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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 5, 2012, 9:05 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
James Emory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bay City, MI
Posts: 2,378
Default

Well said Sammy. I go back to the days of film SLRs when zoom lenses were non-existent. As you said, you had to find the best point of view for your shot and not depend on zoom lenses. Back then my lens make up was a 28, 55, 135, and 200mm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SammyKhalifa View Post
Honestly I don't know. I'm pretty poor on the technical side (at least so far). I've heard that it is sharper though.

A big part for me is psychological. With the limitation of having only the prime instead of the zoom on there I find myself looking for different (and possibly better) "points of view" than I would have with the zoom. Before I got the lens, I read other people saying the same thing and remember thinking to myself that that was a bunch of nonsense. I do know that despite the limitations I haven't put the kit zoom back on since I got the 14.

There's also the thing where I can now fit the E-PL2 easily inside just about any pocket. And mine for some reason came in mono-black instead of with that silver ring around the outside, so that's cool. B)
__________________
Olympus OMD-M5, HLG6 grip, Olympus 4/3rd 35mm macro lens, Panny/Leica 25mm, f1.4, Olympus 17mm, Canon Pro 9000 Mk II Printer, Canon MP990 Printer, Slik U212 Tripod, Manfrotto monopod, MMF3 converter.
James Emory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 5:22 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

In the old days, just about any prime would perform better than zooms. Today I don't believe this is necessarily true. There are plenty of excellent zoom lenses out there that may very well perform better than some cheap primes. I have the Lumix 14mm and I really like it. In fact, I like it better than the popular 20mm f1.7. However, I see no difference in terms of IQ between it and the Lumix14-45mm at 14mm. I believe you have the Zuiko 14-42mm II, which from what I read is better than the original 14-42 that came with the early PENs, so I would not be surprised if the Zuiko performs just as well (or perhaps even better) as the Lumix at 14mm. If that's the case, then the major difference between the two is size, which I don't believe justifies the $$$. I like primes but I usually lean toward the zooms for their versatility.
__________________

Tullio
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 5:46 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tullio View Post
...I believe you have the Zuiko 14-42mm II, which from what I read is better than the original 14-42 that came with the early PENs, so I would not be surprised if the Zuiko performs just as well (or perhaps even better) as the Lumix at 14mm. If that's the case, then the major difference between the two is size, which I don't believe justifies the $$$. I like primes but I usually lean toward the zooms for their versatility.
Yeah I have both the Zuiko 14-42mm II and the Panny 14mm f2.5 and the Zuiko is no where near as good at 14mm as the Panny. It is too slow to bring in nice color and not sharp enough.

I think it's worth noting that the Zuiko 14-42mm II is included with the E-PL5 for just $50 over the price of the body.
__________________
in my bag: e-m1, 7-14mm pro, 14-54mm mk ii, 50-200mm mk i, 70-300mm
in my pocket: e-pm2 lumix 12-32
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 5:58 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
James Emory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bay City, MI
Posts: 2,378
Default

I have the II lens as well and I really haven't used it enough yet at 14mm to comment on it.
__________________
Olympus OMD-M5, HLG6 grip, Olympus 4/3rd 35mm macro lens, Panny/Leica 25mm, f1.4, Olympus 17mm, Canon Pro 9000 Mk II Printer, Canon MP990 Printer, Slik U212 Tripod, Manfrotto monopod, MMF3 converter.
James Emory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 6:36 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

this is the 14-42mm II at 14mm, Oak Creek Canyon outside Sedona, AZ

Not horrible mind you but I know the 14mm f2.5 would have been better.


oakcreek canyon by ramcewan, on Flickr
__________________
in my bag: e-m1, 7-14mm pro, 14-54mm mk ii, 50-200mm mk i, 70-300mm
in my pocket: e-pm2 lumix 12-32
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2012, 9:03 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

Well, I don't have the 14-42 II so I can't say much. As I mentioned, I have the 14-45mm, which is one of the best kit lenses I've ever had and I can't tell the difference between it and the 14mm.
__________________

Tullio
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2012, 9:29 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tullio View Post
Well, I don't have the 14-42 II so I can't say much. As I mentioned, I have the 14-45mm, which is one of the best kit lenses I've ever had and I can't tell the difference between it and the 14mm.
In retrospect I wish I had bought a body only and the kit lens from panny...
__________________
in my bag: e-m1, 7-14mm pro, 14-54mm mk ii, 50-200mm mk i, 70-300mm
in my pocket: e-pm2 lumix 12-32
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2012, 9:46 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

That would be a good option as well.
__________________

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 7:34 PM.