>From what you all have said and reading up on other forums...I believe the
>50/2 is the
way to go right now. Perhaps in the future I'll revisit the 14-54. I still have
to learn about
my new toy anyway.
- Ali
On 28 Dec 2005 at 10:59, Andrew Fildes wrote:
>
> Can't speak for the 14-54 but I did shoot the 50/2 against the 14-45
> very briefly on an E-500 and the difference was immediately
> noticeable - it was exponentially superior. The kicker was the colour
> chalk writing on a blackboard outside a cafe - the zoom rendered the
> chalk as a colour smear at 100% 'actual pixel' view while the 50/2
> actually showed the grainy look of the chalk on the board. I'd get it
> for portrait capability alone.
> AndrewF
>
>
> On 28/12/2005, at 8:07 AM, Scott Gomez wrote:
>
> >
> > I'd look at it from a standpoint of "additional capabilities". You
> > don't
> > pick up all that much by buying the 14-54 if you already own the
> > 14-45.
> > But the 50/2 gives you capabilities you don't already have.
> >
> > ---
> > Scott Gomez
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On
> > Behalf Of oly-zooko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [OM] Re: ZD 50/2
> >
> > Certainly the 50/2 is a nice lens...I can see that. Now my
> > dilemma.. is
> > the 14-54 F2.8 really that much better than the 14-45 F3.5? I have an
> > opportunity to purchase either the 50/2 or the 14-54/2.8 right now.
> >
> > - Ali
> >
> > ==============================================
> > List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> > List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> > ==============================================
> >
> >
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|