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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 17, 2014, 8:21 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 268
Default 14-150, Olympus or Tamron or something else?

Hi, I don't post too much, but I lurk quite a bit, and I enjoy the pictures that are posted and the discussions.

My last flurry of postings (I think) had to do with buying a new camera, and I ended up with the EP-5 with the 17mm 1.8. Somebody replied that it would become my favorite, and it has. There was also a suggestion for the 14-150 as a single lens solution. For the most part I've been using the 17 with the Panasonic 45-200 when I needed it. It sometimes gets cumbersome, and there's a range obviously that is missing, but it's been ok for now.

However, we went ahead and booked Disneyworld for February, and a single lens solutions is more appealing now. I know at least one person has the Olympus 14-150, but I think the Tamron has come out since then. The prices seem to be about the same, does anyone have a recommendation of one versus the other? Is there some other solution that I'm overlooking? I've seen the excitement for the 40-150 2.8, but that's a bit out of the budget and I'm not sure it would solve the single lens problem.

Thanks,
Jason
Green Eyed Stranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Nov 17, 2014, 8:45 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

The 14-150 lenses give a tremendous range and in a very small package. For a trip like Disneyworld it'd be a great-size lens to use. I have the Olympus version, and over most of the zoom range it's excellent. From 15-120mm or so I'd call it excellent. The widest 14mm setting can be a little weak and unpredictable. I have some shots at 14mm that look fine and others where the corners look horrible. From 120-150mm it is very good, but just does not seem as good as the middle part of the range described above, and that seems about average from what I have read about most interchangeable lens superzooms.

Tamron makes excellent lenses. I would imagine on an optical performance basis there's not going to be much difference but I have no first-hand experience with that lens. I've seen a post or two about that lens over at DPReview but not much else.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 17, 2014, 12:48 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

I noticed that the four all in one zooms vary in price from $500 for the Olympus up to $600 and change for the more expensive Panasonic with the Tamron falling close to $600.

Personally if I was looking at a lens in that price range it would be the 12-40mm f2.8 which is selling new in box direct from Japan for $725 + $19.99.

For me the added low light capability and superb image quality far outweighs the convenience of an all in one.

I would also think the majority of what you'd shoot at Disney is going to be in that 12-40mm range, except the wild animal kingdom where you'd probably want the extra bit of reach you get with the 45-200mm you already have.

Just my .02.. if I were to go with an all-in-one I'd certainly consider the Tamron, a quick check of BH shows it has only 5 star reviews with the Lumix and Olympus ones falling in the 4 or less star range.

A third option might be renting, borrow lens charges $36 for 7 day rental of the Tamron or Olympus all-in one. The 12-40mm is a bit more at $52 for 7 days, which is also what the two lumix super zooms rent for. Given your singular current need for the all in one it might not be a bad idea to give it a go as a rental and if you love it buy it.
__________________
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 Nov 17, 2014, 5:00 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Steven R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 5,901
Default

Hi Jason: I don't have m4/3 equipment, as I shoot with a 4/3 Oly E-3, but I can speak a little bit about lens length. As a local who for years regularly visits all the Disney parks with my annual passes, I will pass on a few of my experiences. I agree with the advice of both Greg and Ramcewan.

Over the years, I have found that the most useful lens for Disney World, Epcot, and Disney Studios has been my wide angle zoom 12-60mm. If there is a m4/3 lens of similar range, it would probably be a good fit for the majority of your shots. For the Animal Kingdom, I use my 50-200mm for most shots. For fireworks, depending on where you are watching, the 12-60 will probably be sufficient. So overall probably 80% of my Disney shots are taken with the 12-60, and 20% with the 50-200. So I think that ramcewan's sentence hit the nail on the head:

..."I would also think the majority of what you'd shoot at Disney is going to be in that 12-40mm range, except the wild animal kingdom where you'd probably want the extra bit of reach you get with the 45-200mm you already have...."
Steven R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 17, 2014, 6:54 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 268
Default

Steven, ramcewan, Greg, thanks for taking the time to reply! I really appreciate the comments and they've certainly given me something to think about.

When we were at Disney 3 years ago, I had the EPL-1 with the 14-42 kit lens, and the Panasonic. ramcewan and Steven were right about how I ended up using what I had then. And Steven nailed the percentages, as I used the kit lens about 80% of the time except for Animal Kingdom which still ended up 33% kit or so.

I've not even put the 14-42 on my EP5 as I've liked the 17 so much, giving up some flexibility for better images and low light. I suppose that's an alternative I haven't considered as I did get some good pictures 3 years ago. But considering how much I like the 17, especially for the low light capabilities, it makes sense to look into the 12-40.

Drawbacks of course is the increased cost (ramcewan where did you see $725? Everything I see is $900-1000. If it's from Japan, would it get here in time?). It also seems overkill to have a weather sealed lens without a weather sealed body, but if the image quality is better, I suppose I could upgrade later. The rental suggestion might be the way to go.

Thanks again for the comments!
Green Eyed Stranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 17, 2014, 6:58 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven R View Post
Over the years, I have found that the most useful lens for Disney World, Epcot, and Disney Studios has been my wide angle zoom 12-60mm. [/I]
I bought a used 14-54mm f2.8-3.5 MK II a year or so back because it was CDAF compatible and worked on the PEN I had then, now that I have an E-M1 I wish I had bought the 12-60mm instead. I'm still considering a swap, but the 14-54mm has lost value being worth only about $250 now, whereas a 12-60mm is more like $350.

Part of me thinks I could live without the 9-18mm if I had the 12-60mm. Honestly your kit of the 12-60 and the 50-200 is pretty close to where I think I'm headed, some really great lenses there and now with the E-M1 able to focus them they're downright bargains.
__________________
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 Nov 17, 2014, 7:19 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
folob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 855
Default

Take a look at : https://www.keh.com/361166/olympus-1...irds-system-58
__________________
Portfolio: http://agilephotography.deviantart.com/

Gears: OM-D E-M5 Mark II and E-M1 MK 1 with 14-150mm Mark II, 12-40mm f2.8, 15mm f8 cap lens, 60mm Macro, 75-300mm, Olympus Trinity -> 25/45/75mm f1.8. On the 4/3 side: 9-18mm and 50-200SWD with the MMF-2 4/3 adapter, FL-36R and FL-50. Also Rokinon mFT 7.5mm f3.5 Fisheye, Pentax 50mm f1.7 with K to m4/3 adapter, Olympus OM 200mm with OM to m4/3 adapter.
folob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 17, 2014, 8:14 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Eyed Stranger View Post
Drawbacks of course is the increased cost (ramcewan where did you see $725? Everything I see is $900-1000. If it's from Japan, would it get here in time?). It also seems overkill to have a weather sealed lens without a weather sealed body, but if the image quality is better, I suppose I could upgrade later. The rental suggestion might be the way to go.
I saw it on ebay it has since sold

Here's another listing at $735

On second look it appears these are from E-M1 kits that have broken up as there is no box. I bought my Lumix 14mm f2.5 sold this way from Japan, at the time they were selling a GF3 kit with the 14mm f2.5 and it seemed people found it more profitable to break them up.

It looks like it will be a few weeks before they get here, so probably not a great option for you. You also make a valid point on using a weather sealed lens on a non-weather sealed body, however the higher end lenses tend to be weather sealed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by folob View Post
Folob that's a good buy - I also noticed they have a Lumix 14-140 for even cheaper at $328..

hmm ... I wonder how much KEH would give me in trade on my 14-54 for a 12-60?
__________________
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 Nov 17, 2014, 9:01 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

The 12-60 is definitely one sweet lens optically, but overall I think the 12-40mm f2.8 is the better option at that price level and you avoid a couple of possible problems that cropped up with a few of the 12-60's over time, documented often in the DSLR forum at DPReview, both of which happened to mine. The fit of the hood became so tight I stopped using it. Some users have actually pulled their lens apart putting the hood on or taking it off. One of the more recent occurrences..

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54280675

...and the SWD motor on mine failed a little after a year, so out of warranty. $300+ repair job and two trips to the Olympus repair center to get it fixed right.

Last edited by Greg Chappell; Nov 17, 2014 at 9:26 PM.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2014, 7:47 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Chappell View Post
The 12-60 is definitely one sweet lens optically, but overall I think the 12-40mm f2.8 is the better option at that price level and you avoid a couple of possible problems that cropped up with a few of the 12-60's over time, documented often in the DSLR forum at DPReview, both of which happened to mine. The fit of the hood became so tight I stopped using it. Some users have actually pulled their lens apart putting the hood on or taking it off. One of the more recent occurrences..

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54280675

...and the SWD motor on mine failed a little after a year, so out of warranty. $300+ repair job and two trips to the Olympus repair center to get it fixed right.
good to know, maybe I'll scrap my 12-60 plans and hold out for a 12-40mm
__________________
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
 
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 5:03 AM.