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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 17, 2010, 8:54 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10
Default Lens help

I need some direction/ help for picking out a new lens. I am deffenitly going to get the Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm F2.8-3.5 SWD because I got to play with her in Japan and fell in love. I would like to get another lens as well with a wide angle but im not to sure whats considered as wide angle and id like to say under 900 if possible. Any recommendations?

Here is what I have (real basics)
Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm F3.5-5.6
Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F4.0-5.6
Zuiko Digital ED 8mm F3.5 Fisheye

And secondly whats your thoughts on Tele Converter EC-14 vs EC-20 2x Teleconverter or any feedback on other lenses that I should pick up?
DAHRAZIEL is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 18, 2010, 5:48 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default Lens choice is personal

Its difficult to answer what YOU should buy, because we aren't you. Chances are we shoot different things in different conditions that you will and we may require different lenses. Its really what makes the DSLR such a neat tool.

I don't know what your experience level is. Have you been shooting for years or new to photography? If your just getting your feet wet, I'll recommennd using what you have and seeing how you use the camera and where you may be running into its limitations. Not everyone runs into those same limitations because not everyone shoots the same.

If you shoot the 40-150 alot and find yourself at 150mm alot and wishing for more, the 50-200 is a natural choice. One of the teleconverters (I have both and both are very good) may also be part of that purchase. It makes for a very nice long setup.

If you find your favorite is the 14-42 and its on the camera almost all the time, you may want to invest in a higher level lens in that range. The 14-54 is an exceptional lens for the price, and the 12-60 is an outstanding lens that is a fair amount wider as well. You will be out a few more dollars as well. Its about twice the money.

If your wanting to get closer to small subjects, there is the 50 f2 macro and its less expensive 35 macro. Both are among the sharpest Olympus lenses, the 50 f2 is astounding.

If wide aperture, low existing light photography is your thing, then the 25 f1.4 Leica may be for you, or the less expensive Sigma 30 f1.4 of 50 f1.4 may fit you needs.

Like I said, not an easy thing to answer.

Greg
fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2010, 8:44 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAHRAZIEL View Post
I need some direction/ help for picking out a new lens. I am deffenitly going to get the Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm F2.8-3.5 SWD because I got to play with her in Japan and fell in love. I would like to get another lens as well with a wide angle but im not to sure whats considered as wide angle and id like to say under 900 if possible. Any recommendations?

Here is what I have (real basics)
Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm F3.5-5.6
Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F4.0-5.6
Zuiko Digital ED 8mm F3.5 Fisheye

And secondly whats your thoughts on Tele Converter EC-14 vs EC-20 2x Teleconverter or any feedback on other lenses that I should pick up?
A "wide angle" lens allows you to take in a larger area around you in an image, so you want a lens with a zoom range that starts with a number of 14 or lower. The 14-42 you listed above, at 14mm, is a moderately wide lens. Good for many applications, but a little wide for me is better. The 40-150 listed above is not a wide angle lens. Note how close the zoom range is to the 50-200. They are both telephoto zooms.

The 8mm f3.5 you listed is a fisheye lens and creates a lot of rounded, bent line distortion and probably is not a good lens for what you are looking for. It is a lens one buys for specialized subjects where that effect works, so is not a good choice for wider varieties of subjects.

If you wind up buying the 50-200 SWD, there are two lenses I will suggest you looking at. The 12-60 f2.8-4 is an excellent range from a true wide angle to short telephoto. This is my standard zoom. The 12mm wide end is wider than 14mm and is a good wide angle lens to have. The other lens is the 11-22 f2.8-3.5. It is an outstanding wide angle zoom with good speed and fantastic optics. I have never owned the 11-22, but should. From a combination of speed to optical quality to useful zoom range to distortion control, the 11-22 has it all. Of all the lenses Olympus makes in the high grade or lower range, it may be the best lens they make.

Here's a series of images shot with the 12-60 to give you an idea of the type subjects it can record..

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/olympus...2_60_28_40_swd

and here's a folder of images shot with the 11-22..

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/olympus..._28-35_digital

I would first obtain two lenses, one to cover the wide end and one for the telephoto range and shoot with those for a while before spending money on anything else, be it another lens or a teleconverter like either the EC14 or EC20. If you really need something else, you will figure that out while figuring out the type subjects you like or want to shoot.

