Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: 14-54 MkII vs MkI

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    90
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default 14-54 MkII vs MkI

    I am definitely going to get one of these lenses in the very near future. Price is an issue, I would get either one used - but I'm wondering whether the MkII warrants the extra 2 or 300$.

    What are the differences between these two lenses? I can't find the info anywhere. Any help would be appreciated.

    Thanks!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    532
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)

    Default Re: 14-54 MkII vs MkI

    The Mk. II has...

    Circular aperture blades
    Auto Focus in Live View
    Slightly different aperture change through the zoom range


    That's about it. From there, only you can decide if it's worth it.
    - Joe
    http://www.silversx80.smugmug.com
    E-M5 -- 12-50 -- 45 f/1.8 -- 17 f/2.8
    E-PL1 -- m.14-42mm -- m.40-150mm
    OM-10 -- Zuiko 50mm f/1.4 -- Zuiko 70-150mm f/4 -- Tamron 200mm f/3.5 -- Makinon 28mm f/2.8


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Jerusalem, Israel.
    Posts
    1,393
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: 14-54 MkII vs MkI

    I had an MkI and now an MKII.
    the only reason that i bought the MKII, was that one of friends who wanted the MKI and the great deal on the E-30 kit in December.

    the MKII have a much faster focus on LV
    and as mentioned, Circular aperture blades which means a nicer bokeh.
    other then that i haven't seen any difference in performance.
    if these are important for you then go and get it.

    Assaf

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Honolulu, HI
    Posts
    404
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    19 (100%)

    Default Re: 14-54 MkII vs MkI

    Isn't the MkII CDAF compatible and the MkI isn't?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    texas usa
    Posts
    23
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)

    Default Re: 14-54 MkII vs MkI

    i think you're right about the cdaf

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    2,512
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)

    Default Re: 14-54 MkII vs MkI

    The difference in aperture (more circular on newer model) is very minimal. I don't think that alone is worth $200 more. What makes it worth $200 more is if you're a live view shooter. Then there is no comparison, you'd be insane to buy the old one and try to use the clunky live view that has to flip the mirror back and forth in order to AF. For me, I never use live view with AF, I only use it with old MF lenses, so CDAF focusing is not important to me, so I would certainly not buy the new one.
    -Mark
    E-PL2 | WCON-07 | 14mm F2.5 | 20mm F1.7 | Pentax 25mm F1.4 | 35mm F1.7 c-mount | FL-50 | MA1 | SEMA-1

    OM-2n | 28mm F3.5 | 50mm F1.4 | 135mm F3.5 | Sigma 600mm F8 | T-20 | 2x Vivitar 2800

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NH, USA
    Posts
    2,592
    Thanks
    57
    Thanked 30 Times in 26 Posts
    Feedback Score
    13 (100%)

    Default Re: 14-54 MkII vs MkI

    I have the MkI. I agree with Mark that the most important difference is the CDAF that the MKII adds. I operate like him, in that I almost always use MF with Live View. I use it for closeups and shots where I have a lot of time and want to be sure focus is exactly correct. So CDAF isn't all that important to me.

    However, I don't agree with Mark that the Hybrid AF is so terrible you'd have to be insane to use it. It does a lot of flapping, but so does taking a regular viewfinder picture. I find that on those occasions where I use Live View and AF, the Hybrid mode isn't all that painful. And CDAF can be painfully slow, so you pick your poison. Just my opinion.

    But the original poster can try it for himself - I'd suggest trying Hybrid mode with AF if he has a lens that is not CDAF-ready (actually, I think you could force it to use Hybrid by setting the camera that way, even with a new kit lens), and see how bothersome he finds it. Or, of course, ask himself whether he uses AF with Live View.

    For myself, the $200+ more to get a NEW 14-54 MKII as opposed to a used MKI made me go with the MKI.

    By the way, there are NUMEROUS postings in this forum about this topic. You'll probably have better luck finding them if you search for "54mm" (no quotes). You need the letters to get it to work well on this forum.
    Rich
    Olympus E-M10; Panasonic GM5
    m4/3 lenses: Oly 75-300; Oly 14-42 f3.5-5.6 II R; Oly 17 f1.8; Oly 40-150 f4.0-5.6 R; Oly WCON-P01 adapter; Rokinon f7.5 fisheye; Sigma 19 f2.8; Pan 20 f1.7; Pan 12-35 f2.8; Pan 12-32

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,128
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    9 (100%)

    Default Re: 14-54 MkII vs MkI

    The diameters of the front of the lens barrell and the lens hood are larger on the MKII, I think its also a little longer with the lens hood on. I tested a MKI against a MKII and could not see any difference in image quality -- but of course that result applies only to the two samples I had. I kept the MKI and returned the MKII because I preferred the slightly smaller size of the MK I, and I didn't need the CDAF capability of the MK II. I think there's a fairly long thread about my decision on the forum.
    ODM
    ----------------
    Recent photos: http://www.ahfairley.com/gallery/index.html
    http://www.facebook.com/album.php?ai...2&l=fad9c02a1f
    E-10, E-M5, 20mm, PZ 14-42mm

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    90
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default Re: 14-54 MkII vs MkI

    Thanks everyone for your input. Since I rarely shoot with live view and the delay associated with the mirror flip doesn't really bother me when I do, I have decided to go with a MkI. Should be here soon!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Staffordshire
    Posts
    1,228
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    Default Re: 14-54 MkII vs MkI

    I think you'll find that all current Oly DSLRs except for the E-3 (which doesn't support Imager-AF) flip the mirror when focusing off the sensor. This is because of the integration between the mirror and shutter mechanism. So ATM Hybrid-AF has no real disadvantage over Imager-AF apart from being tied to the cameras real AF points and has the advantage of working with all ZD lenses.
    Best wishes

    Paul

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •