Ken,
I also like the 14-54; it is the only ZD lens that I own. Can you help me
with an identification? I bought this lens new from B&H in April 08, along
with my E-510. The lens SN is 050117152. I assume this is the first
version, but have no information on when the later version was released.
Can you help?
Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Norton" <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: [OM] One horrible moment of weakness
> Nathan wrote:
>
>> I too sold my 14-54 to replace it with the 12-60 and frankly I do not
>> understand all this seller's remorse. What exactly does the 14-54 do that
>> a
>> 12-60 does not do better?
>>
>
>
> Well, just a guess here, but these are things that I've personally
> noticed:
>
> #1. Weight and Balance. The 12-60 is more front-heavy than the 14-54 on
> the
> camera. Also, the weight increase is enough that it also changes the
> center-of-gravity too far to the left. End result is a camera that wants
> to
> twist out of the right hand. The handling of the cameras with these two
> lenses is night and day. The 14-54 is much more comfy for a day-long
> shoot.
>
> #2. Slower at every matched focal-length. It isn't as bright of a lens as
> the 14-54.
>
> #3. Distortion. The 12-60 isn't as pin-cushion and barrel distortion
> corrected.
>
> #4. Bokeh and background separation just doesn't look "right" at the
> 50-60mm
> range for portraits. The lens has a flattening effect on the subject. The
> 14-54 is a little odd, too, but it isn't quite as "off" as the 12-60.
>
> #5. Lens isn't as sharp as the 14-54 below F5.6 in my testing.
>
> #6. At the widest focal-lengths, there is a lot of edge distortion not
> present in the 11-22. But to be fair, the 14-54 is also pretty bad at the
> 14mm setting too.
>
> #7. Macro/near macro. The 14-54 is said to do it a little better/closer. I
> can't personally confirm or deny.
>
> But not all is negative. Here are a few things I like about the 12-60 more
> than the 14-54:
>
> #1. Focal-length increase. those 2mm on the wide-end make a big
> difference.
> On the long end, though, the difference between 54 and 60mm isn't very
> dramatic, and in fact the 60mm setting seems to have the weird optical
> trait
> of still looking like a shorter focal length. I suspect it has to do with
> the amount of correction applied at 60mm that may officially give 60mm per
> a
> diagonal measurement, but the middle of the sides is pulled in more. We
> are
> really hard pressed to see an effective increase in focal length between
> the
> 14-54 and 12-60. YMMV. But that extra 2mm on the wide-end is very
> important.
>
> #2. Clutch-coupled focus ring. I really dislike the fly-by-wire feel of
> the
> 14-54 compared to the 12-60. The 12-60 allows focusing with the camera
> turned off too.
>
> #3. Bokeh blobs. The Bokeh blobs of the 12-60 tend to be a little nicer
> than the 14-54, but in a way this is like saying that one drunk street
> person smells not as bad as another.
>
> #4. The cross-over point isn't as harsh. The 14-54 has two focal-lengths
> that just don't seem "right". This varies with subject distance and
> aperture, but there are a couple points about 1/3 of the way in from each
> end which seem to transition between types of lenses. I can't seem to put
> my
> finger on it, but at these two points the images seem to just lose life
> and
> turn flat. After all these years of using the E-1/14-54, I spot it but
> never have been able to understand it.
>
>
> If a person were to consider the "gold-standard" of zoom lenses to be the
> Zuiko 35-80/2.8, I would say that both of these lenses are horrible
> failures. Granted, the 35-80 has issues, especially with chroma, blooming,
> flare and some distortion, but when you consider how the lens "draws" the
> scene, neither lens is anywhere on the same planet. The 35-80 and the
> 50-200 are VERY good matches, though. That 50-200 continues to amaze me.
> (but not enough yet to part with almost $800).
>
>
>
> Now I have sold all of that kit anyway, I have dumped DSLRs in favor of my
>> Leica M and Panasonic GF-1 outfits.
>>
>
>
> This is my first extremely tentitive forey into the land of the red dots.
> I'm told this is one of those "Gateway Drugs". However, I've been informed
> in no uncertain terms that there will NOT be any film-based Leicas allowed
> in the house. (but that X1 is said to be "cute").
>
> AG
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|