Zuiko 14-54 vs. 14-42

[elias_roustom]

<p>I'm happy enough with the kit lens that came with my E-620. I'd like to have a little more light, and less distortion.<br /> Will upgrading to the 14-54 do that for me? What are the prospects of selling my 14-42 to help offset the cost of the upgrade?</p>

<p>Thanks for any advice.</p>

<p>Elias</p>

[ilkka]

<p>The 14-54 is quite a lot bigger and heavier than the kit lens. It is optically a little bit better, but not significantly. Construction is of course much better. Not sure how it does on distortion, it has not bothered me enough to notice, but zooms are normally not as good as fixed focal length lenses. Why not consider the 2.8/25 or 2/50 if you need more light. Both are compact lenses and the 2/50 is especially good with no distortion. Resale prices of kit lenses are very miserable, to the point that I would suggest just keeping it as a small and light alternative even if you got the 14-54 (That is what I actually did, but I had the older 14-45 kit lens). </p>

[ken_max__parks]

<p>Elias, there are some differences between these two lenses. The weight difference is not that much of a factor. I took my kit lens and added the WCON-08B, making this an 11-33mm. The cost savings was over $400.00 in comparison to the 11-22mm. And my primary lens is the f/2.8-3.5 14-54mm. You'll notice the difference in speed and focusing. The AF is better, not so much searching in low light conditions. The distortion is going to be about the same with only a slight improvement. When I got the money, I bought a slightly used 14-54 from KEH.com. My suggestion is to do exactly what I've done --- keep the 14-42 and add the WCON-08B to make it into a wider angle zoom lens, and bought the 14-54 as the primary.</p>

 

[elias_roustom]

<p>Thanks Ilkka and Ken, you give me two good options to think about.<br>

I've considered the 2.8/25, and think it very desirable, but it gets such poor reviews...</p>

[ilkka]

<p>The 2.8/25 is a good lens, no matter what reviewers say about it. There are a few users on pnet and all seem to agree that it is a good lens. It fits especially nicely the smaller E bodies like your 620. I use it on my E3 but it is a bit small for that body.</p>

<p>I wonder what WCON Ken is talking about. I would certainly not even think of adding any wideangle conversion lens in front of an interchangeable zoom, if that is what he is talking about. Quality cannot be good. For a good wideangle at reasonable cost, the 9-18 cannot be beaten.</p>

[Brian]

<p>Yes, I think Ken is on the wrong track here. First, the OP isn't interested in a wide angle; second, the Olympus WCONs are for fixed-lens cameras, where they are the only way to go wider.<br>

I have the 14-42 and I think it's an excellent lens. I would question spending money to replace it with another zoom of the same range. Ilkka's suggestion about primes is probably a good one, if you can live with fixed focal length.</p>

[david__m_dorn]

<p>I have the 25mm on my E-420 and have no complaints about it. Kudos to Olympus for giving us a 50mm equvalent prime lens. If I decide to get the EP-1 I will forego the 17.5 and make the 25 my prime for that camera as well. When I get some time I will post some comparative images of it and the 14-42 @ 25mm on my Flickr site. Ken's idea of a converter is intesting...I would like some more input from him on image quality with the WCON...and the make of the WCON his is using.<br>

Also re the 25mm...I got the overpriced, USD30, lens hood but I am glad I did. It's metal and really protects the lens from stray fingers and other assorted hazards so I can skip a protective filter. BTW the hood has a front thread, 34mm; I use a metal screw-in cap for protection when I carry the camea in my messenger bag.</p>

<p>David</p>