Which Zoom lens?

M

Marshallator

Member
Well, after watching the DSLR revolution unfold over the last couple years, I finally decided it was time for me to dive in. I recently purchased a GH-1 (hackable, yay!), but decided not to get the kit lens, preferring to have a faster zoom instead.

Since wedding videos is how I fund all this stuff, I will need a zoom with pretty good speed and a nice range. I've narrowed it down to about three different lenses, and was wondering if you guys had any opinions on which one would be most valuable.

The first is the Olympus 14-54mm 2.8-3.5. What makes this one attractive is that it can still do some auto focusing, which might come in handy during a wedding. Though I do wonder how well the auto focus will work in low light. This lens also covers a wonderful focal range on the GH-1. My concern is how good the picture quality is, as well as the fact that it is not a constant aperture lens.

The next lens I'm considering is the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8. This lens appears to have very nice optics, though it will have no auto focusing, and I hear the manual focus ring is not that wonderful. It doesn't have as nice a range as the Olympus, but I think it will have nicer optics and a constant aperture. Again I am concerned on the manual focus ring and as well as various reviews about how Tamrons quality control is pretty poor. The price is about the same as the Olympus.

The next lens is the Nikon 17-55mm 2.8. This lens is obviously higher build quality than the Olympus and Tamron, and the price tag reflects that (ouch!). The optics are slightly better than the Tamron (and more consistently so), the manual focus ring should be nicer, and it is a constant aperture. Only concern with this lens is again no auto focusing, and a much higher price tag.

If you had to choose one of these lenses, which would it be? It looks like the Nikon would be a real winner, but I hate to spend that much money if a cheaper one will do almost as well ( and thus leaving me more money to spend on other accessories and maybe some FD primes).
 
Marshallator said:
Well, after watching the DSLR revolution unfold over the last couple years, I finally decided it was time for me to dive in. I recently purchased a GH-1 (hackable, yay!), but decided not to get the kit lens, preferring to have a faster zoom instead.

Since wedding videos is how I fund all this stuff, I will need a zoom with pretty good speed and a nice range. I've narrowed it down to about three different lenses, and was wondering if you guys had any opinions on which one would be most valuable.

The first is the Olympus 14-54mm 2.8-3.5. What makes this one attractive is that it can still do some auto focusing, which might come in handy during a wedding. Though I do wonder how well the auto focus will work in low light. This lens also covers a wonderful focal range on the GH-1. My concern is how good the picture quality is, as well as the fact that it is not a constant aperture lens.

The next lens I'm considering is the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8. This lens appears to have very nice optics, though it will have no auto focusing, and I hear the manual focus ring is not that wonderful. It doesn't have as nice a range as the Olympus, but I think it will have nicer optics and a constant aperture. Again I am concerned on the manual focus ring and as well as various reviews about how Tamrons quality control is pretty poor. The price is about the same as the Olympus.

The next lens is the Nikon 17-55mm 2.8. This lens is obviously higher build quality than the Olympus and Tamron, and the price tag reflects that (ouch!). The optics are slightly better than the Tamron (and more consistently so), the manual focus ring should be nicer, and it is a constant aperture. Only concern with this lens is again no auto focusing, and a much higher price tag.

If you had to choose one of these lenses, which would it be? It looks like the Nikon would be a real winner, but I hate to spend that much money if a cheaper one will do almost as well ( and thus leaving me more money to spend on other accessories and maybe some FD primes).
Click to expand...

A fairly serious problem with using modern Canon and Nikon lenses on mFT cameras is inability to select aperture, as no adapters (except for FT-mFT ones) implement electronic controls [hopefully, that will change at some point]. That pretty much rules those out in my mind from usability perspective.

Tamron 17-50mm/2.8 has several versions and the more modern one has the same aperture problem AFAIK. Simon Höfer on this forum uses an older one I think, so hopefully he will be able to comment on it.

