Why spend $100 more for this lense combination Can someone explain why I would want to spend $100 morefor 17mm vs 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 Zuiko Digital Zoom
992070
It's also a smaller lens more in keeping with the idea of the compact camera. I ordered the kit with the 17mm since it includes the hotshoe finder so it's a better deal purchasing the 14-42mm lens separately than the other way around.
992071
It's the same price whichever way you add them up. Kit with 17mm and optical view finder (899.99) + the 14-42 lens (299.99) = 1199.98. Kit with 14-42 lens (799.99) + 17mm lens (299.99) = optical view finder (99.99) = 1199.97. Okay so it's one cent cheaper.But yes, I agree I like the compact look of the 17mm lens
992072
It's a prime lens and a faster lens. It also comes with the view finder, which sold separately, is retailing for $100.
591604
I have that exact combo and absolutely love it. Unfortunately, I can't compare it to the Olympus 17mm, but I can tell you it is a fantastic lens!
354388
The 14-42 covers 28mm to 84mm. The 17mm covers 34mm. Lower the number the wider of the shot. The advantages are it's smaller and has a faster aperture. Which means a shallower depth of field and it's better in low light. You can't zoom with the 17mm as it's a prime lens. The two lenses compliment each other, not replace each other. Each serve a different purpose.
173415
If it were me, and if I I had to choose between them - I'd begin with the 14-45mm that you can still get new from Japan if you look around and get it for a reasonable price when they pop us from certain sellers. IMHO the 14-45 is a MUCH sharper lens than the 14-42. There is usually one or two 14-45 available "used" as an Amazon Warehouse deal, but I've found them to be new item returns in excellent condition and have had good really luck when I've ordered "used" from Amazon Warehouse on these lenses (especially when ordering micro 4/3 vs. taking a chance on a used Canon or Nikon lens). If it were me, and if I I had to choose between them - I'd begin with the 14-45mm that you can still get new from Japan if you look around and get it for a reasonable price when they pop us from certain sellers. IMHO the 14-45 is a MUCH sharper lens than the 14-42. There is usually one or two 14-45 available "used" as an Amazon Warehouse deal, but I've found them to be new item returns in excellent condition and have had good really luck when I've ordered "used" from Amazon Warehouse on these lenses (especially when ordering micro 4/3 vs. taking a chance on a used Canon... » Read More If it were me, and if I I had to choose between them - I'd begin with the 14-45mm that you can still get new from Japan if you look around and get it for a reasonable price when they pop us from certain sellers. IMHO the 14-45 is a MUCH sharper lens than the 14-42. There is usually one or two 14-45 available "used" as an Amazon Warehouse deal, but I've found them to be new item returns in excellent condition and have had good really luck when I've ordered "used" from Amazon Warehouse on these lenses (especially when ordering micro 4/3 vs. taking a chance on a used Canon or Nikon lens). « Show Less
790657
Mainly price. The Rokinon lenses are very good. I own a 35 and 24 Rokinon as well as some Canons. I think they perform extremely well.
923249
This probably is not helpful: I'm delighted with the 45-175mm, but I got it for a steal as an Amazon lightning deal for just under $200. Buying was a no-brainer. So the only real advice I can offer is to be extremely patient and keep your eyes open for a great deal on the 45-175mm.
608746
I have both of these and they are excellent lenses. This is my profession and it I were to choose go with the 17-70, unless you don't need the extra reach and you mostly work in low light.
356777
It depends on what $200 is worth to you. Assuming you just have the 18-55mm for a season, will the loss of pictures zoomed between and including 1x to 2x in addition to the ability to get that without changing lens with the higher quality of extra low dispersion (ED), be less than $200 to you?
8522
Hardy,Thanks for the info about getting better lenses. I just "bit the bullet" and bought the 24-105mm L lens. I have heard this same wise advice from other photographers, and I am looking forward to getting sharper photos with the new lens, and I will try to get only L lenses from now on. In the end, you truly get what you pay for.
369532
Generally, zoom's with a large range tend to be not so good at one end or the other.If you can afford it, go with the body only, and then buy 2 better lenses, such as an 18-50-ish wide-normal, and a 70-something telephoto.Don't forget third-party lenses such as Tamron or Sigma. Unfortunately, Nikon has their VR stabilization in the lens, so you pay more for them.
2054211
The 50mm is actually more "zoomed out," and is therefore probably more functional for indoor family stuff. The 85 is awesome but isn't going to give you anything other than close-ups if you are standing inside of 15-20 feet from the subject.If versatility is your goal, I would strongly suggest something like Sigma 17-35 zoom. I think that's about F/1.8 as well. Same price range. That gives you the flexibility of zooming way out for wide-angle group shots and then back in for relative close-ups.
916480
It depends on what you like to shoot. I am a novice to the photography game and I have several lenses in my arsenal. I own the 100mm macro, 17-40mm L, 17-55mm, 70-200mm f4L and the 50mm 1.8. My favorite two are the 100mm macro and the 70-200. Both give me sharp crisp images. I tend not to use the 50mm much any more. If I needed that focal lenght I would chose the 17-55 which is fast, great in low and the images are superb. For a general vacation lens combo, I take the 17-55 and the 70-200mm.
923246
I too have the 45-175. Keep an eye out prices vary all the time. If you see a 'great deal' (especially used) GRAB IT. That is true for all items on Amazon. Now, you have three lenses and you must have a kit lens with your G5? If you have a bare G5 then none of these is my best advice, you will not like how 45mm (effectively 90mm) is not nearly 'wide' enough for close up shots... So, assuming you have a 14-42 and this is your SECOND lens you have price and age to decide. lowest cost (and low weight) is the newest 45-150 (2012). Best overall range, in my biased opinion, is the 45-175 (2011) Significantly older and middle of the three pricewise (and much heavier and larger) is the 45-200 (2008). Really, like someone else said, just keep checking (sometimes the price will change significantly during a day), I got my 45-175 for 192 and change last June. Best of luck!
1850113
Yes, is it worth it. My opinion is no. I actually returned my lens and purchased 3 primes for around the same price range. I had the lens for about 2 weeks and returned it for a 50mm1.8, 85mm 1.8 and 28mm 1.8 and do not regret it at all. Total for all 3 lens 1410.85. And I love them.
2272239
It wouldn't be either better or worse. That would depend mainly on your apature settings. The 18-140mm allows a weirder zoom range. Your best bet is to find This for cheaper:Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX ED VR Nikkor Wide-Angle Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon DSLR Cameras
2054216
The 50mm is actually more "zoomed out," and is therefore probably more functional for indoor family stuff. The 85 is awesome but isn't going to give you anything other than close-ups if you are standing inside of 15-20 feet from the subject. If versatility is your goal, I would strongly suggest something like Sigma 17-35 zoom. I think that's about F/1.8 as well. Same price range. That gives you the flexibility of zooming way out for wide-angle group shots and then back in for relative close-ups.
608750
i don't understand your question. i'm guessing that you want to know which one is the best choice. the best one will depend on what you do. i got the 17-70 because i notice that most of my photos will be shoot at between 18 and 80mm. i didn't want to switch between the kit lenses all the time.. also i wanted a bigger lens diameter for holding filters. i notice that that 17-50 is 77mm when my 17-70 is only 72mm.