Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Thu Aug 28, 2014 11:49 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 2:45 pm 
I've used the 14-54 for quite a long time, for everything between press, landscapes, portraits and general recreational use. I'll try to sum up my opinions on it here.

Let's get on with it!

Build
Build is, frankly, one of the most important things with a lens. My dad used the OM system back in the 70s, and I've taken over his old primes and his old OM-2. Let's just say that I think they've faired a lot better than most of todays lenses will have in 30 years.

The 14-54 though, I think should last just as long. It's built very well, feeling solid, firm, both focus and zoom rings moves very smoothly. For those accustomed with lenses like the 14-42, there is more resistance in the 14-54s zoom ring, but it has a much more satisfying feel, being better damped and in my mind, more responsive. The focus ring is smoother than the 14-42, has more resistance, is also better damped and works better for MF.

Compared to lenses like the EF-S 18-55 and 18-55 IS, it's of course a much more satisfying product to hold, while the Nikkor 18-70 is about the same build, but a tiny bit under it. L lenses are on par or better, but this is only Olympus' High Grade lineup, not the Super High Grade.

I'll also note that the lens is weather sealed, and will give very good resistance to the elements when combined with an E-1 or E-3.

The lens balances well with the bodies I'v tested it on (E-400 and E-3). It is light and compact.

The front element does not move during focusing, but the lens does extend during zooming.

Lens hood comes with as standard, tulipe shaped. The lens is also supplied with a pouch made out of artificial leather.

Image quality

Image quality is essential in this price range of lenses.

It is tack sharp at all apertures and all focal lenghts, with a sweet spot at f/5.6 and around 25mm. Of course, below f/11, diffraction kicks in. Keep it between f/2.8(3.5) and f/11, and you'll be happy.

Contrast is nice, and bokeh is mid range. I've seen better (the Panleica 14-50/2.8-3.5 for instance). The bokeh isn't perfect, but it's not too much of a bother.

As for distortion, there is some.Specifically at 14mm, it can be noticable, but it's no worse than I've seen with other lenses from other manufacturers.

It is possible to see slight vignetting at f/2.8 and 14mm when photographing a totally white piece of paper, but it is not anything you will notice in practical use.

CA is not an issue to my experience.

Functions

The 14-54 is a standard zoom, comparable to the likes of 17-55 from Canon and Nikon, and the 16-50 from Pentax.

Compared to 35mm, it's a 28-108, which is quite good. The EF 24-105L has better WA on 35mm, but it's also a lot bigger. I'd like a 24mm efl WA in the wide end, but then again, there's the 12-60.

It focuses relatively close, it's not a macro by any means, but if can focus very close.

I've already mentioned the 14-54 being weather sealed.

It's a con in my mind that it's variable aperture, this can be irritating, but for me, it's not a deal breaker.

Auto focus
AF is good in good light. It focuses fast and accurately. It's not good enough in bad light, but this has more to do with my E-400 than the lens, on the E-3 it's supposed to be a lot better, and that's also my experience when I had the chance to try it on an E-3.

Value for money

It's very good value for money. They're cheap new, but can be had for very small sums used. It give 28-108 millimeters of high quality glass with decent speed, well corrected and without any crucial problems regarding optical quality.

Conclusion:

Pros:

+ Excellent build
+ Compact
+ Weather sealed
+ Front element does not move during focusing
+ Very sharp at all focal lenghts and all apertures in the range f/2.8-11
+ Well corrected
+ Little to no CA
+ Little vignetting, a non issue in real life
+ Good contrast
+ Good range
+ Focuses close
+ Good AF in good light


Cons:

- Variable aperture (2.8-3.5)
- Slow AF in bad light (mostly related to the body)
- Noisy when the lens focuses through it's full focusing range
- Mid tier bokeh, could be better.
- 28mm wa is a bit narrow compared to lenses like the 24-105 on 35mm, 12mm would be better (but there is also the 12-60, after all)


As for sample shots, I'll try to do a comparison with the 14-42 during the weekend, and some 100% samples at different apertures, and a bokeh demonstration, but right now, I can't be bothered. :)


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Compared to the 12-60mm?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 2:56 pm 
It was my understanding that the 12-60mm was meant to replace the 14-54... Of course the prices are dramatically different. You speak of the 14-54 positively, do you think it is worth the extra 400-500 dollars to get the 12-60mm instead? - thanks


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 10:09 pm 
That depends. I've not had the ability to use the 12-60 myself, but I've been in contact with loads of people who use it for everything between weddings to street to reportage. So I'll go with their experience.

Well, it really depends on what you're after. If you want the focusing speed and extra reach, it surtanly is worth it. The 12-60 is a lot faster than the 14-54 (faster than most lens/camera-combos with the E-3, really), and 12mm is a lot wider than 14mm. I know a lot of 11-22 shooters who are thinking of selling their 11-22s and 14-54s to get a 12-60. After all, it will be almost as wide, and longer, in one lens.

So that's an advantage. But if you're after a wide angle lens, I'd say that the combo 11-22 and 14-54 is the better one. I've heard people who've photographed professionally for decades call the 11-22 the best lens he's ever used. Not good, the best. I've used it a bit, and can only agree.

The 12-60 is not as wide as the 11-22, but perhaps more crucially, it's not as well corrected. It's got more distortion at 12mm than the 11-22 has at 11mm.

Depending on what you're after, the 12-60 is an amazing lens. I'd get that rather than 11-22 and 14-54, as I like having range available. The compromises are there when you compare it to two lenses for covering the same FOV, but they are so small it wouldn't bother me. The difference between the 11-22 and 12-60 at WA is there, but from what I've seen, I could easily live with them.

But there are quite a lot of 11-22s and 14-54s on the used market these days. It's quite possible getting a very cosey price indeed.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group