It is my opinion that autofocus is a fairly unreliable focus method on large sensor cams for video, especially when shooting live events on the move. It is obviously very convenient for stills.

I had a chance to checkout the Olympus 14-54 and think it's quite nice. It's a high-grade series lens, which is a step up from consumer level, and quality is reflected both in the few sample pictures I took and the overall build. If I already did not own the kit lens this is the one I would get, because it is faster than kit and autofocuses fairly quickly for stills.
 
I can't imagine shooting a whole wedding...or any live event...without autofocus now that I've got spoiled with the GH1. The problem is not autofocus....it's AF-C...which sucks on ALL video cameras. The half-press spot focus/fake AF-S blows manual focusing out of the water for me. It's instant when using the laser beam assist, before starting the recording. Not to mention...for run-n-gun...there's not live HDMI out to see whether you're anywhere NEAR nailing focus when using manual lenses. For home/indie movies, no big deal, but no way for weddings. Then again, that's just my shooting style...and my vision isn't great. :D

Of course, that doesn't leave me many options...just the 14-140 kit lens and the 45-200...which like the OP says...suck for dark wedding shoots...which 99% of mine are.
 
Thank you both for your input. :thumbsup:

Svecher, it seems that there is an adapter for Nikon mount lenses that allows you to still control aperture, just not electronically.

Another question, does the Olympus 14-54 have better image quality than the kit lens (for those who have both)?
 
I have the 14-54 and it's a killer lens for sure.

I 've tried the 14-140, the Leica 14-50 and the Olympus 14-54.

The Leica and Panny had a really similar image quality, but Leica had a a little somthing i liked more, still the Olympus has and amazing 3d rendition and a goof AF. I really love it (more than the leica witch had a really wierd manual focus ring).

That being said, I lended it to my good friend while he was waiting for his little 14-45 panny and I can't wait to get it back.
 
+1 for the Olympus 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 Mk II. Love the range, the increased stop in aperture compared to the kit lens, the professional built (water and dust proof construction, personally very impressed with the built quality), the relatively affordable price and lastly the AF-S ability in still mode (which translates to accurate and quick focus of the scene prior to hitting the record button).
 
Marshallator said:
The next lens I'm considering is the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8. This lens appears to have very nice optics, though it will have no auto focusing, and I hear the manual focus ring is not that wonderful. It doesn't have as nice a range as the Olympus, but I think it will have nicer optics and a constant aperture. Again I am concerned on the manual focus ring and as well as various reviews about how Tamrons quality control is pretty poor. The price is about the same as the Olympus.
Click to expand...

I've been using the Tamron since early Summer and find it very rarely leaves my camera. The focus is fine, but note that it is a very short throw. This does not bother me as I shoot almost everything in documentary style, but it you want to pull slow focus with a FF, this lens may drive you crazy. Yes, there is no autofocus or IS, but the optics look good to me, it's not too heavy, and I love the constant f2.8.
 
As far as manual focus zoom lenses are concerned, I used to own Sigma 28-70mm constant f2.8 FD lens and Tokina 80-200mm constant f2.8 FD lens. Those two lenses covered 90% range I needed.
 
Marshallator said:
Well, after watching the DSLR revolution unfold over the last couple years, I finally decided it was time for me to dive in. I recently purchased a GH-1 (hackable, yay!), but decided not to get the kit lens, preferring to have a faster zoom instead.

Since wedding videos is how I fund all this stuff, I will need a zoom with pretty good speed and a nice range. I've narrowed it down to about three different lenses, and was wondering if you guys had any opinions on which one would be most valuable.

The first is the Olympus 14-54mm 2.8-3.5. What makes this one attractive is that it can still do some auto focusing, which might come in handy during a wedding. Though I do wonder how well the auto focus will work in low light. This lens also covers a wonderful focal range on the GH-1. My concern is how good the picture quality is, as well as the fact that it is not a constant aperture lens.

The next lens I'm considering is the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8. This lens appears to have very nice optics, though it will have no auto focusing, and I hear the manual focus ring is not that wonderful. It doesn't have as nice a range as the Olympus, but I think it will have nicer optics and a constant aperture. Again I am concerned on the manual focus ring and as well as various reviews about how Tamrons quality control is pretty poor. The price is about the same as the Olympus.

The next lens is the Nikon 17-55mm 2.8. This lens is obviously higher build quality than the Olympus and Tamron, and the price tag reflects that (ouch!). The optics are slightly better than the Tamron (and more consistently so), the manual focus ring should be nicer, and it is a constant aperture. Only concern with this lens is again no auto focusing, and a much higher price tag.

If you had to choose one of these lenses, which would it be? It looks like the Nikon would be a real winner, but I hate to spend that much money if a cheaper one will do almost as well ( and thus leaving me more money to spend on other accessories and maybe some FD primes).
Click to expand...

I have the Olympus and love it. I would not trade it for the other two lenses. I LOVE AND USE the extra range, 14mm is NECESSARY, not a luxury and you can get GREAT BOKEH shooting up close with 14mm lens - wide angle lenses with up close subjects and great bokeh are underused sadly. 17mm does not cut it IMO for the GH1 as your widest lens, so I'd definitely insist you get at least a 14mm zoom. I was torn between the OLY and the Panasonic 14-50mm but chose the Oly since it was built better - the panny lens has too many complaints. IMO the Oly should be the defacto fast zoom for the GH1 until the RUMORED 12-75mm is confirmed and released.

THIS LENS HAS 2-3 INCHES MIN FOCUS DISTANCE which is a HUGE advantage. It's listed as 8 inches, but that's measuring from the sensor. So it doubles as a macro lens pretty much. Autofocus speed is fast and

THE OPTICS ARE GREAT. The Tamron will not out do this lens optically. And I don't have the kit lens, but have used it...Oly is better. I owned the 20mm pancake and found the OLY NOTICEABLY SHARPER without pixel peeping. This lens is not a slouch.
 
Last edited:
+1 Psynema

agree to all points - I have that Oly lens too. It is noticeably sharper than the kit lens, actually it is the sharpest lens I own!. 14mm f2.8 is very, very useful - and close distance focus means sitting at a table I can shoot people just beside me without getting up
 
Every time Psynema goes on about the Oly, he gives me a bit of buyer's remorse! I love the Tamron and use it regularly, but I keep finding myself peeking over the Olympus fence. If the Oly was just 2.8 throughout the range...
 
I ordered the Oly 14-54, does this lens require an adapter for the GH-1? If so, any preference on which to get? Thanks
 
markphil said:
I ordered the Oly 14-54, does this lens require an adapter for the GH-1?
Click to expand...
Yes, get the Panasonic Four Thirds adapter for around $100, it's cheaper than the Olympus adapter and works the same.

I've had the Olympus 14-54mm Mark II* for less than a week and it's already become my favorite lens. The range and speed cover almost everything I'm likely to shoot and the auto-focus makes it foolproof. It makes the best of the GH1's automated features simple to use and switches to fully manual mode in an instant.

The perfect mate for this lens is the Lumix 45-200mm zoom. It has the same feel in the telephoto range with image stabilization where you need it. It's not as fast, of course, but perfect for outdoor use.

The Oly will, however, make your GH1 feel like a 5D Mark II and it's not compact at all. But if you're looking for something lightweight, you'd be better off with a Lumix 14-45mm on a GF1.

* Note: the Olympus 14-54mm Mark I does not auto-focus with the GH1.
 
Last edited:
14-54 Oly MK II

The guy I convienced to buy a GH1 got mind, and I can't wait to get it back ahah.
 
There is also a Olympus 12-60 that should be very nice... but I opted for the 11-22 f/2.8-3.5 and I simply love it... it will not AF...but I don't care
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top