Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Original 14-54 vs II

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Western NC
    Posts
    121
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)

    Default Original 14-54 vs II

    Okay, I'm usually only bored in winter, so I don't know what's come over me, but question:

    I had been loosely under the impression that the "II" versions of the Zuiko lenses were the more lightly-built ones, not weather-sealed, not as "good." But I was looking for a lens (that I don't really need), and found that the later version of the 14-54 sells at higher prices than the earlier one (like I had with my E-1). If someone can fill me in on the differences and which is considered better, I'd appreciate it. And, I can properly search for the lens...I don't need.
    No, I don't miss film...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Posts
    1,723
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 10 Times in 7 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Original 14-54 vs II

    The newer 14-54 is slightly reworked and still an HG-class lens. Main difference is added CDAF capability and the might have curved the aperture blades. Otherwise it's the same as the original.

    Cheers,

    Rick

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,145
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 117 Times in 102 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Original 14-54 vs II

    Not exactly. Focuses closer, ALMOST macro, and is very sharp close up. Has a bit less CA on the wide end. Focuses quicker. I had the old one and was glad to replace it. Still have it and use it on my E-M1 whenever I need anything short.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Posts
    1,723
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 10 Times in 7 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Original 14-54 vs II

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Bradley View Post
    Not exactly. Focuses closer, ALMOST macro, and is very sharp close up. Has a bit less CA on the wide end. Focuses quicker. I had the old one and was glad to replace it. Still have it and use it on my E-M1 whenever I need anything short.
    From specs I can find they're the same optical design with the same minimum focus distance and magnification (22cm/0.26x). The rework was primarily to function better in live view.

    old http://www.dpreview.com/products/oly...specifications
    new http://www.dpreview.com/products/oly...specifications

    I passed this one by for the 12-60, as I prefer a wider standard zoom and SWD is much faster (but not on most m4/3 bodies).

    Cheers,

    Rick

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,145
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 117 Times in 102 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Original 14-54 vs II

    I stand corrected.
    ... but I wonder if there are not some subtle changes in the glass. I was definitely under the impression that it worked better on the wide end (sharper and less CA) and was sharper close up. Could also be I had a bad copy of the I and a have a good copy of the II. Not worrying about it. I love the lens!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Posts
    1,723
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 10 Times in 7 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Original 14-54 vs II

    I'd think either is possible--sample variation or perhaps they used improved coating or assembly processes with the newer edition. The Lens Rental guy, Roger Cicala, has documented running changes to lenses the maker never mentions. Complicated beasties, especially zooms, and some have long production runs so the engineers probably fiddle with them over time (hopefully for the better!).

    Cheers,

    Rick

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    27
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 9 Times in 7 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Original 14-54 vs II

    Quote Originally Posted by zone6 View Post
    I had been loosely under the impression that the "II" versions of the Zuiko lenses were the more lightly-built ones, not weather-sealed, not as "good."
    "II" means that it's the second edition of the lens. Universally in the photo world this means that there have been improvements.

    Quote Originally Posted by zone6 View Post
    fill me in on the differences and which is considered better, I'd appreciate it.
    This review gives probably the best comparison. Summary: the 14-54ii uses CDAF (so will work as well on 4/3 cameras), is a bit sharper, and has less distortion.

    The 14-54ii also stops down slower, so is overall a faster lens:

    Name:  Olympus 14-54mm f2.8-3.5 maximum apertures v1 vs v2.png
Views: 104
Size:  4.7 KB

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Western NC
    Posts
    121
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)

    Default Re: Original 14-54 vs II

    Thanks. Now I gots homework to do; reacquainting myself with the difference between CDAF and PDAF. Still seems that this would be more of a function of the body than the lens, but...homework. And shopping, mebbe...
    No, I don't miss film...

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    27
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 9 Times in 7 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Original 14-54 vs II

    CDAF and PDAF are functions of the body, but how they work requires things from the lens. PDAF measures the distance to your subject and shoots the lens motor straight there in one swift motion. CDAF monitors the contrast as it moves the focus through the entire range. When it senses that the contrast is getting worse, it reverses direction until it senses that it's getting worse again when it once more reverses direction. It continues this until contrast doesn't improve any by reversing focus direction, essentially narrowing itself in on the perfect focus point. A camera that's using CDAF (like 4/3 in live view or 4/3) needs the lens motor to be able to go back and forth extremely fast in order to focus quickly. PDAF has no such need and the motor, although it goes in both directions, doesn't need to do so super-quickly. If you're using a 4/3 camera (and not live view focusing), then the 14-54 and the 14-54ii will focus at the same speed. If you use a 4/3 camera (excluding the E-M1), then the 14-54 will focus very slowly while the 14-54ii will move just as fast as it can on a 4/3 camera using live view.

