Paging Greg: Is the 14-54mm Zuiko really that good?

[rigel]

If you have been shooting with the kits you should consider the 14-54mm. It is one awesome upgrade. Fast focus, less distortion and built like a tank. I would recommend it before a prime.

(emphasis mine -rigel)

These are mighty strong words for recommending this lens. Is it really that good?

I ask because I'm starting to feel the need for a fast lens for portrait work and am considering a prime to supplement my stock 2-lens kit (14-42 & 40-150). I take a lot of indoor shots (mostly my kids) with my E-510 and am finding the kit lenses to be on the slow side for low light, indoor shots. I also want to develop more creativity in using a prime instead of getting spoiled by a zoom lens :blush2:

But with your statement above, I'm not so sure...hmmm

Can you recommend good prime lenses for a beginner on a budget? Or maybe even an alternative to the Zuiko 14-54?

[Atomic2]

yes, and the 12-60 is even better but twice the price. both are recommended, but if you can pull the 12-60, go for that

[Greg McCary]

I would recommend the 14-54mm. But Atomic raises a good point as well with the 12-60mm. But the 14-54mm is much cheaper. I took many sharp pictures with the kit before I upgraded but yes I stand by my words. The 14-54mm is durable, weather sealed, faster focus, I could go on. I think a prime is to limilting. Even though I want the 28mm pancake. Buy a cheap rangefinder and practice with a fixed focal length but I would recommend the 14-54mm first.

[rigel]

I would recommend the 14-54mm. But Atomic raises a good point as well with the 12-60mm. But the 14-54mm is much cheaper. I took many sharp pictures with the kit before I upgraded but yes I stand by my words. The 14-54mm is durable, weather sealed, faster focus, I could go on. I think a prime is to limilting. Even though I want the 28mm pancake. Buy a cheap rangefinder and practice with a fixed focal length but I would recommend the 14-54mm first.

Thanks Greg and Atomic2.

So Greg, do you mean current zooms have gotten to the point that image sharpness (and overall image quality) matches (or even surpasses) that of a good prime?

[Sushigaijin]

There is an olympus joke: ZD zooms are as sharp as other's primes.

I don't know if it's true or not, but the 14-54 is screamin' sharp.

[ComicDom1]

I have the 14-54 on an E-1. I have used it both on the E-1 and E-3. I think you will find that the 14-54 is very sharp and one of the most useful lenses that Olympus made for the 4/3'rds system.

Jason

[Greg McCary]

I can't comment on digital primes. The only primes I use are on my M6. But I find the sharpness very good and almost no distortion on either end. It seems the the sharpness improved even more when I went from the 510 to the E3. I never had issues with the sharpness of the kit lens. I took some great pictures with it. The distortion was much more noticeable with the kit. I don't really think Olympus makes a bad Zuiko lens. one might out perform others but as far as IQ they are all very good.

[rigel]

Thanks Greg, and the others for all your valuable inputs.

I can't comment on digital primes. The only primes I use are on my M6. But I find the sharpness very good and almost no distortion on either end. It seems the the sharpness improved even more when I went from the 510 to the E3. I never had issues with the sharpness of the kit lens. I took some great pictures with it. The distortion was much more noticeable with the kit. I don't really think Olympus makes a bad Zuiko lens. one might out perform others but as far as IQ they are all very good.

[Justintoxicated]

I have both the 50mm prime and 14-54mm. For typical photos the 14-54 is much better because it is easier to frame your shot. the 50mm is no slouch though I'm not selling it just because I got the 14-54 the focus ring on the 50mm is totaly sweet, I find it easier that the 14-54 to manual focus and also faster at autofocus. However its not very good for walking around trying to take pictures.

I'm kinda new at all of this but I certainly like both lenses, just find that the 14-54 is mroe useful over all but the 50mm mwill give you the best shots if you can frame them.

[rigel]

Reviving this thread, as I just remembered this article by Wrotniak comparing the 50mm with the 14-54mm. Interesting read...

Justintoxicated, did I get that right, the 50mm autofocuses faster than the zoom? I've read in some reviews that macros tend to focus more slowly...

I've had to put off this project as I've had other financial responsibilities to take care of :blush2: (my bike for one thing)

Although I could start dropping hints to my wife on what I'd like for my birthday come August

I have both the 50mm prime and 14-54mm. For typical photos the 14-54 is much better because it is easier to frame your shot. the 50mm is no slouch though I'm not selling it just because I got the 14-54 the focus ring on the 50mm is totaly sweet, I find it easier that the 14-54 to manual focus and also faster at autofocus. However its not very good for walking around trying to take pictures.

I'm kinda new at all of this but I certainly like both lenses, just find that the 14-54 is mroe useful over all but the 50mm mwill give you the best shots if you can frame them.

[Sushigaijin]

At normal photographic distances and situations the macro is pretty fast to focus. I'd put it right up there with the 14-54.

However, the 14-54 has a shorter "rack" distance and moves from 0-infinity faster...so when AF starts to fail (low light!) it has a definite advantage. BUT, the macro is a faster lens so most of the time it is worth it to wait out the higher AF miss rate. A low-light shot at f/2 is often not possible at the 14-54's f/3.5.

And the macro is decidedly sharper. Personally if I only had one lens it would be the 50/2, but I got into photography specifically for macro shots so that makes perfect sense for me...the 14-54 is, again, very sharp and very fast. Either way, you won't be sorry. In fact, get both :thumbsup: