Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus Micro Four Thirds

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 5, 2010, 11:28 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Chappell View Post
...
The kit lens issue is all about cost and design compromises that are accepted in order to keep the smallness and prices down as much as possible. ...
well, I certainly don't subscribe to this type of philosophy. Sure i want to pay less for a camera but if quality is compromised, then it's no good. Like I said, the 14-42mm does look and feel flimsy and cheap. As for the 70-300mm, it's a great lens (I had one) but I think it's too big for the EPL1 (the 45-200mm, which is smaller than the 70-300mm, already feels big and unbalanced).
__________________

Tullio
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2010, 12:17 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,521
Default

I would not want to handhold the Panny 45-200, Olympus 70-300 or any other tele zoom on any camera using just the back LCD to compose and shoot. Being able to bring the camera up to your eye to me makes all the difference using a telezoom. With the camera in your right-hand and using your left hand to handle to zoom ring and support the lens, the E-PL1 and 70-300 combination is no worse handling than using the same 70-300 on the small Olympus E620 DSLR. The grip/handling using the E-PL1 is actually better until you mount the accessory grip on the E620.

The 45-200 is probably a best tele option in the micro lens lineup than anything else currently available. In reading the specs it's barely 1/2 inch longer than the 14-150 Zuiko superzoom and only 4 ounces or so heavier.

Olympus certainly isn't the first or last company to down-engineer a kit lens to fit within a cost range. From what I have seen regarding the new 14-42 Panasonic kit lens coming with the G2, users are scarmbling to find and buy a copy of the 14-45 original kit lens. Ever owned a Canon DSLR and tried their 18-55 kit lens or one of the really cheap and nasty bottom-of-the-barrell zooms like the 28-90 or 90-300? Canon truly makes 'em for all price and quality ranges, from the very best to the cheapest and nastiest.

Last edited by Greg Chappell; Sep 6, 2010 at 12:37 AM.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2010, 1:19 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

There are 2 kit lens, the ep1 and ep2 comes with a metal base plate, the epl-1 with a plastic one. I is lighter then the metal mount.

I had the plastic one, but a sense of style had me trade in the plastic one for the metal one. As it match the camera better being a silver lens on a silver body.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdcs View Post
Regarding metal and plastic lenses: Shoturtle, are there two versions of kit lenses, one is metal and one is plastic? Does the EP2 come with a metal one? I remember I read somewhere but I cannot find those info again at this moment.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2010, 1:37 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

I shot the 45-200 with just the lcd for couple of months till the vf2 became available. It was not that bad to shoot off the lcd with that lens. Main reason is that is is a relatively small and light lens. The vf2 makes it allot better when using the 45-200.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2010, 1:55 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 312
Default

Thanks shoturtle, why I asked is: so far I've found some EP2 clips and most of them look superior to EPL1. I'm figuring whether the camera or the lens made the difference. Most of the EP2 clips were taken with non-oly lenses, mostly Nickon, there is one taken with the kit 14-42 and it looks crappy, the only crappy video I've seen from a EP2.
sdcs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2010, 10:44 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

When Panasonic released the new G models with a new 14-42mm lens, it was obvious to me that they had downgraded the kit lens.
__________________

Tullio
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2010, 5:52 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 312
Default

It happened again this morning, for about 5 shots the lens simply refused to auto focus. I heard the beeps and saw the steady green dots, but they were totally fuzzy, not just a little off which happens even more often.

I also noticed two tiny white dots on the front glass, luckily they are near the edge, not close to the center.

I wonder whether these kit lenses that are thrown in for $50 with the body are the same as those retailed for $280? I also wonder how's the quality of the Panny 45-200 for $268?
sdcs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2010, 11:04 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

The new Oly 14-42mm is a huge disappointment to me, a big fan of the Zuiko lenses. Oly could not have gone any cheaper. No wonder the EPL1 is going for $500 while the EP2 remains close to $1000 (not that the old kit lens is THAT much better but the overall package is). I have the Pana 45-200mm and find it to be a very capable lens. I also have the Lumix 14-45mm, which is a great kit lens, specially if compared to the Zuiko. To be honest, so far I have nothing good to say about the 14-42mm except that it's sharp.
__________________

Tullio
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 7, 2010, 1:14 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 312
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tullio View Post
so far I have nothing good to say about the 14-42mm except that it's sharp.
The strange thing is: I have not been able to get a single sharp video from it. I used to think that video has much less demands on lens quality.
sdcs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 7, 2010, 2:12 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

I think video is more demanding because the FL varies every second and the camera must keep the image in constant focus. If the lens does not cooperate, the image will be OOF.
__________________

Tullio
Tullio 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 11:35 AM.