Zuiko 14-54 vs. new Zuiko 14-54 II

[Harlex]

I had decided to buy the 14-54 lens next week, when today's Popular Photography arrived with a review of the new 14-54 II lens. PopPhoto refers to it as a "superstar", but it costs $200 more than the older version. Does anyone have any information comparing the two? Is the II version worth an extra $200? Are the users of the older version happy with the results you are getting from it? Now I am just confused about whether to start saving an extra $200. All opinions, information and guidance will be appreciated.

[Dougjgreen]

I doubt that you'll actually find anyone who's actually had a chance to use both versions of this lens, as the new one has just come out, and the folks who already own the old one (or the 12-60) would be the least likely candidates to have bought it.

Suffice it to say that the old one was an excellent lens, and I doubt that you could find a more versatile lens in the Olympus system that could be bought for under $400 US. (2nd hand, under $300 in nice condition). Only you can decide if the newest version is worth $200 more.

Personally, I take Popular Photography's lens reviews with a grain of salt, because I suspect that the Manufacturers cherry pick the specific items that they send them to review, so they always seem to get one of the best possible samples. A recent example of this was Pop Photo's rave review of the Tamron 10-24mm lens - NOBODY else has said that this lens is anywhere NEAR as sharp as Pop Photo's February review claimed it to be.

Now Olympus probably has A LOT less sample variation than Tamron does, but still, you can be sure that the lens that got sent to Pop Photo was pre-screened before they sent it to them to review.

[Sushigaijin]

the new lens is exactly the same as the old one, with a few new features. The iris is circular, so when you close it the bokeh will have a more pleasing circular shape rather than a polygon. The mkII also is contrast-detect AF compatible so you can use it in live-view with the newer Oly models that support imager AF.

Aside from those two things, it is identical in build and optics. If you use imager AF a lot it might be worth it - but the circular iris alone is probably not enough to rationalize the extra money.

I shot with the 14-54 for over a year and it is a GREAT lens. Easily the best standard zoom for the price on any system.

[Atomic2]

For the price of the new 14-54, you might as well get the 12-60 and enjoy SWD and that big of extra range.

The only reason to go for the 14-54 in the first place is the significantly cheaper price tag. So I suggest going for the older one. Just as good.

[rigel]

SLRgear.com has posted their review of the MkII HERE.

I had decided to buy the 14-54 lens next week, when today's Popular Photography arrived with a review of the new 14-54 II lens. PopPhoto refers to it as a "superstar", but it costs $200 more than the older version. Does anyone have any information comparing the two? Is the II version worth an extra $200? Are the users of the older version happy with the results you are getting from it? Now I am just confused about whether to start saving an extra $200. All opinions, information and guidance will be appreciated.

[RudyP]

Your confused. So am I. I just sold my Nikon D300 and all pro lenses to pay credit cards off. I now purchased an Olympus E-30 and the new 14-54 II lens. I initially ordered th2 12-60 2.8-4.0 SWD lens but after reading reviews on the 14-54 II lens, changed my order. This saved me approx. 600.00.

I hope it was a wise decision. I will receive the setup tomorrow and can't wait to start testing it out. I have 7 days to evaluate it and I want to be sure it's blazing fast as they advertise, both through the view finder and LCD's (Live View) mode.

I'll let everyone know my findings.

Rudy from Toms River, NJ.