05-21-2012, 09:07 AM
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1337587035' post='18376']
I'm slightly wondering whether this thing is worth it.
Don't understand me wrong here - I surely welcome a new high-performance option.
However, we are talking, effectively, about a "24-70mm f/5.6" lens here.
The depth-of-field argument is not that hot here in my opinion.
So technically an X 14-42 + Oly 45/1.8 could make more sense actually.
(I am not yet sure about the qualities of the X 14-42 though)
Klaus
[/quote]
I see your point but on the other hand I think this lens might possibly make the 12mm f/2 slightly redundant.
IMHO, the X 14-42, at least when you have been accustomed to the 14-45, is not very tempting for two reasons : the motor only operations (quite frankly, a bit of a bore, it's too slow) and the worse performances. The size doesn't quite make up for it, for me.
I never really think anymore in terms of equivalence, it's rather about the best you can get within your system.
It's a lens for maniacs, for sure.
I'm slightly wondering whether this thing is worth it.
Don't understand me wrong here - I surely welcome a new high-performance option.
However, we are talking, effectively, about a "24-70mm f/5.6" lens here.
The depth-of-field argument is not that hot here in my opinion.
So technically an X 14-42 + Oly 45/1.8 could make more sense actually.
(I am not yet sure about the qualities of the X 14-42 though)
Klaus
[/quote]
I see your point but on the other hand I think this lens might possibly make the 12mm f/2 slightly redundant.
IMHO, the X 14-42, at least when you have been accustomed to the 14-45, is not very tempting for two reasons : the motor only operations (quite frankly, a bit of a bore, it's too slow) and the worse performances. The size doesn't quite make up for it, for me.
I never really think anymore in terms of equivalence, it's rather about the best you can get within your system.
It's a lens for maniacs, for sure.