>From my personal point of view, the difference between 2.8 and 3.5 (1/3
stop) isn't very significant, even in terms of DOF. Hence my suggestion
you get greater capability from the 50/2 (primarily because of the macro
and because fixed focal length lenses tend to be better than zooms) than
you'll get from the 14-54 as compared to your existing 14-45. IMHO, the
biggest difference in the 14-54 compared with the 14-45 is in the "build
quality" as the 14-54 incorporates lots of the "pro features" not found
in the 14-45.
Those pro features are, for the most part, things like dust seals and
some compensation capabilities, and I'm not convinced, at this juncture
anyway, that there's a significant enough improvement in glass between
the two to justify buying the 14-54 just to replace a 14-45 one already
may have--unless one has good reasons to value the changes, which may
result in longer trouble-free lens life in hard (like journalistic) use.
In day-to-day use, by a non-professional shooter, I expect the
*discernable* differences are effectively nil.
All that said, unless I was doing a fair amount of macro (I happen to,
you may not) I'd be looking for a second lens that was *outside* the
range of coverage from that which I already owned. I tend to like far
more bang for my bucks than you're likely to see with either of the
choices you list.
YMMV, of course, but it's the sort of reasoning that I use in evaluating
a purchase.
---
SG
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of oly-zooko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Re: ZD 50/2
They are both equally good lenses in different ways. The 14-54/2.8
excels on DOF over the standard 14-45/3.5. The 50/2 is great for
portraits, macro, and offers awesome DOF.
- Ali
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|