>
> Here is an example of why I like my 14-54 (first version).
>
> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/OldNick/Rose31.jpg.html
>
Oooh! That is very nice, Jim. I find that the 14-54 is a hit-and-miss lens.
Some focal-length, subject-camera distances and apertures seem to work while
others don't. That one is obviously at a point that works. Well, they ALWAYS
work, but it's an issue of image desirability.
The 25/1.4 is simply amazing and I'd be tempted to get one myself if it
wasn't for the obscene price. But with the 2-stop factor dialed in you don't
quite get the blob-o-matic backgrounds like you'd expect. From my brief (way
too brief...) testing on Saturday, I'm going to say that it has about the
same look-and-feel at 25/1.4 as the 35-80 does at 50mm and F2.8 on an OM
body. Mathematically this makes sense, but what I'm also saying is that the
bokeh characteristics and subject separation are very similar between the
two. The front elements are about the same size. Actually, both lenses are
about the same size in all dimensions--the 25/1.4 is not a small lens.
One of the complaints about the Leica 14-50 lens is that the OIS motor never
shuts off even when you have OIS turned off. That is a bit of a battery
drain.
Regarding the OIS on the E-1. The E-1 doesn't give you any ability to select
modes. The OIS is either on or it isn't. If you do any reaiming the
stabilizer lens will slam over to the hard limit and then recenter itself as
best as it can. If you are reaiming at all the OIS is not working with you.
However, once aimed the stabilization easily takes care of handling shake.
On the L1, the recommended setting is OIS Mode 2, which is exposure only.
OIS Mode 3 is good for that reaim and panning, though, as it stabilizes the
vertical movement only.
I'll know in a few hours how the 14-50 does at big event shooting. I did a
trial run yesterday with great results, so I'm cautiously optimistic.
As to the comparative shots of the zooms so far... The 50-200 is a beautiful
lens in most every way. This is an example of Olympus' finer hours. The
12-60 just kinda doesn't do anything for me. Not bad, but nothing I'd go out
of my way for. From initial testing, the 14-50 is a touch nicer in the way
it draws the image compared to the 14-54 mk1, but the differences are closer
than I'd have imagined.
BTW, there is some trick with the 14-50 and the L1 which I haven't tried
yet, but supposably if you press the lens-release button that the lens will
open up another 1/2 stop or more, depending on focal length. I'm not sure
how that works yet and I may just be content knowing it is possible and
leave it at that. But the 14-50 is larger diameter in every way than the
14-54.
Oh, side note--the 50/1.4 works smashingly well on the L1, but seems to
flatline at about F2. I think the throat is even narrower on this body than
the E-1. Since it's only giving me just a hair over a stop advantage over
the 14-50 and the 14-50 has stabilization and autofocus, I'll probably
refrain from using that combination too much.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
