Lens advice

I got the kit 40-150mm lens with my 510, but I need something for wider shots and closeup macros. Would like to keep it under $200 for a new lens. That rules out the 50mm, is the 35mm a good option? How good would the 14-45 or 14-42 be for macros? I take a lot of flower and bug shots.

The 14-54 does pretty good for macro but I have better luck with the EX-25 combined with the 40-150mm. They work well together. There is a learning curve to using a tube, manual focus and limited focal lenth. The tube is only $120.00 too and I can't speak highly enough for the tube. As far as wide lenses are conserned. You might consender this one.
http://www.adorama.com/SG2418OM.html
But even at that it's not wider than what you have with the kit and with the IS speed really isn't an issue either.
I would suggest an upgrade to the 14-54. It is a very good lens for the price. Heavy, durable and faster focus than the kit lens. But the 40-150mm works better with the EX-25.
The 14-54 works better than the kit for macro. It can focus much closer to the subject. I think like 4inches away. Check the specs on that.

If you are really looking for a lens to shoot flowers and bugs, the Sigma 105mm or 150mm are the lenses you should be looking at. Although they are both twice your budget, they are the appropriate stand-alone lenses for bugs. I have the 50mm and LOVE it, but it does not give the magnification needed for really stellar bug shots. The 35mm does, but that is at a working distance of an inch or two. The longer sigmas will give you 8 to 10 inches of working distance at 1:1.

At your budget, I second the ex25. It will make your existing 40-150 into a macro lens, and save you some money to put away for a wider lens. The 14-42 or 14-45 are fine standard zooms, but the 14-54 is really the best option (at four times the price of the others, of course).

Erik I have been thinking about getting the 50mm. Have you used it with the EX-25? Coming from film days how does it compare to a 50mm film lens with the crop factor?

Thanks for your opinions. I would be willing to sacrifice great bug shots for better flower shots - which usually don't run away:)
I did see a Sigma 18-50 cheap - is that worth having for a temporary nonmacro lens?

IMO, the 18-50mm focal range is the LEAST useful of the standard zooms. While the difference between 42mm and 54mm (the largest difference on the telephoto side of things) is barely perceptible, the difference between 14mm and 18mm is HUGE. Especially when considering the 2x "crop" factor vs. full frame. Personally, I'd hold out for a 14-42 kit lens. You should be able to find one on craigslist or ebay for $100 and change.

Now to hijack the thread. Sorry.

Regarding the 50mm for Greg, it is a great lens. Tough as nails, stupid sharp, reasonably fast and accurate. It can hunt when underexposing, and it sounds like a 747 taking off. I haven't used it with the ex25, but it wouldn't do a lot of good anyway. The minimum focus distance is mere inches, and any compromise to that already limited working distance would be counterproductive. the tube makes it a 1:1 lens on 4/3, but that is at something like an inch away from the lens. My guess is the ex25 on the 70-300 will be a super combo. The lens already boasts 1:2 magnification (Same as the 50mm) but at a foot away.

I don't take this lens off of my camera. I find that the short kit lens is too slow, and the long kit lens is too short for my purposes. I keep them around while I save for the 14-54 and the 70-300, but they mostly collect dust. I've used the wide side of the 14-42 a few times, but that's it. The 50mm is so sharp, that it is still sharper at f/14 than any lens I've ever seen at any aperture. It's sharp.

Compared to a full frame 50, it does require stepping back another foot, but the close-focus distance is worth it. It is a tremendous portrait lens, and I don't think there is much more compression than a FF50. I've pretty much given up on zooms for the time being.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2135/...d33fd5b7_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2355/...2a41eecd_o.jpg

Thanks Erik for all of the valueable advise. I am thinkink of the 50mm for low light street photography. I currently use the Nokton 40mm 1.4 on my film cameras and I can shoot in very low light hand held. But would also like to to it with the Oly.