Can't speak for the 14-54 but I did shoot the 50/2 against the 14-45
very briefly on an E-500 and the difference was immediately
noticeable - it was exponentially superior. The kicker was the colour
chalk writing on a blackboard outside a cafe - the zoom rendered the
chalk as a colour smear at 100% 'actual pixel' view while the 50/2
actually showed the grainy look of the chalk on the board. I'd get it
for portrait capability alone.
AndrewF
On 28/12/2005, at 8:07 AM, Scott Gomez wrote:
>
> I'd look at it from a standpoint of "additional capabilities". You
> don't
> pick up all that much by buying the 14-54 if you already own the
> 14-45.
> But the 50/2 gives you capabilities you don't already have.
>
> ---
> Scott Gomez
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of oly-zooko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [OM] Re: ZD 50/2
>
> Certainly the 50/2 is a nice lens...I can see that. Now my
> dilemma.. is
> the 14-54 F2.8 really that much better than the 14-45 F3.5? I have an
> opportunity to purchase either the 50/2 or the 14-54/2.8 right now.
>
> - Ali
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|