I am looking at upgrading my system with some decent glass very soon, as I am currently using an e620 with the 14-42mm and 70-300mm. At the moment I am not satisfied the images I have been producing in regards to sharpness and noise - i recently started a thread describing the amount of noise I am getting, at the same time I want to go wider and faster as I like doing landscape and architecture shots (would also like a good lens for macro as well but might consider a macro lens later), something good for portraiture would be good as well. Anyway, there are a few options available. I know its a much debated question, the 12-60 or the 14-54, but my options are:
1. The 12-60mm f2.8, from what I've read in posts and reviews its awesome, very sharp, some weird distortion at the wide end but unnoticeable at and after 13mm, fast, can be good for portraiture and macro as well - blurs the background nicely compared to some 4/3rds lenses. expensive. this lens would also close the gap of the focal length to the 70-300 i currently have - but this probably isn't a necessity?
2. The 14-54mm f2.8, not as wide as the 12-60 but with 12mm unusable would an extra 1mm on the 12-60 really be worth the extra $$$? is this lens as sharp as the 12-60? how does this lens perform in macro and portraiture and blurring the background compared to the 12-60?
3. The 11-22mm, from what I've researched, very sharp also, no visible distortion even at widest - this lens sounds great, but would I only be limited to landscapes and architecture with this lens and not so much good for portraiture or macro? is anyone using this lens, what are your thoughts?
Almost for the price of the 12-60 I could get a Nikon D90 with a half decent 18-100 or something lens. I went to my local camera shop this afternoon and the old guy expert took a shot down the street with the e620 with the 9-18mm iso 100 lens on a tripod, then the same shot again with the D90, spat them onto the pc and there was a noticable in the noise and image sharpness the D90 won hands down.
There is also a special at the moment on the D300 with an upmarket lens, I'd prefer to stick with the system I have - love the compact size as i do a lot of travel and the flip out LCD screen (except for the almost unusable small viewfinder and small LCD screen) but with an ISO anything over 400 pretty much unusable, therefore having to lug a tripod everywhere or resort to using flash is not as much flexibility as I'd like. Would 1 or a combination of the above options improve the image quality especially in low light? What is the future of 4/3rds systems? full frame sensors seem to still maintain 90% of the dslr market, its a lot of $$$ to spend on a necessary lens upgrade when the system may not be around in the future.