On 12/2/2014 10:47 AM, Mike Lazzari wrote:
So why take the rep of the 14-150 at face value? Where is this rep from, anyway?
Moose, I would really like the 14-150 to produce results as good as the 40-150. It would mesh nicely with the 9-18.
Right now I carry the 12-50 on the camera and can attach the 40-150 to a pack strap for a quick change.
One thing that matters to me is that the 12-50 does macro and the 14-150 doesn't, in itself. I did have some good
results with extension tubes.
No way am I going to carry two bodies like you. Or 3 lenses.
Hey, even I often think that's nuts, but somehow find myself doing it again. :-) My hikes are generally shorter and less
strenuous than yours.
However the reputation of the 14-150 on the forums isn't so good. It isn't helped by people posting examples of 'Look,
I get sharp photos with it' which are actually pretty soft. Most I think are because of poor technique.
I don't hang out on any forums but this one and TOP, which are both different
sorts of things.
When I have gone there for info, I've been discouraged (sometimes appalled) by the noise, the amount of misinformation,
mis-attribution of results to causes, poor technique, under or wild over processing, and so on and on. I've found
getting useful information difficult and wearying.
I just linked to a forum discussion for Nathan of LR and XT-1 Raw files. In the posted images, it seemed to me there was
very little useful information, mostly a lot of crap and misunderstanding of the issue at hand. I couldn't make head nor
tail of some posted image examples at casual reading.
I DO look at reviews on B&H, Amazon, etc. I've learned some amazing tech information about some products, although
generally not cameras and lenses. Most important to me, if there are many reviews, is the profile of ratings. If heavily
weighted towards the top, I'll take that as a good omen, and the reverse. If heavy top and bottom, I'll scan the low
ratings. Sometimes they are about misunderstandings of what the thing actually is for and/or how to use it. Sometimes
they are about a feature of no importance to me.
This approach has worked rather well for me.
Some things to consider when reading forum posts about the 14-150:
1. Some posters will not have found about or be using the Oly 1/8 sec. anti-shock setting. This means discounting
anything shot between about 1/60 and 1/200 sec. for actual lens sharpness.
2. As Chuck pointed out, folks not used to shooting longer FLs will misjudge available DOF. So that 100% sample that
they think should have been sharper is actually just out of focus.
3. People misjudge the effectiveness of IBIS. It may or may not nail that 1/60
sec. shot at 300 mm eq.
4. I've argued that 4/3 sensor lenses are highly usable to f11, sometimes even f16, with good processing, but for
testing the inherent IQ of the lens itself, don't look at shots others have made beyond f8.
4. A lot of them either aren't post processors or are far from masters, and can
actually screw up decent sharpness/detail.
And as to that other fellow who says it's a good lens, that Moose doesn't much judge sharpness 'out of the box'. It's
not until NR, deconvolution, LCE, etc. have done their thing that he decides what is actually sharp - or you see one of
his images heavily cropped or at 100%. If you looked at the diffraction and contrast/resolution samples I recently
posted, you may see why.
If it looks like a really bad shot of the moon, but post processed is a nice, clear portrait, I'm happy. :-) Some
lenses just respond to processing better than others. To me, that's part of how good the lens is.
My expectations for these bridge zooms aren't high. I was never very enamored by the old Tamron 24-whatever and
quickly re-sold the 70-300 and 18-180 4:3'rds lenses.
I know nothing about 4/3 lenses. I do know that the µ4/3 14-150 is a very different optical and mechanical design from
the older 18-180, not some sort of slight redesign and remount, and the MTF (when I think I understand it) is much
better. <http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=8076>
I wanted to like them but the 50-200 is clearly in another league even with the
1.4x.
Maybe I should give it a chance. These inexpensive kit lenses are really much better than they used to be.
Not a kit lens, but long zoom range is the Tamron 28-300 (same focal range on FF as the 14-150) I bought for my 300D
ages ago. A fine lens on that and the 5D, so I later upgraded to the IS version and used it extensively as my primary
lens for years.
I do believe both kit lenses and long zoom range lenses have improved vastly in the last several years. More powerful
computer design, much more affordable aspherics, even double surface aspherics and exotic glasses have really changed
the playing field. As a generalization, ti seems to me, based on modest experience and reading of reviews, that 'lesser'
lenses give little away to 'pro' quality lenses but speed, ruggedness and weather sealing. Exceptions do exist, but
usually for a reason. The Panny 12-32 sacrifices some linear distortion at the wide end for tiny size and light weight,
for example.
I'll keep an eye out for one but can't pay retail. For now I just don't mind the "hole" between the 9-18 and the
40-150. Just thinking out loud here... The 12-40 has too much over lap but sure looks sweet...
Size, weight, $$
How about stick with 18-100 or so?? Seems like the extra reach is at the expense of sharpness. Sure, tell yourself
that, then be pleasantly surprised when you stray. ;-)
These lenses ARE generally slightly softer at the long end, but respond well to
processing to recover the details.
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|