Register · Search · Software · Join Upload & Sell · Hosting

	Moderated by: Fred Miranda
	Username   Password FM Forum Rules FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell    Search Used end    Archive 2008 · Olympus 14-35 mm f 2.0

Martin Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #1 · Olympus 14-35 mm f 2.0 Any first hand experience with this lens?? I am thinking about this lens but the price has me questioning the purchase. Is it really worth the high price?? Thank you. Martin Sep 08, 2008 at 11:35 AM

Dneufarth Offline Upload & Sell: On p.1 #2 · Olympus 14-35 mm f 2.0 I had this lens for three weeks before I returned it. It is one of the best lenses I have ever had, but the E-3, nor any other 4/3rds camera cannot take advantage of its high quality. So to me it was not worth the $2K I gave for it. Hope this helps, Derek Sep 08, 2008 at 11:40 AM

jvarszegi Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #3 · Olympus 14-35 mm f 2.0 Martin wrote: Any first hand experience with this lens?? I am thinking about this lens but the price has me questioning the purchase. Is it really worth the high price?? Thank you. Martin For that price, you can have a 24-70 f/2.8 plus a body in another system. So speed and performance wise, it is not a good purchase. Sep 08, 2008 at 11:44 AM

Martin Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #4 · Olympus 14-35 mm f 2.0 Again, it appears the the E system is limited by the sensor-processor, not the lenses. A pity. Not like the film days when the lens was the most important variable, and the camera was merely a light proof box with a shutter. Now one must consider - lens, shutter material, and expected life, sensor, photo site size, AA filter, processor, buffer - the whole deal. If any of these components is wanting, the whole package suffers. Martin Edited on Sep 08, 2008 at 12:41 PM Sep 08, 2008 at 12:34 PM

jvarszegi Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #5 · Olympus 14-35 mm f 2.0 Martin wrote: Again, it appears the the E system is limited by the sensor-processor, not the lenses. A pity. Not like the film days when the lens was the most important variable, and the camera was merely a light proof box with a shutter. Now one must consider - lens, sensor, processor, photo site size, AA filter, buffer - the whole deal. If any of these components is wanting, the whole package suffers. Martin I think it is limited by the lenses as well. To be equivalent in light gathering to a full-frame system with an f/2.8 zoom, a 2X crop system with equivalent sensor tech should have an f/1.4 zoom. The 14-35 f/2 on 4/3 is equivalent to a 28-70 f/4 on a later-model FF camera. Edited on Sep 08, 2008 at 01:08 PM Sep 08, 2008 at 12:42 PM

Alpinestars Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #6 · Olympus 14-35 mm f 2.0 Balderdash. Ask anyone on 4/3rds forum and they will tell you that the Oly sensor is actually the best for everything, up is down, black is white and the moon is made of a fine goats milk cheese. Seriously, some of those people are wound too tight and do not welcome criticism. I picked up a 12-60mm recently for a E420 that I bought for portability, the lens feels quality and I like the box but the sensor seems years behind the big two. Sep 08, 2008 at 02:15 PM

Rob Riley Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #7 · Olympus 14-35 mm f 2.0 i dont have it, but why not check it out from someone that tested it ? have a look here at slrgear.com http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1137/cat/15 their conclusion in brief: Conclusion If you're in the market for this lens, you're probably looking for some words of encouragement before you take the hit on your credit card: allow me to offer some. If you need this lens for professional purposes it will deliver unquestionably. If you want this lens because your standards are very high, they will be met. Olympus has clearly invested a lot of time and energy into producing this lens: the results speak for themselves. Sep 08, 2008 at 03:32 PM