    So the question about which lens to get depends a lot on what you're mounting it on as well as what bodies you imagine in its future.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NH, USA
    Posts
    2,592
    Thanks
    57
    Thanked 30 Times in 26 Posts
    Feedback Score
    13 (100%)

    Default Re: Original 14-54 vs II

    It's been a few years now, but if I remember correctly I got pretty angry after buying a used 14-54MkI instead of a new MkII and then later I learned that the MkI would not work as well on a m43 camera.

    Over the years before this, there had been NUMEROUS postings on this forum about the question of whether or not the MkII was worth the extra money, and not one had said anything about the difference on a m4/3 camera. This was BEFORE Olympus dropped their bomb and said they would no longer produce 4/3 lenses (which called into question the future of the entire 4/3 system). So then all of a sudden the performance of a 4/3 lens on a m4/3 camera became important.

    Anyway, I have tried the 14-54MkI on my new E-M10 camera and it autofocuses pretty well. I was pleasantly surprised. No doubt it is slower than the MkII, however.
    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

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Ayer, Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    4,655
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 25 Times in 22 Posts
    Feedback Score
    20 (100%)

    Default Re: Original 14-54 vs II

    Quote Originally Posted by RAH View Post
    It's been a few years now, but if I remember correctly I got pretty angry after buying a used 14-54MkI instead of a new MkII and then later I learned that the MkI would not work as well on a m43 camera.

    ...

    Anyway, I have tried the 14-54MkI on my new E-M10 camera and it autofocuses pretty well. I was pleasantly surprised. No doubt it is slower than the MkII, however.
    None of the classic 4/3rds lenses will do continuous focusing on anything but the E-M1.

    I've done about 200 shots with four of my 4/3rds lenses on my E-P2 (out of 2,600 total shots). The lenses were Olympus 14-54mm mark 1, Olympus 11-22mm, Olympus 50mm, and Sigma 30mm. I have not used these lenses on newer cameras. As I recall, focusing was on the slow side.

    Some of the original panasonic micro 4/3rds cameras would not auto focus a 14-54mm mark 1 at all. Presumably they will focus a 14-54mm mark 2.

    FWIW, the second to the last generation of classic 4/3rds cameras (E-420, E-450, E-520, E-600, E-620, E-30) could auto focus with the 14-54mm mark 2 in live view view mode, but for the 14-54mm mark 1, they would need to flip the mirror, and focus it using phase detect auto focus. Whether live view focusing was usable on those bodies depends on your patience, as the live view focusing was glacial. The E-5 can auto focus the 14-54mm mark 1 in live view mode (I know, because I use it on my steampunk cameras incorporating the E-5), though it still is on the slow side.

    To be complete, there are two other changes that I recall between the 14-54mm mark 1 and 14-54mm mark 2. The first is they changed the design of the lens hood, so the lens hood from mark 1 will not work on mark 2 and vice versa. The second is related to that in that the Olympus macro flash will not attach to the 14-54mm mark 2 (or the 50-200mm SWD mark 2 for that matter), since it used the original lens mount to attach to the lenses.
    Last edited by Michael Meissner; 07-06-2015 at 12:19 PM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,240
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 61 Times in 43 Posts
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default Re: Original 14-54 vs II

    IIRC, version II of the 14-54 has slightly reshaped iris leaves for a rounder, more pleasant out of focus rendering.

    G

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Western NC
    Posts
    121
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)

    Default Re: Original 14-54 vs II

    Wow, great information all, and a lot of things I wouldn't have considered.

    I have a 12-60 that's my mainstay lens. I'm looking at doing an IR conversion on an E-3, and thought about looking for a 14-54 mkI to leave on that body, if I could find one at the right price. Live view lets you see the IR image before you shoot, but it sounds like focusing would be slow with the the MkI. I suppose the question would be whether the speed of focusing was worth the extra cost. If I needed speed, I could just use the 12-60, I guess.

    Thanks for all the responses.
    No, I don't miss film...

