E510 lens issue (or not?)

I've been thinking about buying the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 Leica D Summilux and

14-50mm f/2.8-3.5 Leica D Vario-Elmarit lenses for my E510.

 

One, I want to know if anyone is using this combination of camera and lens and

how it works for them. I read a review on B&H that one of the Panasonic's didn't

communicate properly with the E510.

 

Two, is spending $1700 for these two lenses on my E510 a better investment? Or

should I use that $1700 on the E3 though I'd be forced to use my Olympus 14-42mm

f/3.5-5.6 Zuiko ED and 40-150mm f/3.5-4.5 Zuiko EZ?

IMO, better lenses will net more immediate quality improvement than money spent on the

E-3 body.

<br><br>

I'm using the Leica Vario-Elmarit-D 14-50/2.8-3.5 ASPH OIS and Summilux-D 25/1.4

ASPH with both the L1 and E-1 bodies at present. No problems at all, they work flawlessly

with two notes.

<br><br>

Notes: <br>

- The aperture rings do not work on the E-1, only the L1. On the E-1, you set aperture as

you do with all Olympus lenses: from the body. <br>

- The zoom's OIS on the E-1 only allows mode 1 (continuous) operation, where on the L1

there are three modes (cont, at exposure time only, and panning). For bodies with in-body

IS, I'd turn the OIS off and use what the body supplies.

<br><br>

I don't know about any problems specific to the E-510, I love these lenses for their superb

sharpness and rendering qualities. The 14-50 is about as sharp as the Olympus ZD 14-54

and the same speed, but I think the rendering is a bit nicer. The 25/1.4 is brilliant in all

ways.

<br><br>

Godfrey

<br>

That is a tough call. If you like the E 510, it seems like the first upgrade investment would indeed be a higher quality lens,maybe two. Since you have in body image stabilization I would go for either the 14-54 ED Zuiko or the new Olympus SSD 12-60 mm. The improvement in focus speed for the latter and the gain in light gathering ability for both would be immediately apparent. If you have need for the 25mm Leica 1.4 of course, there is nothing comparable from Olympus at this time.

 

Perhaps someone who made the lens upgrade could comment on their experience more directly. Bodies do come and go and lenses are good investment as Godfrey points out so well. Also,check into the used market for lenses as new models get out there. Good luck with your decision.

Thanks for your advice. I'm not opposed to my 510... I've taken a handful of good shots with it. And waiting on the body may be the best option (by the time I have the money for the E3, it may have a price drop or I may be able to find a good used one). Maybe I'm letting impatience get the best of me!

 

I'll definately get the 25mm (if nothing else, it'll at least be one more tool in my bag), but I think I'll wait on the other upgrade and compare the Olympus 12-60 and Leica 14-50 in depth.

The 510+12-60 is a very rewarding combination to shoot with and with the current rebate, half of what you're considering spending. Then you can start saving up for the 50-200 SWM :-)

 

That's how I'd play it. If you're set on a fast prime, maybe consider losing a stop and getting the Zuiko 50/2 macro?

Er, make that "SWD" :-(

Do consider the Sigma 1.4/30 as well. It is an excellent lens in 4/3 format and has HSM focusing.

I considered both the Sigma 30/1.4 and Leica 25/1.4 when I was look for which one to

buy. I found many people praising the Sigma but even those that did told stories of going

through two or three of them, sending them to Sigma, before they got one that worked

reliably and well.

 

At US pricing, the Panasonic/Leica lens was about $270 more. I decided that was worth it

to me for the lack of hassle involved, and it is known to be a better performer wide open

anyway.

 

Godfrey

That is almost double the price. At least in Popular Photography's test the Sigma was considered slightly better wide open. I doubt there is any practical quality difference, one way or another, in actual use. Of course, some people just want a lens that says Leica, even if it is actually made by a Japanese electronics company, and are willing to pay for it. I merely wanted to point out that there is another option for those with less deep pockets.

No, that's a good point Ilkka. I'm like many amateur Olympus users and don't necessarily have very deep pockets (one of the draws to Olympus and the 4/3 system vice Nikon, Canon and anything German).

 

I don't know very much at all. If you see my "portfolio," I'm hit-and-miss. I was really invested in LOMOgraphy for many years. Now, I've grown out of that phase to a point, but it's really affected my photography skills. So I'm trying to gain that back.

 

All I know of Sigma is that they're less expensive. But cheaper doesn't mean worse. I mean, who would have thought 10 years ago that brand new Olympus cameras would be cheaper than Panasonics? Panasonic! They're supposed to be a cheap audio player company.

 

So I'm now comparing the Sigma 30/1.4 and Panasonic/Leica 25/1.4 and the Olympus 12-60 SWD and Panasonic/Leica 14-50. Wow... it's like a weekend vacation! My wife will be very annoyed. Worth it?

