Customer Reviews

Olympus 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 Zuiko ED Digital SLR Lens for E1, E300 & E500 Cameras

5 star:		(32)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I have an Olympus E-520 bought together with the two kit lenses -- 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 & 40-150mm f/4.0-5.6. After using them for a while, I decided I wanted a faster base zoom lens for low-light, non-flash conditions. I chose the Olympus Zuiko 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 lens. When it arrived last week, I spent a day taking comparison shots with the 14-42mm kit lens. The camera was used in Aperture-Priority mode to allow comparable settings. Image stabilization was always on. Following are my results.

Image Quality and Performance
I found hardly any difference in image quality (color balance, contrast, sharpness, CA, etc.) between the two lenses at the same aperture, focal length, and ISO settings. At identical settings, images using the 14-54mm might have been marginally sharper, but not enough to notice except in big-time crops. However, the lens was 2-3 times faster; i.e. at the same ISO and aperture, a shot taken at 1/30 of a second with the 14-42mm lens could be taken at 1/80 using the 14-54mm. Likewise, at the same shutter speed and aperture, an ISO 400 shot could be taken at ISO 200. A lower ISO and/or a higher shutter speed CAN increase image quality, since there's less sensor noise & less chance for camera shake, respectively. With the differing settings needed for decent exposures in low-light conditions, images and crops using the 14-54mm lens were distinctly better. Also better bokeh.

I found focusing speed and accuracy about same between the two lenses for both far-away and close-up exposures except in low-light conditions, where the 14-54mm had a definite advantage. For far-away photos, the 14-54mm has about 20% greater maximum telephoto reach, roughly 2.1X versus 1.7X. For close-ups, the 14-54mm had an almost-macro capability - it focused about two times nearer to the subject.

Using the on-board flash with both lenses at their widest apertures, the 14-54mm took decent exposures at ISO 100, while the 14-42mm required at least ISO 200. The longer barrel of the 14-54mm cast a flash-shadow at its widest 14mm focal length (28mm film equivalent). The shadow disappeared at about 19mm (38mm film equivalent). No flash-shadow was cast with the 14-42mm lens at any focal length.

Size and Portability
Weighing just over one pound, the 14-54mm is over two times heavier than the 7 ounce 14-42mm lens. It's also about 40% longer and a bit wider - 3.4" vs. 2.4" and 2.9" vs. 2.6", respectively. Its larger size does affect my system portability. I carry my stuff in a compact Olympus #260248 camera bag. The bag accommodates the E-520 with the 14-42mm kit lens attached, the 40-150mm lens, a Sony 1.7X Tele-conversion lens, an extra battery, the charger, a short extendable monopod, an extra CF card, a lens brush and cleaning cloth, and a small notebook. While a tight fit, everything's accessibly together at a total weight of just over 4-1/2 pounds. If I attach the 14-54mm lens, some of that "stuff" won't fit -- its greater size and weight is the reason I've given it only a 4-Star rating. A bigger bag would fix that, but I really like the size and quality of the one I have now.

Cost Ranges
As current ballpark figures that I'm sure will change over time, a new 14-42mm lens-alone costs just over $200; a new 14-54mm lens-alone is just over $400, or about twice the cost. Olympus's new Version II 14-54mm lens is closer to $600 - but that's a separate story. However . . . . if bought new as part of an Olympus E-Series camera package, the two "kit lenses" add about $200 to the camera body-only cost -- that's about $100 each, which is roughly what they sell for used. Likewise, a lightly used or factory-reconditioned 14-54mm lens can be had in the mid-to-high $300's range - a lower percent savings, but still decent. The Version II 14-54mm lens can be bought new as a package with higher-level Olympus bodies like the E-30, but I've not done a lens-alone comparison, nor have I seen any used Version II lenses. Whew . . . . a confusing set of numbers and options!

Bottom Line
If you take all or most of your photos outside on sunny days, I see absolutely no reason to upgrade from the 14-42 mm kit lens to the 14-54mm lens. Image quality is essentially the same, as is focusing speed and accuracy. Additionally, the latter's larger size and weight can make portability more difficult, and its cost is two to four times greater than the kit lens depending on how you choose to compare and buy.

HOWEVER, if you want higher quality images of landscapes on dark days, of building interiors, or of weddings and similar events where a flash can be disturbing, then the 14-54mm lens could well be a necessity! And it's about the lightest, smallest and least expensive lens you can get with similar specifications. Finally, its more robust build quality, and slightly better telephoto and close-up capabilities might be pluses, but they don't seem as significant as its better low-light performance.

Am I satisfied with my upgrade? Not entirely sure yet. I'd intended to sell my 14-42mm kit lens on receipt of the 14-54mm. After my comparison test, that intention changed. Most of the time, my bag will be packed with the kit lens and other "stuff" as described earlier. I'm glad to have the option for better low-light flexibility, but the 14-42mm is good enough to stay for now as my usually attached walk-around lens for bright-day photography.

P.S. Off-topic, I occasionally use a Sony VLC-DH1758 Tele-conversion lens to increase the reach of my 40-150mm lens by a factor of 1.7. It was an accidentally discovered way to almost double the range of the lens -- and the Sony fits nicely in my bag. If you're curious, search Amazon for that item, and see an early August 2009 review under the listing.