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Western NC
    Posts
    121
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)

    Default Re: Original 14-54 vs II

    Okay. Update/further questions. I found I very nice MkI 14-54. Have IR converted the E-3. As expected, seems to work fine in standard AF after the conversion (and it did before). I'm not convinced that it works in live view, but I haven't had the time to try it that much. I do know that MF in live view is a crapshoot. So, am I doing something wrong, or is it not going to AF in live view?
    No, I don't miss film...

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NH, USA
    Posts
    2,592
    Thanks
    57
    Thanked 30 Times in 26 Posts
    Feedback Score
    13 (100%)

    Default Re: Original 14-54 vs II

    Quote Originally Posted by zone6 View Post
    I'm not convinced that it works in live view, but I haven't had the time to try it that much. I do know that MF in live view is a crapshoot. So, am I doing something wrong, or is it not going to AF in live view?
    I don't know what you mean. When you did try it, did it fail to focus at all (hunt back and forth and then stop without achieving focus)? From my experience with the MKI on an E-520 using Live View, it autofocuses fine, just slower than phase-detect (PD - viewfinder) AF. You can always use the Live View option to force it to use PD AF (flips the mirror down, etc). I think that is available on the E-3 (it is on the E-520).
    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

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Western NC
    Posts
    121
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)

    Default Re: Original 14-54 vs II

    I have to take it outside and try again, but unless it was just already at infinity and didn't need to focus, I don't remember it hunting at all. That was what threw me off, as I'm pretty sure my first Mk1 did focus in live view on the E30. I'll try again tomorrow and post up.
    No, I don't miss film...

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Ayer, Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    4,655
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 25 Times in 22 Posts
    Feedback Score
    20 (100%)

    Cool Re: Original 14-54 vs II

    It is a matter of semantics (by focus in live view mode, I meant using the Imager AF). The main documentation is pages 35-37 of the E-30 manual.

    Basically there are 3 modes:
    • Imager AF -- Focus is done with the main sensor in live view mode using contrast detect auto focus. Only compatible lenses will work with Imager AF. I do not know if the camera will refuse to operate if you choose Imager Af with a lens that doesn't support CD-AF, or if it will fail back to one of the other modes.
    • AF sensor -- Use the phase detect sensors embedded in the mirror (the mirror flips down to focus and then flips back up to shoot). You do not have access to the 1/2 press of the shutter to do focusing before shooting. You can use the AEL/AFL button to pre-focus.
    • Hybrid sensor -- This uses the main sensor in live view mode to get approximate focus for 1/2 press of the shutter, and then to take the picture, it flips the mirror down, focuses with phase detect AF, and then flips the mirror back up.


    Page 139 shows where the selection mechanism is for the focus modes in the menus.

    IIRC, the lenses that support contrast detect AF are:
    • Olympus 9-18mm
    • Olympus 14-42mm (I think you need to update firmware on the lens)
    • Olympus 40-150mm mark 2 (I think you need to update firmware on the lens, note mark 1 lens does not support CD-AF)
    • Olympus 70-300mm
    • Olympus 14-54mm mark 2
    • Olympus 25mm pancake
    • Panasonic 25mm
    • Panasonic 14-50mm mark 2 (i.e. the lens that shipped with the L10, not the lens that shipped with the L1)
    • Panasonic 14-150mm

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NH, USA
    Posts
    2,592
    Thanks
    57
    Thanked 30 Times in 26 Posts
    Feedback Score
    13 (100%)

    Default Re: Original 14-54 vs II

    So you're saying that the 14-54I will not use contrast detect AF in Live View mode - it always uses AF sensor or Hybrid? I am not doubting you, it's just that I haven't used this stuff in about 3 years and don't remember the ins and outs using different lenses.

    Of course, with a m43 camera like my E-M10, when you mount a 14-54I, it has to use contrast detect, because that's all the camera has. It actually works pretty well, which surprised me. Not as well as the 4/3 9-18, but still pretty well (much better than an Oly 40-150, which was TERRIBLE - about a 3 second wait!)
    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

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Ayer, Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    4,655
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 25 Times in 22 Posts
    Feedback Score
    20 (100%)

    Cool Re: Original 14-54 vs II

    Note, I'm going from the documentation, as I never had the appropriate cameras (E-420, E-450, E-520, E-600, E-620, and E-30).

