Sell 50mm macro, keep 14-54mm zoom?

[metallicblack]

Here's my situation. I just bought the Olympus 14-54mm lens and am pretty blown away with it. I am an amateur but can tell there's a big difference between the kit lens and this one. The weight of it for one, plus it seems to focus quicker and is better in low light even though the aperture difference between the two is not that much.

So suddenly I feel I have no use for the 50mm macro I just bought. I know the aperature is bigger, the "bokeh" is better, but as I'm just getting started, would I be better off selling it and put that cash into the 50-200mm Non-SWD. I guess as an amateur I can't let go of not having a zoom on my lens; that's another reason I am considering selling it at this point.

I am not in a position to own all three and I think I can get about 85% of what I paid for the 50mm macro on eBay so it's not much of a loss.

I figure there's a good chance the 50-200mm is going to blow me away like the 14-54mm does and that's why I'm leaning this way. I guess the question is as I get deeper into photography at what point am I going to regret not having the 50mm? But at that point I can just buy another one anyway. Maybe I just answered my own question.

[Greg McCary]

Well some just love the 50mm. Check out some post in ViewFinder, but I am like you. Personally I would get more use out of the 50-200mm. I think the biggest advantage to the 50mm is being able to shoot inside without a flash plus the great DOF it creates. I use my 40-150mm to do portrait shots and get great results. Certainly not for inside without a flash. But I have some very good ones of my daughter taken outside. Do you have the 50-150mm? If I were you and wanted to do macro I would look at the extension tube. I use it and it works great. Not so much on the 14-54mm but the 40-150mm. For macro I prefer a tube.

[metallicblack]

Yes, I still have the 40-150mm but would sell that one as well if I were to go with the 50-200mm. I was considering the extension tube as well for macro. Looks like the tube would work with the 50-200mm as well so I'm really leaning in this direction now.

But do you think I'm wasting funds upgrading the kit 40-150mm so quickly? You are a pro and like the kit lens; and I am just starting out, though thinking about the high grade replacement. It's just that I was so pleased with my upgrade to the 14-54mm that I expect the same from the 50-200mm. However it's going to be much more expensive...you know, $8-900.

[Sushigaijin]

I love the 50 f/2, but if you are bent on selling it, I would consider a longer lens. there are a handful of lenses by olympus and sigma that are long zooms, which cover out to 300mm or higher. I don't see much use in replacing an extant 150mm with a better 200mm, unless that is all the range you need. In my opinion, one of the benefits of 4/3 is super long zooms with wide apertures.

[Greg McCary]

All though I am happy with the 40-150mm I would still like to upgrade to the 50-200mm. Like you I was so impressed with the quaility of the high grade lens,14-54mm. It has me thinking. In my case I feel the extra 50mm and faster focus would perfect for me.
I also have been trying to get more into street photography and have been looking at the Panasonic L1's but this new E420 has got me rethinking that one. To many directions to go for sure.
I think the 50mm is a great lens but I guess it boils down to what you are interested in. I would like to have one of those but I had one in my film days and almost never used it.

[metallicblack]

By my signature you can see the decision I came to. I am selling the 50mm and will hold on to the 40-150mm for awhile. A problem is I can hardly find the non-SWD version of the 50-200mm. The SWD one costs $1200 and that's a little high for me.

Selling the 50mm macro is only for financial reasons. It's an incredible quality lens and I know if I stay serious about photography it will be nice to eventually have a prime lens like this again.

[Greg McCary]

You might consider this one. At 2.8 it would be pretty fast. Sigma makes some great glass and it's also cheaper at 800. I think that's 2.8 on both ends.

http://www.adorama.com/SG70200H2OM.html

[metallicblack]

Nice find on that Sigma. Looks like it's new and not out just yet. The numbers seem to make it out as of similar or even better quality than the 50-200mm. Heavier, larger filter size, shorter min. focusing distance, plus it is being touted as a macro lens. You think I'll regret not having that 54-70mm zone assuming I only have two lenses for a while?

As my 50mm is being sold on eBay right now I have taken it out and shot more photos. I'm already missing it and sort of regret selling it. It's already got a bid so I don't want to cancel the auction. Maybe this Sigma could be the answer. If I could "kill two birds with one stone" getting a good macro in a telephoto lens, this may be the answer.

[Greg McCary]

I don't think you will ever miss the few mm's you would be giving up. I am saving my pennies for the Sigma. I have been wanting a affordable zoom like this for sometime now.

[metallicblack]

I have to admit though I'm kind of leery of going with Sigma mainly because I'm so impressed with the Olympus mid-grade lenses. (Stay with what works.) Assuming I can even find the non-SWD 50-200mm, do you think this one can double as a macro lens the way Sigma claims its lens can?

When are you planning on getting the Sigma? Maybe I'll wait for your review.

[metallicblack]

US1Photo.com - $743.98 shipped

The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 appears to be available now. This is the lowest price I found with BuyDig coming in at second with $794.95. Anyone have opinions/experience of US1Photo.com's trustworthiness? I've never heard of them although customer reviews are OK.

[Greg McCary]

Adorama has it for $799.00. They are good fast and great CS. I would pay the extra money and go with someone known to be good.

[metallicblack]

Adorama link

They list it, but say it's not yet in stock. I know they are good, I ordered from them a few times already.

[Sushigaijin]

I hate to say it, but my new 14-54 is making me consider selling the 50 macro too. I'm just not sure that there is enough quality difference at the 50mm focal length to rationalize keeping it - certainly there is SOME magnification difference, but I am going to have to think carefully about whether or not the sigma 150 macro makes more sense for me. I could nearly afford it if I sold the 50....

In plain english, the 14-54 is an amazing lens.

[xwingkiller]

hey there. this thread has got me rethinking my situation. i just got a new e-510 a few days ago. i got it with the kit 14-42 lens and i got the 40-150 lens from the e-500 kit off of ebay. i obviously am having issues shooting indoors in lower light and i was thinking about getting the 14-54 lens after reading a lot of good things about it. then i saw the 50mm f2 lens and decided that would be the one i need to have. i figured that it would be super fast and bright for lower light while filling multiple roles as a great macro and portrait lens aswell.
i was also factoring in the lenses that i already have. i figured if i got the 14-54 then i will have 0 use for my 14-42 kit lens. so i decided that i would get the 50mm to go along with my other 2 lenses making a nice set to start with.

then i read threads like this that say keep the 14-54, get rid of the 50...=)

any suggestions for me?

[Sushigaijin]

The 50 f/2 is a killer portrait lens, works well in low light (although sometimes it hunts, but really all lenses do that) and is a great macro as well. it is so sharp that it is almost ridiculous.

The only reason I am weighing the possibility of selling it is because I shoot a lot of insects during the summer, and the 50/2 is not a bugging lens. It doesn't magnify enough and the working distance is too short. The sigma 150 macro is a better lens for bugs, but I sure would be sad to see the 50/2 go. I don't think I will sell it.

As for the 14/42, you can read my opinion on that lens in this very forum, down a couple of threads.