I have an Olympus E-520 bought together with the two kit lenses -14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 & 40-150mm f/4.0-5.6. After using them for a while, I decided I wanted a faster base zoom lens for low-light, non-flash conditions. I chose the Olympus Zuiko 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 lens. When it arrived last week, I spent a day taking comparison shots with the 14-42mm kit lens. The camera was used in Aperture-Priority mode to allow comparable settings. Image stabilization was always on. Following are my results.
Image Quality and Performance
I found hardly any difference in image quality (color balance, contrast, sharpness, CA, etc.) between the two lenses at the same aperture, focal length, and ISO settings. At identical settings, images using the 14-54mm might have been marginally sharper, but not enough to notice except in big-time crops. However, the lens was 2-3 times faster; i.e. at the same ISO and aperture, a shot taken at 1/30 of a second with the 14-42mm lens could be taken at 1/80 using the 14-54mm. Likewise, at the same shutter speed and aperture, an ISO 400 shot could be taken at ISO 200. A lower ISO and/or a higher shutter speed CAN increase image quality, since there's less sensor noise & less chance for camera shake, respectively. With the differing settings needed for decent exposures in low-light conditions, images and crops using the 14-54mm lens were distinctly better. Also better bokeh.
I found focusing speed and accuracy about same between the two lenses for both far-away and close-up exposures except in low-light conditions, where the 14-54mm had a definite advantage. For far-away photos, the 14-54mm has about 20% greater maximum telephoto reach, roughly 2.1X versus 1.7X. For close-ups, the 14-54mm had an almost-macro capability it focused about two times nearer to the subject.
Using the on-board flash with both lenses at their widest apertures, the 14-54mm took decent exposures at ISO 100, while the 14-42mm required at least ISO 200. The longer barrel of the 14-54mm cast a flash-shadow at its widest 14mm focal length (28mm film equivalent). The shadow disappeared at about 19mm (38mm film equivalent). No flash-shadow was cast with the 14-42mm lens at any focal length.
Size and Portability
Weighing just over one pound, the 14-54mm is over two times heavier than the 7 ounce 14-42mm lens. It's also about 40% longer and a bit wider 3.4" vs. 2.4" and 2.9" vs. 2.6", respectively. Its larger size does affect my system portability. I carry my stuff in a compact Olympus #260248 camera bag. The bag accommodates the E-520 with the 14-42mm kit lens attached, the 40-150mm lens, a Sony 1.7X Tele-conversion lens, an extra battery, the charger, a short extendable monopod, an extra CF card, a lens brush and cleaning cloth, and a small notebook. While a tight fit, everything's accessibly together at a total weight of just over 4-1/2 pounds. If I attach the 14-54mm lens, some of that "stuff" won't fit -its greater size and weight is the reason I've given it only a 4-Star rating. A bigger bag would fix that, but I really like the size and quality of the one I have now.
Cost Ranges
As current ballpark figures that I'm sure will change over time, a new 14-42mm lens-alone costs just over $200; a new 14-54mm lens-alone is just over $400, or about twice the cost. Olympus's new Version II 14-54mm lens is closer to $600 but that's a separate story. However . . . . if bought new as part of an Olympus E-Series camera package, the two "kit lenses" add about $200 to the camera body-only cost -that's about $100 each, which is roughly what they sell for used. Likewise, a lightly used or factory-reconditioned 14-54mm lens can be had in the mid-to-high $300's range a lower percent savings, but still decent. The Version II 14-54mm lens can be bought new as a package with higher-level Olympus bodies like the E-30, but I've not done a lens-alone comparison, nor have I seen any used Version II lenses. Whew . . . . a confusing set of numbers and options!
Bottom Line
If you take all or most of your photos outside on sunny days, I see absolutely no reason to upgrade from the 14-42 mm kit lens to the 14-54mm lens. Image quality is essentially the same, as is focusing speed and accuracy. Additionally, the latter's larger size and weight can make portability more difficult, and its cost is two to four times greater than the kit lens depending on how you choose to compare and buy.
HOWEVER, if you want higher quality images of landscapes on dark days, of building interiors, or of weddings and similar events where a flash can be disturbing, then the 14-54mm lens could well be a necessity! And it's about the lightest, smallest and least expensive lens you can get with similar specifications. Finally, its more robust build quality, and slightly better telephoto and close-up capabilities might be pluses, but they don't seem as significant as its better low-light performance.
Am I satisfied with my upgrade? Not entirely sure yet. I'd intended to sell my 14-42mm kit lens on receipt of the 14-54mm. After my comparison test, that intention changed. Most of the time, my bag will be packed with the kit lens and other "stuff" as described earlier. I'm glad to have the option for better low-light flexibility, but the 14-42mm is good enough to stay for now as my usually attached walk-around lens for bright-day photography.
P.S. Off-topic, I occasionally use a Sony VLC-DH1758 Tele-conversion lens to increase the reach of my 40-150mm lens by a factor of 1.7. It was an accidentally discovered way to almost double the range of the lens -and the Sony fits nicely in my bag. If you're curious, search Amazon for that item, and see an early August 2009 review under the listing.
0 comments:
Post a Comment