Nathan wrote:
> I too sold my 14-54 to replace it with the 12-60 and frankly I do not
> understand all this seller's remorse. What exactly does the 14-54 do that a
> 12-60 does not do better?
>
Well, just a guess here, but these are things that I've personally noticed:
#1. Weight and Balance. The 12-60 is more front-heavy than the 14-54 on the
camera. Also, the weight increase is enough that it also changes the
center-of-gravity too far to the left. End result is a camera that wants to
twist out of the right hand. The handling of the cameras with these two
lenses is night and day. The 14-54 is much more comfy for a day-long shoot.
#2. Slower at every matched focal-length. It isn't as bright of a lens as
the 14-54.
#3. Distortion. The 12-60 isn't as pin-cushion and barrel distortion
corrected.
#4. Bokeh and background separation just doesn't look "right" at the 50-60mm
range for portraits. The lens has a flattening effect on the subject. The
14-54 is a little odd, too, but it isn't quite as "off" as the 12-60.
#5. Lens isn't as sharp as the 14-54 below F5.6 in my testing.
#6. At the widest focal-lengths, there is a lot of edge distortion not
present in the 11-22. But to be fair, the 14-54 is also pretty bad at the
14mm setting too.
#7. Macro/near macro. The 14-54 is said to do it a little better/closer. I
can't personally confirm or deny.
But not all is negative. Here are a few things I like about the 12-60 more
than the 14-54:
#1. Focal-length increase. those 2mm on the wide-end make a big difference.
On the long end, though, the difference between 54 and 60mm isn't very
dramatic, and in fact the 60mm setting seems to have the weird optical trait
of still looking like a shorter focal length. I suspect it has to do with
the amount of correction applied at 60mm that may officially give 60mm per a
diagonal measurement, but the middle of the sides is pulled in more. We are
really hard pressed to see an effective increase in focal length between the
14-54 and 12-60. YMMV. But that extra 2mm on the wide-end is very
important.
#2. Clutch-coupled focus ring. I really dislike the fly-by-wire feel of the
14-54 compared to the 12-60. The 12-60 allows focusing with the camera
turned off too.
#3. Bokeh blobs. The Bokeh blobs of the 12-60 tend to be a little nicer
than the 14-54, but in a way this is like saying that one drunk street
person smells not as bad as another.
#4. The cross-over point isn't as harsh. The 14-54 has two focal-lengths
that just don't seem "right". This varies with subject distance and
aperture, but there are a couple points about 1/3 of the way in from each
end which seem to transition between types of lenses. I can't seem to put my
finger on it, but at these two points the images seem to just lose life and
turn flat. After all these years of using the E-1/14-54, I spot it but
never have been able to understand it.
If a person were to consider the "gold-standard" of zoom lenses to be the
Zuiko 35-80/2.8, I would say that both of these lenses are horrible
failures. Granted, the 35-80 has issues, especially with chroma, blooming,
flare and some distortion, but when you consider how the lens "draws" the
scene, neither lens is anywhere on the same planet. The 35-80 and the
50-200 are VERY good matches, though. That 50-200 continues to amaze me.
(but not enough yet to part with almost $800).
Now I have sold all of that kit anyway, I have dumped DSLRs in favor of my
> Leica M and Panasonic GF-1 outfits.
>
This is my first extremely tentitive forey into the land of the red dots.
I'm told this is one of those "Gateway Drugs". However, I've been informed
in no uncertain terms that there will NOT be any film-based Leicas allowed
in the house. (but that X1 is said to be "cute").
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|