the money and look at getting the 35-100F2, although its size and weight seem pretty daunting or the 50-200f2.8-3.5's.

Cheers

HarjTT

:? :O

PS.

Just found that the MRP for the Leica D 14-150 is $1000.00USD = £508.00GBP at current exchange rates.
HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 31, 2007, 11:20 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,066
Default

i think one the one hand, you would be paying for the wider angle of the 12-60
but on the other for the Leica name tag

the advantage of the 12-60 is the AF, with what will be the fastest AF there is
the advantage of the Leica is the zoom range, as a walkabout lens. And you would only get anther 100mm for the added expence of a 50-200 Olympus

what it means to me is that Leica wont be bothering with ultra-wide lenses
i cant see them now dealing with a shorter than 28mm wide


Riley

Rriley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2007, 2:42 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,531
Default

Looking at the Panaleica lens roadmap I'd guess that their lens setup is going to follow the classic Leica lens lineup of a 21/35/50/90mm. We already have listed the following two:

25mm f1.4 Summilux = 50mm
45mm F2 Macro Summicron = 90mm

So I'd say there's at least one or more prime lenses coming from them in 2008 - a 10mm and 17mm. Whether we see anything wider I don;t know, perhaps they'll leave that to Oly or may be not.

Regarding the 12-60 - whats appealing about that is its focal range and overall speed. As you stated I think its AF will also be faster and keep the fairly bright VF where as the Leica D, I'm a wee bit worried that it will focus slowly on the older cams and be only an outdoor good lens. Price wise it looks as if that combo is going to be close to the $2000USD mark, which is pretty close to what the 35-100F2 costs.

Cheers

HarjTT

:? :O
HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2007, 3:02 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,066
Default

yes the added utility of 12-60 is the connectivity with other lenses
just the 12-60 and 50-200 make a nice tight kit from 24 to 400mm

once upon a time we could never dream of kit like that
not without a huge bag and a lot of weight
christ thats as bad as the infantry with 180lb packs weapon and 200 rounds

do you really think its US$2k, thats an awful lot of moulah
cheers

Riley


Rriley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2007, 6:41 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,531
Default

Ok, better change the figures a bit. Both lenses are going to be around the 1600-2000USD mark, esp if you take the following figures:

Leica D 14-150 approx $1000USD
12-60ZD (potentially replaces both 14-54 and 11-22); The 14-54 is 449.00USd and the 11-22 is $670.00. So it could cost around the $700USD or more and if they pitch it as a 24-105 F4 IS L equivalent then it could well be close to 800-900.

So both lenses combined (worse case) would cost around 1700-1900USD.

In the UK, the 14-54 is £450 and the 11-22 around the £600. the 35-100F2 is just £1499.79 (ouch!) - which at current exchange rates is nearly 3000.00USD!!

Cheers

HarjTT

:? :O



HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2007, 10:10 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,066
Default

wow it seems there is some magical increase in price between the US and UK
they do that here too, which means i get my gear from the US
sometimes delivery from the US west coast defeats local delivery here !

but US$670 to 600 pounds is crazy

Riley
Rriley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2007, 2:08 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,531
Default

The price conversions pretty simple - most compnaies just replace the "$" with a "£". That was one of the reason's why I didn;t just wait it out for the L1. There was a very high chance that when the L1 was priced at nearly 2000USD that it could have been sold for £2000. Thats exactly what happened with the LC1 but for the L1 they must have realised that they couldn't do that and so priced it at £1200 (in. lens) which is approx 2000.00USD.

I'm looking at the 50-200mm and its 679.00(inc 17.5%VAT) and from the US its $819.00 =£421.00. Once its shipped over and customs slap on VAT and postage it'll have cost about £520.00 thats a cool saving of about 150.00. The 35-100f2, works out to be £1100.00+VAT+Shipping = £1322.00 a saving of just 180.00.

Cheers

HarjTT

:? :O
HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2007, 3:13 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,066
Default

yes i did that here
under A$1000 is tax free, beyond that we have a duty and GST at 10%
we are about 80 cents in the dollar to US$

so i payed total A$1,630 for my LC-1, near new boxed. Instead of A$2,500 and wait for Panasonic to get round t me.

same with E-300, at US$350 instead of A$1,300 as a buy it now on ebay.au

11-22mm US$612 instead of A$1,430

Metz 54 MZ3 for US$243, instead of A$765 if you can find one

you really do nee to be sure about reliability of supply though

Riley
Rriley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 22, 2007, 5:42 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

[I had posted this earlier but it was deleted in the recent Forum database server problem.]

FWIW, I bought the Leica D Vario-Elmarit 14-50mm for use on myOly E-500. (It's available separately from the Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1 now, for $950 USD at B&H Photo.) I haven't had a lot of opportunity touse it becauseit has rained here, or threatened to rain,pretty much every weekend for months, but my initial experience is that it is indeed as sharp as Pop Photo said it is in their December 2006 review:

http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses...mm-f28-35.html

Since I often need to do indoor action shots I like the higher speed than the otherLeica zoom lenses mentioned above (or the Oly kit lenses).The Image Stabilization is more difficult to quantify - I don't know of a way to create reproducable test results without mounting the camera on a tripod which, of course, defeats the purpose of an IS test. But I did shoot a series of pairs of photos at shutter speeds of 1/40, 60, 80, & 125 with the IS on and off, at the 50mm f/l, while trying to hand-hold the camera as steady as possible. My subjective conclusion is the same as the Pop Photo review, which is that the IS is worth maybe 2 stops but your mileage may vary...

I do like the lens and would use it with the IS turned off, on the upcoming E-510 (if I can afford to get one). I will say, though, that it looks really large on the E-500 body <grin>.

Ted K.


tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2007, 3:59 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,531
Default

Hi Ted

Thanks for the insight into the 14-50 Leica D and giving your own opinions on the lens. From the pics of the lil beast it does look very nice on an Oly, and the 25mm f1.4 looks even better :G. Hopw's the battery life with the E500 and IS on ? Have you noticed much difference or none at all ?

Regards the 14-150 Leica D, its definetely an outdoor/good light lens although if its as good as the 14-50 it could well be the lens to have when on a walk about.

Cheers

HarjTT

:O :?
HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:44 PM.