<center>

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/godders/02-over_tea-1210586.jpg"><br>

Over Tea - This Cafe Life 2008<br>

<i>Olympus E-1 + Vario-Elmarit 14-50/2.8-3.5 ASPH OIS<br>

ISO 400 @ f/3.5 @ 1/40 sec, fl=25mm</i><br>

</center>

<br>

Yes, the Summilux-D 25 is expensive. It took me a long time to make up my mind. Several

factors were involved in the decision:

<br><br>

- My personal experience with Sigma lenses has been 100% negative. Every time I've tried

one (four times), it took two or three exchanges before I got one that worked properly

(mechanically) and then the optical performance was not as good as I'd expected.

Exchanging them and paying the premium for the manufacturer's lens was the end result

in every case.

<br>

- Getting service on Sigma here proved a real PITA when I tried on one of those attempts. I

gave up, the dealer helped me out by taking it back well after the usual return period.

<br><br>

- I looked at several dozen photos made by various friends who own one or the other of

these lenses. In all cases, the 25/1.4 photos wide open looked nicer to me than the 30/1.4

wide open. One person on another forum did resolution test shots with both, which bore

this out clearly. (I have tried to find the link but cannot just at the moment.)

<br><br>

- The 30/1.4 focal length and weight (it's a little lighter) appealed to me, as well as its

lower price. ... That's why I kept thinking about it.

<br><br>

It was a very hard decision to make, I am not made of money either, but I'd rather have

one excellent lens that is not a hassle. It is a premium priced lens ... but seen in the

perspective of fast Leica normal lenses, it's the least expensive fast normal they offer. A

Summilux 50mm f/1.4 for the Leica 35mm SLRs is $3000, the 35mm f/1.4 for either is

$3500-4000. $800 for a Summilux-D 25mm f/1.4 ASPH ... yeah, still ouch but I know

how good Leica's lenses are.

<br><br>

Counterpoint: <br>

The person who did all the test shots, once he persevered through three examples and

had the last one adjusted by Sigma (and bought the Leica as well) finds that his final, now

properly working Sigma is his preference. He likes the lighter weight, the small reduction

in wide open performance is a trade off against the slightly longer focal length which he

prefers. And where he lives, the Panasonic/Leica lens is more expensive than the Sigma by

a substantially greater percentage.

<br><br>

Hard choice.

<br><br>

Honestly, James, what I'd suggest is that you first pick up one of the zooms you're

interested in, use it a while, and see whether you still want/need the ultra-fast normal.

That was another part of my debate. The Panasonic/Leica Vario-Elmarit 14-50/2.8-3.5

ASPH OIS that comes with the Panasonic L1 body is a terrific lens and at 25mm nets about

an f/3.2 maximum aperture. This is fast enough for most things ... and you get a lens

which is very versatile. You can get a lot of work done with just that. I haven't any

experience with the new Olympus ZD 12-60 so I can't compare them, but buying one lens

at a time is definitely a better way to go in my opinion.

<br><br>

Whichever one you choose, they are both premium quality lenses with their own individual

character, I doubt you'll be disappointed.

<br><br>

Godfrey

<br>

I have two Sigma lenses and have had no trouble with either. I have heard many complaints as well and that is why I did want to try the lens before buying. I would have been hesitant to buy it over mail even with a return policy because of the hassle. I would have paid a bit more for a similar Olympus lens, but that is not available. I also considered the Panasonic/Leica and apart from the higher price, slightly higher weight and focal length that fits less well to my lineup, I also objected to the aperture ring that does not work in Olympus cameras. I hate to pay for a good feature that is then not operable in the camera that I use. Both of these lenses are really good additions to the slow zooms as they can almost see in the dark.<div></div>

Nice shot, Ilkka!

 

Yes, that's another problem. The local dealers have had so many returns and problems

with Sigma lenses that neither of the two that I use will carry the brand any more, I'd have

to mail order it.

 

From everything I've seen, if you get a good one, it's a very nice lens. I'm happy with my

decision, however.

 

Godfrey

I'm curious about the "lens quality debate." I too am shooting with the 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 Zuiko ED and 40-150mm f/3.5-4.5 Zuiko EZ lenses. What actual differences in final output might one expect by going with "better glass"?

I don't know how these two lenses compare (Sigma v. Leica), but I recently purchased the Panasonic/Leica 25mm and I'm very pleased with it. One thing I think is the case(based on just about every purchase I've ever made), is that you generally get what you pay for. This would seem especially true in precision optics.

 

Personally, without having the benefit of testing both beforehand,I'd pony up the extra few hundred dollars to get the Leica.

