Is the Olympus 14-54mm significantly lighter and less bulky than the 12-60mm?
1577239
If you are referring to the F2.8 versions of both lenses they are about the same size and weight and such the lower the f stop number it shows the larger the lense typically. (So wider it can open the larger the lense ). Small lenses will be ones that can't open less then 4.0 f stop any mid to high grade lense will be larger than the base lenses in size and weight that being said the lense I bought is notHeavy and is not bad the larger 70-300 f2.8 is very large and heavy enough I mount the tripod to the lense not the camer as to Much strain to the mounts between the camera and lense would cause damage over time. If you are referring to the F2.8 versions of both lenses they are about the same size and weight and such the lower the f stop number it shows the larger the lense typically. (So wider it can open the larger the lense ). Small lenses will be ones that can't open less then 4.0 f stop any mid to high grade lense will be larger than the base lenses in size and weight that being said the lense I bought is notHeavy and is not bad the larger 70-300 f2.8 is very large and heavy enough I mount the tripod to the lense not the camer as to Much strain to the mounts between the camera and lense... » Read More If you are referring to the F2.8 versions of both lenses they are about the same size and weight and such the lower the f stop number it shows the larger the lense typically. (So wider it can open the larger the lense ). Small lenses will be ones that can't open less then 4.0 f stop any mid to high grade lense will be larger than the base lenses in size and weight that being said the lense I bought is notHeavy and is not bad the larger 70-300 f2.8 is very large and heavy enough I mount the tripod to the lense not the camer as to Much strain to the mounts between the camera and lense would cause damage over time. « Show Less
1577240
Yes, without a doubt. I'd guess about twenty five percent smaller. The image quality is about on par with the 12-60, but it focuses slower, unless you get the second edition of the 14-54. Good luck.
1577241
Not really, its about .5 inches longer and it has a 72 mm filter tread vs the 67mm of the 14-54, this gives you 2 mm more on the wide end and 6 on the longer end, as for weight it its heavy but quite comfortable to handle, so if you have the budget go for it, it will mean not having to buy another wide lens (as the 11-22) and that means some important weight savings
2120275
I own both lenses, but the 12-40 (24-80 in 35mm terms) with its constant f2.8 aperture and 24mm viewing angle of 84º makes it more useful to me. Statistically and chart-wise, I'm certain the 12-40 would beat the 14-45, but I've found the latter to be quite competent when used. "Mind-blowing" would not be accurate. You'd be hard-pressed to see a visual difference (unless you're an extreme pixel-peeper).
2175608
You will get more coverage with the 14. I have the lens and I am very impressed with image qulity and the minimal distortion from such a wide lens...its still not cheap but is a great lens.
301034
The newer 14-140mm gives you a great range. It's what I carry when I am hiking.
1053341
I have the Olympus and it hs worked well for me due to the shock proof aspect and the waterproof. I dropped it twice on a trip once in the water and it is still like new. I have not used it for diving yet but have a friend that has and her photos were great. I will be diving with it in a couple of weeks.
1069240
I not used the earlier model, but Olympus claims that the 75-300mm is an improved version. All of the review say the same. It is a good lens, especially considering the small size and weight. A couple of tips: avoid shooting at either widest or longest zoom (shoot at 80-275mm), shoot at f8 and use a tripod or monopod to steady the shot and it takes very good images.
557614
Hi, It didn't make such a big difference. I thought it would let in more light and also help with taking closer shots, but it did marginally. I never ever use my other 14-42mm lens though, because this one is so small and does the job of the other one anyway. So I would get it if you also want to have a smaller lens that you will keep on for most of the time.
721915
For me, if I could only take one lens on a trip, it would be a choice between the Panasonic 12-35 and the 14-140. If I want better low light capability, I take the 12-35. If I know I will need greater zoom flexibility for sports or wildlife subjects, I will take the 12-35.
978672
I chose the Olympus 25 mm over the LUMIX 20 mm because of focal length, just a little more flexibility, and price. Difference in speed was inconsequential.
1823885
It is a bit of a subjective answer, but yes it is better due to the larger 4/3 image sensor and ability to change lenses. It really comes down to which features are important to you.
36978
I was in a similar situation, and after trying all the options for a few weeks decided on the primes mostly for size and weight reasons. This lens is tiny for an f/2.8 zoom, but it is big and heavy compared to most other m4/3 lenses.UPDATE: After my latest vacation, constantly switching between primes, I've reconsidered my decision. I sold two of my primes and got the 12-40 again.
763550
Hi, actaually I have this lens and had the 16-50. I got the nex 6 last year and sold the 16-50 lens because I felt the pics came out better in the 18-55. The focus was better and pics seems crisp to me in 18-55. Yes it's much heavier and the smaller to travel with. 16-50 made it really nice to go our the city with.... But I just couldn't take a good pic with the 16-50. I got the 18-55 for about $100 used. So I'm happy.
870299
It's a zoom lens, to start with. The Canon is fixed focus, but the Olympus goes from 14-42 mm - wide angle to relatively normal viewing angle. You may get somewhat sharper pictures with the Canon (I don't know the specs, the difference is probably not very noticeable unless you go to a high enlargement) but the versatility of zooms makes them more attractive. The battle rages on the blogs which is best -a fixed prime or a flexible zoom. I go with zooms but pay premium. Since you didn't specify exactly which Canon lens this was, I guess you are talking about $200 vs $300, which is significant at this level, but becomes less so as you investigate high-end lenses. It's a zoom lens, to start with. The Canon is fixed focus, but the Olympus goes from 14-42 mm - wide angle to relatively normal viewing angle. You may get somewhat sharper pictures with the Canon (I don't know the specs, the difference is probably not very noticeable unless you go to a high enlargement) but the versatility of zooms makes them more attractive. The battle rages on the blogs which is best -a fixed prime or a flexible zoom. I go with zooms but pay premium. Since you didn't specify exactly which Canon lens this was, I guess you are talking about $200 vs $300, which is... » Read More It's a zoom lens, to start with. The Canon is fixed focus, but the Olympus goes from 14-42 mm - wide angle to relatively normal viewing angle. You may get somewhat sharper pictures with the Canon (I don't know the specs, the difference is probably not very noticeable unless you go to a high enlargement) but the versatility of zooms makes them more attractive. The battle rages on the blogs which is best -a fixed prime or a flexible zoom. I go with zooms but pay premium. Since you didn't specify exactly which Canon lens this was, I guess you are talking about $200 vs $300, which is significant at this level, but becomes less so as you investigate high-end lenses. « Show Less
1211480
Not really. The 45mm is 1 1/3 stops faster and also much smaller and lighter. I have both and prefer the 45mm for portraits.
1874047
It's a bit light in my opinion, and it would depend on what lens you would be using. I like my Bogen's (Manfrotto) for my DLSR's.
1380695
The new lens is smaller and lighter, performs just as well and is (or was) slightly less expensive. The downside is that is a tad slower at the long end --6.3 v. 5.6.
1276779
It has a very plastic feel to it. My 14-45mm does have a smoother zoom but I think a lot of that has to do with the rubber covering on the zoom ring, how much could that band have added to the production cost, pennies? I bought a collapsible Olympus 14-42mm and the feel of it's zoom mechanism is very smooth, but performance wise I think both of the Panasonics perform better on my G1s. I use the Oly on my GF3 because it is better balanced on the small camera. I thought the 14-42mm OIS Panasonic was replaced with a more recent model. Did you get the new model or the old model?