pascal03 Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #8 · Olympus 14-35 mm f 2.0 I disagree on some of the opinions. As much as I really like the Olympus system, I admit the current Olympus sensor is not the best for everything. I use a D300 & SLRn, 5D, SLRc, & 30D, and E3's, e330, and other Olympus SLR's. If you use all three systems side by side, you begin to notice what is good and bad about each and then eventually figure out which system is suited best for your needs. Neither Canon nor Nikon are perfect. Along the same lines, Olympus isn't perfect either. However, each one has it's strengths depending on what you shoot and under what conditions. Also, it's pointless to compare an e420 or e410 to the 5D just as it's useless to compare a rebel XSi to a D700 or a Nikon D40 to the 5D. If we are to level the playing field with SLR's, lets compare the D300 to the 5D to the E3. To me, the D300 is a better SLR than the E3 and the E3 is a better body than the 5D. If you want to discuss image quality, then it would go D3, 5D, D300 - then again "image quality" can mean different things to different photographers. The E3+7-14mm f4.0 is an amazing combination. The only way to get similar results is spending $3000 for the D700 + $1600 for the 14-24mm f2.8. The E3 can be had for $1500 and the 7-14mm f4.0 is $1500 which is about the cost of the D700. If you want to leave the cost out and focus just on what each system and lenses can provide, Olympus still can hold it's ground under certain circumstances. As far as image quality (this is personal opinion as each person has different taste), if you look for color and sharpness, Olympus can easily provide the sharpest images I have seen from all three systems. The Canon 5D is the next best thing. Not sure if this has to do with a low strength AA filter or uber-sharp lenses or a combination of the two. In terms of sharp images, Olympus wins, followed by Canon, and finally by Nikon. Nikon images just don't have the sharpness unless you work on it in post processing. Canon images are sharp depending on which lens you use and there is some visible variation here. The SLRn, which lacks an AA filter, can provide sharper images than the D700 and the D300, but most nikon lenses are not in the same league as the olympus pro grade lenses unless you go for the pricey 24-70mm f2.8 or the 14-24mm f2.8. The overall look.... which includes the color (and I mean eye popping color) - I like what I get from both Olympus and Nikon. Canon lags behind for my tastes. You can eventually get there with Canon, but it takes a little post processing work. Given this, I am sure each photographer has his/her own priorities and preferences. For some, RAW is simply not an option. For others, JPG's exist only for a quick preview and the RAW files are perfected to their tastes. Again, boils down to what you use each system for and how. I use Canon for landscapes and architecture Nikon for general indoors (that Nikon flash system is simply exquisite) I use Olympus for nature/wildlife and general shooting. That 2x FOV factor is sweet when it comes to birding/sports. Canon and Nikon have the upper hand when it comes to lower noise at high ISO. There is no doubt there. When it comes to dynamic range, Nikon is very good. The 5D and E3 almost at a tie. Now if Canon or Nikon were to introduce a 14-35mm f2.0 or 35-100mm f2.0 lens that was usable on the 50D or the 5D, how many would jump at it Edited by pascal03 on Sep 09, 2008 at 03:22 AM GMT Edited on Sep 09, 2008 at 03:22 AM Sep 08, 2008 at 04:16 PM

JonasY Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #9 · Olympus 14-35 mm f 2.0 pascal03 wrote: The E3+7-14mm f4.0 is an amazing combination. The only way to get similar results is spending $3000 for the D700 + $1600 for the 14-24mm f2.8. You can have a D300 + Sigma 10-20 much cheaper than that, sure, you loose 1 mm ... And you can't compare f/2 on a 2x crop body vs f/2 on a FF camera. Sep 08, 2008 at 04:55 PM

pascal03 Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #10 · Olympus 14-35 mm f 2.0 I have tried the Sigma 10-20mm and I don't think the sigma is in the same league as the ZD 7-14mm f4.0 or the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8.... 1mm or otherwise. The Sigma might be cheaper, but that does not mean it's the same or better when it comes to final image. True, you can't compare f2.0 on a 2x crop sensor versus f2.0 on a full frame. But f2.0 aperture on a lens is f2.0 is f2.0 is f2.0....... regardless of which SLR it works with.... the camera meter still sees just f2.0 as the aperture and sets a shutter speed as needed for the f2.0 aperture. Your shutter speed will be faster if you use f2.0 versus f2.8 or f4.0 ..... no matter what SLR you use - Nikon, canon, or Olympus. What may change is the shallow depth of field, bookeh, etc. An f2.0 DOF on a 4/3rds sensor is similar to using/getting DOF from a f2.8 or perhaps f4.0 on full frame. So if you buy an f2.0 lens for the wide aperture so you can have more light hit the sensor, faster shutter, more out of focus background, etc. why wouldn't you compare them across different sensor types. The 14-35mm f2.0 mentioned by the OP is a superb lens.... regardless if the E3 sensor is good or not. The Zeiss ZF 50mm f2.0 is a very nice lens. When you use it on a D700 or D3 (1x FOV) versus D300 (1.5x FOV) versus 5D (1x FOV) versus 40D (1.6x FOV) with adapter, what's not to compare. You can get different results with each camera which can be compared to each other and A viewer will not care which camera was used with the lens and you could process all 3 images to look the same by cropping out/post processing. How could you tell the difference. Sep 08, 2008 at 05:34 PM