Yes, Owen, CW is right. I don't have much more of a scientific answer to that. Generally speaking though, if your lens is fast, you see more in lower light or can blur out your depth of field better with faster shutter speeds (something that aspiring sports photographers drool over). Also, more expensive glass tends to have better contrast or sharpness. Once you decide what elements of photography are most important to you, you can upgrade to lenses that better suit your style.

 

Illka's shot above is much sharper and less noisy with the Sigma wide open than you or I could produce with our lower end 14-45 zoomed at 25mm. I think our lens' can only shoot at f/4 when zoomed at 25mm, so we need a slower shutter speed to allow enough light in or a higher ISO (which can create noise). Illka's Sigma allows her to shoot the same moment at f/2. Since it's more open, she can use a faster shutter speed and/or lower ISO. That's really important if you want sharp images at night, those cool sports shots with blurred backgrounds, or trying to catch a flight deck crewmember's cheeks flapping from the exhaust being pushed through a jet's air intakes like flags flying in a hurricane. (I can't wait to get that shot right...)

 

It all depends on what you want to shoot, when you want to shoot it and how you want it to turn out. That's the pickle I'm in. I have a very small, low end selection of tools to choose from, but I need to use as much strategy and planning as possible before I can upgrade any one area.

Thanks James, that gives me a good picture (no pun) of what we're talking about, and some food for thought.

Oh, I forgot the least important factor of how to get a good shot, but most important factor overall... how much money you're willing to spend... That's always throws everything off.

I'm 100% with Godfrey on this one. I went through 2 Sigma 150s before I gave up. I even took the time to tell Sigma how disappointed I was. Neither lens would lock on focus. There reply, "That's odd, send it in and we'll look at it."

 

Not a chance, after trying two of them I just wanted my money back. I see o reason to tie up 600 dollars on a lens that should work waiting for repair.

here is an interesting comparison between the Olympus 14-42 kit lens and the Leica 14-50. It would seem once again that an incremental quality improvement requires exponentially more money..

 

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Leica1450mm/index.shtml

I have been thinking the same thing, but instead I just purchased new the Sigma 30mm 1.4 <$400 and the Panasonic L1 kit with the Leica 14-50 <$800! If your thinking of buying this lens get it bundled with an L1.

I have the e510.Recent purchase.Kit lens is nice but barrels like a kaleisdoscope at the tele end.I'm being facetious and exagerated due to shock from what it was a romance with the lens which is otherwise awesome but barrel it does.A lot. I read the review posted comparing it to the 14-50mmVE and wonder if I got stuck with a bad kit lens or they just didn't go to the 42mm end of the kit lens.It's atrocious.It's the worst barreling lens I have and I have lots.But it is only at the extreme tele end.After all it is a kit lens and it already is the best of the kit lens I've seen.

Now is the VE14-50mm this bad at its tele end?How about the 14-54mm? Does the 14-54mm really beat the Leica 14.-50?

I have the e510.Recent purchase.Kit lens is nice but barrels like a kaleisdoscope at the tele end.I'm being facetious

and exagerated due to shock from what it was a romance with the lens which is otherwise awesome but barrel it

does.A lot. I read the review posted comparing it to the 14-50mmVE and wonder if I got stuck with a bad kit lens or

they just didn't go to the 42mm end of the kit lens.It's atrocious.It's the worst barreling lens I have and I have lots.But

it is only at the extreme tele end.After all it is a kit lens and it already is the best of the kit lenses I've seen.

Now is the VE14-50mm this bad at its tele end?How about the 14-54mm? Does the 14-54mm really beat the Leica

14.-50?

<center>

<br>

</center>

The Vario-Elmarit-D 14-50 has a good bit of barrel distortion at 14mm, which cleans up quite nicely by around 20mm.

<br><br>

<center>

<img src="http://www.gdgphoto.com/FoV-43_11-50/content/bin/images/large/P1030618.jpg"><br>

<i>Vario-Elmarit-D 14-50/2.8-3.5 ASPH OIS @ 14mm focal length</i><br>

</center><br>

<i>(You can see a series of exposures with various lenses and focal lengths from 11 to 50mm at<br>

  <a href="http://www.gdgphoto.com/FoV-43_11-50/" target=new1>

http://www.gdgphoto.com/FoV-43_11-50/</a>. The one above is exposure #2 on the thumbnails.) </i><br>

<br>

Barrel distortion like this at the wide end is quite usual with these wide to portrait tele zooms. The better ones (like the V-

E 14-50 and Oly ZD 11-22) have simple spherical barrel distortion, which is easy to correct in Photoshop and other

image processing tools if required. The cheaper ones tend to have wave-like barrel distortion which presents a real

correction headache.

<br><br>

Godfrey

<br>