05-21-2012, 12:09 PM
Well compare it to other options in 4/3 m4/3; and where does it fit ?
First from panasonic:
14-45 f3.5-5.6 $300
12-35 f2.8 $1500
olympus:
14-42 f3.5-5.6 $200
12-50 f3.5-6.3 $500
14-54 f2.8-3.5 $600 (4/3 lens but I believe it is worth comparing)
-
Hum. Anyone know how the 14-54 performs relative to the panasonic. $600 seems more likeable than $1600...
The 12/2 is $700; the 25f1.4 $500 and the 45f1.8 is $400; so the collection of primes is nearly the same as the 12-35; though there is the hassle of changing lenses.
[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]
First from panasonic:
14-45 f3.5-5.6 $300
12-35 f2.8 $1500
olympus:
14-42 f3.5-5.6 $200
12-50 f3.5-6.3 $500
14-54 f2.8-3.5 $600 (4/3 lens but I believe it is worth comparing)
-
Hum. Anyone know how the 14-54 performs relative to the panasonic. $600 seems more likeable than $1600...
The 12/2 is $700; the 25f1.4 $500 and the 45f1.8 is $400; so the collection of primes is nearly the same as the 12-35; though there is the hassle of changing lenses.
[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]