I bought this lens for my Olympus E500 and sold the kit lens on Ebay. So far I have not regrets. Like many of you who are reading these reviews, I wondered how much difference this lens would make over the 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens. I can tell you from my experience that the extra stop helps alot for those photos taken inside with less then optimal light (such as the lighting in your average household). I also noticed an improvement in photos I have taken on a dark overcast winter day in downtown Boston. Not that these photos are not possible with the kit lens, the 14-54mm lens just seems to requires less effort. Bright, sunny situations have not made that much of a difference but just about anything looks good on a bright sunny day. Also, you can focus within inches of a subject which is great for the occasional macro photo. The focal distance indicator on the lens barrel has come in handy a couple of times. Especially in darker situations where the autofocus might have trouble and no flash is allowed.

I've been using it on my E1 for a while, and it proved to be an excellent lens. Sure, my Minolta MD 35-70mm f/3.5 (Leica Vario-Elmar) beats it in bokeh and image beauty, and any 50m Planar will beat it in absolute sharpness, but this one has almost the bokeh of a Minolta, and almost the sharpness of a prime; it's reasonably fast for a zoom and has the best range of focal lengths one can reasonably hope for (28-108mm equivalent). It's good for everything, although not absolutely perfect for any particular thing. That makes it the standard zoom of choice.

Flaws: cyan fringing (chromatic aberations) on the wide end, particularly on the edges and wide open. Vignetting on the long end. Target-shaped bokeh, especially visible when shooting macro. That's about it. Oh yes, very resistent to flare, the coating is excellent.

You can not evaluate the lens by just the numbers - yes, it is nearly identical to the factory lens, but it is a much faster lens and made in Japan, not China. Additionally it has a unique focus system that requires very little lens movement to go from 3 feet to infinity - this translates into RAPID focus - faster than the factory lens as well. It also features the mounting lugs and 62mm (as opposed to 58) filter threads to accept the ring flash as well as the twin flash accessories, so if you have expanded beyond the FL-50 - you DON'T want the factory lens any more. Taken together, this is the lens 70-80% of my shooting was done with. I am sold on the E300 and bought 3 backs cheap after they were obsoleted - I also bought 3 lenses, the 14-54, the 50mm macro, and the 50-200mm - each lens is on its own back eliminating the risk of contamination completely while giving me redundancy when I am away.

After knowing you are going to take a picture, you narrow down to 2 questions as to which one.

1 - you don't know much except you have a picture to take - use the 14-54
2 - you know it's going to be about 50mm and you want maximum detail or have poor lighting, or have a macro shot - then pick the 50 mm prime lens
3 - it's a long distance shot - take the 50-200, add the teleconverter if needed.

Simple!

And for flash - long distances get the FL-50 - shorter get the ring or twin flash to even the lighting out. Forgot your flash? pop up the built in one!

This is the lens that stays on my camera 90% of the time and the first lens I bought for it other than the kit lenses. Let me say this is a huge upgrade from the 14-45mm kit lens. Not only is is faster at f2.8-3.5 but the autofocus is much quiter, and the pictures are sharper.

What is also impressive is how close this lens will focus. While it isn't what I would consider macro, you can take some awsome closeup shots of flowers with this lens.

If you buy no other lens for your Oly DSLR this is probably the one you should buy.

Excellent lens from Olympus! I was Nikon fan for the last 20 years and when I sold my trustworthy N8008 film camera I started to look at Nikon and Canon digital SLR. The result of my research - for the price, quality and features, Olympus Evolt 510 beats everybody else with one arm tied behind its back. You have to go with high grade lens like this Olympus 14-54 to get the full effect. This lens is very sharp, bright and lack any distortion like no other. It cost more than standard lenses but as everything else in life, you get what you paid for. Strongly recommend to anyone with average or above skill.

This is the lens I use most. It is sharper and faster than the kit lens. It is also weather sealed. I use it on my E500. And it focuses faster than the kit lens and because it has a full f/stop wider aperture, It makes my E500 work MUCH better in low light. That extra f/stop makes the viewfinder much brighter as well.

Olympus makes the best kit lenses on the market, but if you are still dissatisfied with the quality of the kit lens, this upgrade is most definitely worth the money.

This lens is attached to my camera 80% of the time. Previously I used a PnS camera that a 1 to 3 zoom and a 0.7 wide angle attachment. This lens covers much of the same range and does so with virtually no barrel distortion.

It is not particularly heavy or large which makes it easy to to point it in the correct direction.

Pros:
* uses the same filters as 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 lens
* not expensive

Cons:
* Hood sometimes shows up on wide angle shots
* Not as sharp as 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 lens

This lens is just right, it is not as sharp as a prime, but the contrast and saturation is perfect. I would rank it tied to canons 17-40 f4L optically, but more compact, brighter and with more reach. I use it as my everyday lens on E-1 and E-500.

For all the comments concerning the image quality of this lens, the one characteristic going unmentioned is the 14-54mm's remarkably good correction of distortion, its biggest improvement over the 14-45mm kit lens. Horizontal and vertical lines near the image frames show little distortion or curve at widest angles to none at all through the remainder of the 14-54mm zoom range. I think image resolution of the 14-54mm about matches the limit of the E-330 digital sensor according to various camera and lens reviews on the web.

I bought my 14-54mm from Buydig.com a few months ago--and my copy has some left margin softness at its widest angle zoom settings (14mm to about 20mm), which ought not to be there. From what I've read, there are some less-than-optimum copies of the lens out there. One should expect to see crisp, sharp edge resolution at infinity when the lens is properly focused and stopped down to F5.6, F8, etc. Best to do something right away when finding less-than-ideal image quality--return the lens. I've tried to ignore the minor image fuzziness, but it is always irritating, though the problem vanishes when shooting vertical framed images rotating the camera counterclockwise so the left margin is capturing immediate foreground elements. My solution was to buy the Olympus 11-22mm, which is both sharper and wider (and more expensive).