>Ali wrote:
> >
> >>I took some photo's on Friday at a children's event. I found the built-in
> >>flash to be
> >>inadequate...the photo's came out a little dark - perhaps I did something
> >>wrong. The 14-
> >>45 F3.5 lens is a bit on the slow side. I think i am going to get the
> >>14-54 F2.8 after all
> >>and also a flash after that.
> >
> >
Andrew McPhee wrote:
> > The 14-45 is only half a stop slower than the 14-54, is it worth spending
> > hundreds of dollars for that small speed gain? If it were me I'd just
> > spend the money on a good flash.
> >
> > But then I'm not a digicam user so if I'm missing something ignore my
> > comment! ;-)
Bao wrote:
>Hi Andrew,
>
>Not really!
>
>The 14-45mm is f/3.5-5.6. The 14-54mm is f/2.8-3.5. At the widest
>angle, the 14-45 is only a half stop. But at the tele end, it is
>faster by one and a half stops.
>
>The 14-54mm is also weather-proof, which should worth several
>hundred dollars more.
Ah, thanks for enlightening me Bao, now I can see that the 14-54 could be
worth buying (one day, if I ever get an E-body that is).
Andrew McPhee
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|