Last edited by Greg Chappell; Mar 18, 2010 at 10:41 AM.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2010, 9:33 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Chappell View Post
The other lens is the 11-22 f2.8-3.5. It is an outstanding wide angle zoom with good speed and fantastic optics.
Good advice, Greg. Plus the 11-22 is a reasonably compact lens for its speed. One thing I would add is that with wide-angle lenses, if you want to protect the front element with a filter you need to get a "slim" filter so that it doesn't vignette the image.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Chappell View Post
I have never owned the 11-22, but should.
But if you did, would it cause you to miss the 7-14?

Just kidding - for me the 11-22 and the 9-18 get me what I need, at least enough so that I can't see paying the price for the 7-14. I assume you reached that same conclusion.

Ted
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2010, 10:19 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tkurkowski View Post
Good advice, Greg. Plus the 11-22 is a reasonably compact lens for its speed. One thing I would add is that with wide-angle lenses, if you want to protect the front element with a filter you need to get a "slim" filter so that it doesn't vignette the image.



But if you did, would it cause you to miss the 7-14?

Just kidding - for me the 11-22 and the 9-18 get me what I need, at least enough so that I can't see paying the price for the 7-14. I assume you reached that same conclusion.

Ted
The 9-18 I currently have is really nice. It's so light I just keep it in a small area of the bag, pull it out and treat it like a 9mm prime for subjects where the 12-60 is not wide enough. The 7-14 was/is incredible, but it's not been so long that I don't remember why I sold it! If I travelled a lot or did certain types of work, like this..

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=34827649

..I would still own it. That guy made great use of the 8mm fisheye in a couple of shots, too. It's just such a specialized lens I can't see paying what it costs for the number of times I'd use it after making initial trips back to certain local spots where I'd like to use it.

The 11-22 is just so darn good. I could see myself being perfectly contented using the 11-22 and 50-200 combination when/if I just wanted to concentrate on using two lenses.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2010, 3:43 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

[QUOTE=It's just such a specialized lens I can't see paying what it costs for the number of times I'd use it after making initial trips back to certain local spots where I'd like to use it.

The 11-22 is just so darn good. I could see myself being perfectly contented using the 11-22 and 50-200 combination when/if I just wanted to concentrate on using two lenses.[/QUOTE]

Me too. But I have found that the 11-22 doesn't replace the 9-18. I do use both.

Ted
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2010, 5:23 PM   #7
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10
Default

Thanks a bunch
I shot a lot of different things currently and have started not to long ago (2 years or so) getting into weddings and portriats so I do want to get closer some times and the 14-42 doesnt let me do some things id like but my fisheye does a bit more distortion than I want some times. Inaddition to whne I get the chance to my two favorite things to shot are aircraft and landscape.

Your guys perspective deffinetly helps considering what I have seen so far you guys have a lot of great images

Thanks again
I really need to get on here more
DAHRAZIEL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2010, 5:27 PM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10
Default

[QUOTE=Greg Chappell;1066883]

Here's a series of images shot with the 12-60 to give you an idea of the type subjects it can record..

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/olympus...2_60_28_40_swd

and here's a folder of images shot with the 11-22..

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/olympus..._28-35_digital

[QUOTE]
Stunning
DAHRAZIEL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4, 2011, 11:04 PM   #9
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1
Default

Greg, I read your response and found it to be very thorough, but I didn't find the answers I needed. I'm trying to decide on which lens (es) to upgrade to since I have a broken 14-42 which will cost $65-100 to fix. I have an 11-22 and 40-150 and 70-300. I want to sell or give away the 40-150. I'm pretty sure I want to get the 14-54 although I have considered selling or trading the 11-22 for the 12-60 and not getting the 14-54. How does the 70-300 compare in image quality to the 50-200? I have considered that one along with a teleconverter although I was recently told that it would be too much power and wouldn't need it.

I'm pretty confused. I shoot everything from macro to landscape and birds and someday I hope to get a nice macro lens.

Additional help or advice is appreciated.
potterpals is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2011, 9:37 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,530
Default

DH

Regards a wide or slight WA you do have options esp within 900 to splash out:

11-22, 9-18, 14-54 and 12-60

You might be able to get a deal for say a 14-54 + 9+18 for a wee bit more than 900, so it'd definitely be worth considering if you can. If its only one lens you want then the 12-60 should be on the top of the list.

Potts,

I think if you can afford to get the 50-200 then do so as it is a step up from the 70-300, which in its own rigth is a cracking lens and Greg/Goth/Zig and a few others that have both lenses should be able to give you a much better answer than I can. The question regards whether to sell your 11-22 (which from all accounts is a stellar lens) and say switch to the 12-60 is a pretty tough one to make and I think will come down to what your shooting style is like. From all accounts the 12-60 is a sharper lens than the 14-54 as well.


Cheers

Harj
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 3:41 PM.