PDA

View Full Version : Lens dilema - which to get rid of


al_kaholik
7th August 2012, 12:29 PM
I need a 14-54. It is as simple as that. I love the 14-42 but want a touch more at the tele end. I'm pretty sure that the 12-60 is out of my budget and think for what I want the 14-54 would be well suited.

However to finance this I'm going to have to sell some other lenses, so if it were you, which would you sell?

17.5-45 - Since I've got the 14-42 its not had a look in, though people claim it has mystical macro power.

40-150 - I've never used this lens and been happy. I'm not sure whether it is me or whether there is a problem with the lens, it seems very dark through the view finder and the resultant pictures suffer from the same fate. Perhaps I need to take it out and have another look, I like the idea of having a big zoom, I'm just not happy using it at the moment. at the wide end I've never taken a good clear shot

14-42 - Probably this is the one that is destined to be replaced by the 14-54 as the standard walk around. I can't see any reason to justify keeping this once I get some bigger and faster glass.

---

And following this dilema is the next, should I go for a mk1 or a mk2?

And what is a fair price for these lenses? All have been well taken care of, no scratches, and all accessories with them.

I'm looking to get one ASAP or I'll be hiring one or two for my Paralympic trip.

HELP!

A now disappearing down the tunnel to work, Al

benvendetta
7th August 2012, 12:36 PM
I would ditch the two 'standard' kit zooms. The Mk1 40-150 is better than the Mk2 but I don't know which version you have.
I have recently bought a 12-60 and my 14-54 Mk1 is now up for sale. Hint hint!

DJMC
7th August 2012, 02:03 PM
I too have a 17.5-45 for its macro virtues but have still to use it for such. However, you won't get much for it as they go for 20-ish on ebay.

The 14-42, as you say, won't get used once you have the 14-54 so sell it for around 50.

You have the MkI 40-150 f:3.5-4.5 which is supposed to be 'better' than the Mk2. It's around the same size as the 14-54. Keep it if you need longer reach, or sell it for around 65.

I had the MkI 14-54 and never saw much advantage of the MkII on my E-1 at double the price. I think the body you're using (E-410?) has some bearing on whether the MkII holds the advantage. Someone will advise soon...

MkI 14-54 should be around 175, MkII double that. Your budget may dictate the former?

;)

Ian Grego
7th August 2012, 02:33 PM
Hello

I had a 14-54 mark II for sale on the forum upto Sunday but now it is on eBay. If you are interested.

Ian

DJMC
7th August 2012, 02:50 PM
Hello

I had a 14-54 mark II for sale on the forum upto Sunday but now it is on eBay. If you are interested.

Ian

There are quite a few on ebay Ian. Maybe post a link so he can have a look-see at yours?

:)

al_kaholik
9th August 2012, 10:55 AM
Thanks for the advice so far guys. Budget isn't really an issue... But I just can't justify dropping big money on a lens. I've convinced myself that a 12-60 is something that I shouldn't stretch to at the moment, and that a 14-54 would be the right lens.

Mk1 vs mk2 all I can see is that the mk2 has more blades giving better blurry backgrounds. Should I really be bothered about this? Probably not.

An eq. zoom of 108mm should be fine for my walk around - it doesn't match my old Ricoh at that end but does at the wide which is where I'm usually using it and loved/bought that camera for. I have the 40-150 with me today as I take a stroll out th Stratford to capture some more of my team in the act of front line duties. Its a wonderfully sunny day and thus perfect conditions to determine what is going on with that lens.

sponner
9th August 2012, 01:22 PM
I haven't used a 14-54 so cannot comment on which to get. The 12-60 is noticeably sharper than the kit lenses and all the reviews suggest the 14-54 comes very close so I would expect either model to be a very worthwhile upgrade.

Slightly off topic but I never got on with the 40-150 either (although I have seen some cracking shots on here with that lens). I am utterly blown away with the image quality I am getting from a second hand 50-200 non swd lens I recently picked up for 315 off ebay. Across the range I am getting a high proportion of really sharp shots, I would think it would be perfect for a sporting event and would consider hiring that rather than a short zoom for the Olympics.

Mine hasn't been off the camera since I bought it and I will be selling the 70-300 soon as, although good, the 50-200 is so much better.

al_kaholik
9th August 2012, 01:42 PM
Not just me then :) I might look at the 50-200 as a hire if I can't get a shot with the 40-150 that I'm happy with today. Only time will tell.

Anyone got opinions further on the 14-54 mk1 vs mk2? Am I going to get any AF speed benefit on my e410? Should I just get a mk1?... decisions decisions!

richardlongley
11th August 2012, 11:40 AM
Is the 40-150mm a MKII ?

If it is, change it and get the MKI

danellis
12th August 2012, 10:56 AM
How can one tell the difference between the two, Richard?

dJE

benvendetta
12th August 2012, 03:03 PM
For a start the mk1 is physically larger.

David M
12th August 2012, 03:22 PM
Mk1 has a metal lens mount, mk2 has a plastic lens mount.

richardlongley
12th August 2012, 04:27 PM
MK1 is f/ 3.5-4.5

MK 2 is f/ 4.0-5.6

danellis
13th August 2012, 12:37 PM
Thanks, guys :)

dJE

al_kaholik
13th August 2012, 01:01 PM
Ok, I have the 40-150 mk1 but we'll see what happens. A parcel turned up today right on que as I was leaving the house (late start today). Someone is a very happy chappy!

al_kaholik
14th August 2012, 06:20 PM
Done a bit of testing today, exif data is in the description

me issues or lens issues?

Thanks all

http://www.flickr.com/photos/atb321/sets/72157631068094508/

On a lighter note, some very good shots with the 14-54. Impressed, very impressed

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8289/7782742508_36d1d4613f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/atb321/7782742508/)
Rose (http://www.flickr.com/photos/atb321/7782742508/) by a_t_b321 (http://www.flickr.com/people/atb321/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8304/7782739504_6d32909fb0_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/atb321/7782739504/)
Oak (http://www.flickr.com/photos/atb321/7782739504/) by a_t_b321 (http://www.flickr.com/people/atb321/), on Flickr

benvendetta
14th August 2012, 09:12 PM
Done a bit of testing today, exif data is in the description

me issues or lens issues?

Thanks all

http://www.flickr.com/photos/atb321/sets/72157631068094508/

On a lighter note, some very good shots with the 14-54. Impressed, very impressed

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8289/7782742508_36d1d4613f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/atb321/7782742508/)
Rose (http://www.flickr.com/photos/atb321/7782742508/) by a_t_b321 (http://www.flickr.com/people/atb321/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8304/7782739504_6d32909fb0_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/atb321/7782739504/)
Oak (http://www.flickr.com/photos/atb321/7782739504/) by a_t_b321 (http://www.flickr.com/people/atb321/), on Flickr

Glad you are enjoying the lens Al!