    There were 3 generations of classic Olympus 4/3rds DSLRS with live view:
    • The first generation (E-410, E-520, and E-3) did not have the ability to auto focus at all in live view mode. If you wanted the camera to auto focus before you took the shot, you would have to press the AEL/AFL button, and it would flip the mirror, focus, and flip it back. When taking the shot, it would always flip the mirror, focus, and flip it back.
    • The second generation (E-420, E-450, E-520, E-600, E-620, and E-30) had the ability to auto focus using the main sensor with CD-AF lenses (using the imager AF), and with hybrid mode, it could get close with non CD-AF lenses, and then flip the mirror to finish the focusing job (using Hybrid AF).
    • The third generation (E-5) used the focusing that would be used in the E-P1 and E-P2. It could auto focus with almost any lens in live view mode, though it was faster with CD-AF lenses. Some lenses however where so slow at focusing that Olympus recommended using manual focusing or S-AF+MF (the 150mm f/2 lens is one that I recall off the top of my head)

    So, if your camera can focus with the 14-54mm mark 1 in live view mode, either the documentation is wrong, you changed the defaults somewhere along the way, or the camera silently falls back to hybrid mode if you attach a non-CDAF lens.

    From the documentation, the key thing is what happens if you 1/2 press the shutter button? If it auto-focuses, it probably is using Hybrid mode. If it doesn't, then it is using AF sensor mode.

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Michael Meissner For This Useful Post:

    RAH (08-23-2015),zone6 (08-24-2015)

  21. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Western NC
    Posts
    121
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)

    Default Re: Original 14-54 vs II

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Meissner View Post
    Note, I'm going from the documentation, as I never had the appropriate cameras (E-420, E-450, E-520, E-600, E-620, and E-30).

    There were 3 generations of classic Olympus 4/3rds DSLRS with live view:
    • The first generation (E-410, E-520, and E-3) did not have the ability to auto focus at all in live view mode. If you wanted the camera to auto focus before you took the shot, you would have to press the AEL/AFL button, and it would flip the mirror, focus, and flip it back. When taking the shot, it would always flip the mirror, focus, and flip it back.


    And there is the answer. This is an E-3, so it's not going to focus in live view, and I'm not gonna either. Screen's too small for manual focus. Thanks much!
    No, I don't miss film...

  22. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Ayer, Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    4,655
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 25 Times in 22 Posts
    Feedback Score
    20 (100%)

    Default Re: Original 14-54 vs II

    Quote Originally Posted by zone6 View Post
    And there is the answer. This is an E-3, so it's not going to focus in live view, and I'm not gonna either. Screen's too small for manual focus. Thanks much!
    For some reason, I thought we were talking about the E-30, and not E-3. As I said, you can use the AEL/AFL button to get the camera to flip the mirror to phase detect auto focus/optical viewfinder, do the focus action, and then flip back. Before getting the E-5, I did this in my steampunk camera setup (see my icon photo), which runs the cameras in live view mode all of the time. Getting the 1/2 press of the shutter button (or RM-CB1) was one of the reasons I eventually sprung for the E-5.
    Last edited by Michael Meissner; 08-24-2015 at 03:40 PM.

  23. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Western NC
    Posts
    121
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)

    Default Re: Original 14-54 vs II

    No, I muddied it up when I said that I'd used Live View on the E-30 that I used to have, not the E-3 that I converted to IR and was trying to figure out focus on. Mah bad.
    No, I don't miss film...

  24. #23
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Barbados
    Posts
    1,393
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 26 Times in 19 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Original 14-54 vs II

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	P9060563.jpg 
Views:	96 
Size:	366.5 KB 
ID:	49427I bought the Mk1 when the Mk2 was released as it was on sale at a very good price, and as far as I know the differences were the focus motor and the curved aperture blades.
    I use this lens as my travelling lens on my E5 as I find that the 14-35 is too bulky,l especially when walking/hiking.
    Admittedly this lens will hunt for focus sometimes even on a sunny day, and I suspect that the mk2 might be better in this regard, but generally I am very happy with this lens.
    I think, however, I would go for the mk2 if this is going to be your main lens.
    I have attached a shot taken withn mk1 on a very recent trip to the UK.

    Regards

    Guy

  25. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Ayer, Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    4,655
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 25 Times in 22 Posts
    Feedback Score
    20 (100%)

    Default Re: Original 14-54 vs II

    Note the claimed improvements in the focusing were only for contrast detect auto focusing. So on the E-5, you would expect the focusing to be faster when using live view on the E-5. Since the E-5's live view focusing is pretty slow any way (even with CD-AF lenses), it probably won't matter much to E-5 users. Pen and OM-D users (other than E-M1) may see some performance improvements.

Posting Permissions

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