Rob Riley Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #11 · Olympus 14-35 mm f 2.0 not to mention, the dof discussion was quickly dumped for a slower Sigma 10-20mm at f/4-5.6. which needs to be stopped down further to cover its poor corners/edges anyway Sep 08, 2008 at 05:41 PM

AndrewTee Offline Upload & Sell: On p.1 #12 · Olympus 14-35 mm f 2.0 I use both Olympus (E520) and Canon (5D) and love both. As has been said each has their strengths and weakness. Probably enjoy the Olympus more, though. And you can't separate cameras from lenses. IME the Olympus lenses are stellar. Sep 08, 2008 at 06:39 PM

jvarszegi Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #13 · Olympus 14-35 mm f 2.0 pascal03 wrote: I have tried the Sigma 10-20mm and I don't think the sigma is in the same league as the ZD 7-14mm f4.0 or the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8.... 1mm or otherwise. The Sigma might be cheaper, but that does not mean it's the same or better when it comes to final image. True, you can't compare f2.0 on a 2x crop sensor versus f2.0 on a full frame. But f2.0 aperture on a lens is f2.0 is f2.0 is f2.0....... regardless of which SLR it works with.... the camera meter still sees just f2.0 as the aperture and sets a shutter speed as needed for the f2.0 aperture. Your shutter speed will be faster if you use f2.0 versus f2.8 or f4.0 ..... no matter what SLR you use - Nikon, canon, or Olympus. Yes, but only because the camera with the smaller sensor is applying more gain to achieve a seeming equality. In other words, you get more noise. In order to achieve similar results, you need a faster lens on a smaller sensor. Sep 08, 2008 at 11:16 PM

Jorgen Udvang Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #14 · Olympus 14-35 mm f 2.0 jvarszegi wrote: Yes, but only because the camera with the smaller sensor is applying more gain to achieve a seeming equality. In other words, you get more noise. In order to achieve similar results, you need a faster lens on a smaller sensor. In a few years' time, Canikon will deliver clean images at ISO25,600, and at the same time, we'll hear complaints about Olympus only being able to deliver the same quality at ISO 6,400. With good quality ISO 1,600 or even 800, in-body IS and an f/2.0 zoom, I believe most photographers' needs are rather well covered. I do plan on buying a D700, among other things for its low light capabilities, but I keep asking myself how much I'll gain from it from a profit point of view. Olympus even gives me IS with my OM-Zuiko 200mm f/5.0, giving me image stabilized, knife sharp, pocket sized 400mm reach. There is more than one way to skin a cat Edited by Jorgen Udvang on Sep 09, 2008 at 08:36 AM GMT Edited on Sep 09, 2008 at 01:36 AM Sep 08, 2008 at 11:46 PM

Sam tran Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #15 · Olympus 14-35 mm f 2.0 Now if Canon or Nikon were to introduce a 14-35mm f2.0 or 35-100mm f2.0 lens that was usable on the 50D or the 5D, how many would jump at it +1 and I will even rob/steal yours if the stores ran out of it! BTW, I used to have the OM-10 (after my first ever camera name "Topcon" back in the early 70s), and I love the IQ of the 50mm lens goes with it. Sep 09, 2008 at 12:58 AM

pascal03 Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #16 · Olympus 14-35 mm f 2.0 We need an Olympus Forum on this site..... just like there's a Canon and Nikon forum Sep 09, 2008 at 03:23 AM

Rob Riley Offline Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #17 · Olympus 14-35 mm f 2.0 jvarszegi wrote: Yes, but only because the camera with the smaller sensor is applying more gain to achieve a seeming equality. In other words, you get more noise. In order to achieve similar results, you need a faster lens on a smaller sensor. even without correcting for format differences you would find 2/3 stop difference between Canon APSC and FT you would find 1 stop differnce between Nikon APSC and FT you would find 2 stops difference between FF and FT so yes the faster glass approaches evening things up but not for the same DoF, this is where you guys play it both ways and its wrong at same DoF the noise is the same between formats but then APSC in particular, doesnt have that quality in glass, that's the difference Edited on Sep 09, 2008 at 04:01 AM Sep 09, 2008 at 03:56 AM

	FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell end

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password   Lost your password?