The extra reach at both ends is even more useful than I expected,
there is virtually no chromatic aberration and I think flare is better
controlled:
http://www.pbase.com/tom_77/image/93305097
That's three adequate excuses :-)
Tom
On 25/02/2008, Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I've just bought one, Ian. It is only a little bit larger than the
> 14-54 and slightly heavier. I have bought it to replace the 11-22
> that I bought from a List member (since sold for the same price) and
> the 14-54. It is mainly because, a) there is a wider bit on the short
> end that I will use more than the 11-22 as I don't really like
> carrying and changing more lenses than I have to; and b) there is the
> useful bit on the longer end.
>
> As for the quality difference, the 14-54 was always acknowledged as a
> pretty decent performer and I cannot imagine that the 12-60 will be
> noticeably better.
>
> However, the AF is supposed to be quicker and more reliable.
>
>
> Chris
>
>
> On 25 Feb 2008, at 13:46, SwissPace wrote:
>
> > I have an E3 now so I will never use the E330 (or my old E1 - sold to
> > nephew), I am not a pro photographer so I don't need a backup body and
> > if I do there is always film or my wifes F31FD
> >
> > I do need to justify to myself however that the 12-60mm gives me
> > benefits over the 14-54mm as it is nearly twice the price, It would
> > make a better walkabout lens given the wider range (but its heavier).
> > It has to be at least as sharp and give better autofocus but this is
> > not
> > what I am reading
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|