Well, when I got my E3 recently, I also decided to upgrade the
14-54mm to a 12-60mm. I am perfectly happy with the performance of
the 14-54, but the extra 2mm on the short end can be quite useful at
times--when I was shooting film, I found the difference between a
24mm and a 28mm quite siginificant. The extra reach on the long end
is obviously useful as well.
Everyone I have talked to who has the 12-60mm loves it for its image
quality and fast focusing on all bodies, especially the E3. That's
good enough for me, I do not need to read reviews. I bought mine from
a shop in the UK and had it shipped to my son in Bath, where I will
pick it up when I visit him on Sunday. I will immediately put it to
good use in that beautiful town. And yes, I have checked that the
serial number is outside the range that is being recalled by Olympus.
Nathan
On 25-feb-2008, at 16:29, Garth Wood wrote:
> The 12-60 has faster AF, even on a non-E3 body. *Much* faster on the
> E3. Better reach at the long end, better vistas at the wide end.
> Boatloads of ED glass elements. Slightly more prone to flare than the
> 14-54 (reportedly -- so far, I haven't seen this problem on my copy of
> the 12-60). Weighs more, requires more torque to zoom (the focus is
> mechanically-coupled to the zoom helicoid, so you're moving more mass
> and the internal mechanism's likely more complicated). Doesn't feel
> quite as "silky" when zooming (doesn't bother me, but might bother
> some).
>
> There's also a thread on dpreview about how "disappointed" some people
> are that the 12-60 has some "play" or "wobble" in the lens barrel when
> it's zoomed all the way out to its fully-extended 60mm position. I
> got
> involved in this thread, and realized oh too late that I shouldn't
> have
> bothered -- it appears to be another excuse for people there to
> dump on
> Oly. I mention it in case such things bother you -- though, if you've
> already owned the 14-54, you've already run into the "play" at the
> extended position. I don't think it has any impact on the lens'
> performance in the real world, but others disagree.
>
> As for apparent sharpness, it seems tack-sharp to me. Is it a huge
> improvement over the 14-54? Hey, my eyes are getting too old to know
> without specialized targets and pixel-peeping, and I've grown tired of
> doing those things. I only have so many years left, y'know? ;-)
>
>
> Garth
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
Nathan Wajsman
nathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
General photography:
http://www.nathanfoto.com
http://www.greatpix.eu
http://www.frozenlight.eu
Picture-A-Week: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws
Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|