Anyone out there use the Zuiko f/2.0 14-35?

RovingEyePhoto

Anyone out there use the Zuiko f/2.0 14-35mm (equiv 28-70)? I'm considering one for my Oly E-3. I have a practically unused Zuiko f/4 7-14mm (equiv 14-28) for trade, bought new, mounted maybe 5 times the year I've owned it, less than 50 snaps, so expect I'll be in after trade for less than $1,000. Anyone interested in buying the 7-14? Price would be less than you'd pay used from a retailer and more than I'll get in trade, somewhere in between, a good deal for both of us.

I'll make my own "heft" test, the 14-35 is a brick, but only roughly 1" longer and 2/3 lb heavier than the Zuiko f/2.8-4.0 12-60mm (equiv 24-120) I use now, and physical balance should be pretty good on the already brickish E-3 body. The speed gain is slightly over a full stop at equiv 28mm (12-60 comes in at f/2.9) and almost 2 stops at equiv 70mm (12-60 is f/3.7), so trading-up is tempting. Most of my modeled street work is at equiv 28-60mm, so what I'm losing in longer equiv FL isn't of much significance, and in-body IS works the same no matter which lens I use. Maybe worth the effort. Thoughts? If you've used the 14-35, would love to hear about it.

Many thanks for taking the time.

TonyL

RovingEyePhoto wrote:

Anyone out there use the Zuiko f/2.0 14-35mm (equiv 28-70)? I'm considering one for my Oly E-3. I have a practically unused Zuiko f/4 7-14mm (equiv 14-28) for trade, bought new, mounted maybe 5 times the year I've owned it, less than 50 snaps, so expect I'll be in after trade for less than $1,000. Anyone interested in buying the 7-14? Price would be less than you'd pay used from a retailer and more than I'll get in trade, somewhere in between, a good deal for both of us.

I'll make my own "heft" test, the 14-35 is a brick, but only roughly 1" longer and 2/3 lb heavier than the Zuiko f/2.8-4.0 12-60mm (equiv 24-120) I use now, and physical balance should be pretty good on the already brickish E-3 body. The speed gain is slightly over a full stop at equiv 28mm (12-60 comes in at f/2.9) and almost 2 stops at equiv 70mm (12-60 is f/3.7), so trading-up is tempting. Most of my modeled street work is at equiv 28-60mm, so what I'm losing in longer equiv FL isn't of much significance, and in-body IS works the same no matter which lens I use. Maybe worth the effort. Thoughts? If you've used the 14-35, would love to hear about it.

Many thanks for taking the time.

I have not used the 14-35 but heard its hit or miss with AF.
I do use the 35-100 and that lens is incredible! I use that and the original 14-54mm for my weddings.

RovingEyePhoto

cadguru wrote:

I have not used the 14-35 but heard its hit or miss with AF.
I do use the 35-100 and that lens is incredible! I use that and the original 14-54mm for my weddings.

Glad to receive your comment, since AF is critical for me. Older eyes don't do so well with manual focus assist. One would think with that the f/2 wider aperture would result in better AF, not worse, more light coming in for contrast measurement. I have a lot of research to do before making any kind of leap. My particular need is speed, the 12-60's f/2.8-4 just doesn't give me the near-dim-light AF (dkim but not so dim that AF assist strobe is triggered) or bokeh control I'd like. still get fine results, just always looking for better. I understand the 35-100 is excellent, good luck with that. Thanks for the assist.

TonyL

RovingEyePhoto wrote:

Glad to receive your comment, since AF is critical for me. Older eyes don't do so well with manual focus assist. One would think with that the f/2 wider aperture would result in better AF, not worse, more light coming in for contrast measurement. I have a lot of research to do before making any kind of leap. My particular need is speed, the 12-60's f/2.8-4 just doesn't give me the near-dim-light AF (dkim but not so dim that AF assist strobe is triggered) or bokeh control I'd like. still get fine results, just always looking for better. I understand the 35-100 is excellent, good luck with that. Thanks for the assist.

some say the af was greatly improved with the latest firmware.
I would see what the folks are saying at dpreview.....some love it, but some say they are still disappointed.

If I had to choose, I still would take the 35-100mm. It is tack sharp.
The f2.0 50mm hunts as well, but makes a good portrait lens (I use that too)

RovingEyePhoto

cadguru wrote:

some say the af was greatly improved with the latest firmware.
I would see what the folks are saying at dpreview.....some love it, but some say they are still disappointed.

If I had to choose, I still would take the 35-100mm. It is tack sharp.
The f2.0 50mm hunts as well, but makes a good portrait lens (I use that too)

Thanks for the reminder of dpreview. I'll take a look.

I have the f/2 50 macro, love it.

On paper, the 14-35 fits exactly the niche I shoot. It's street, but with one controllable, a head-turning well-tutored mod. The genre is mobile, all hand-held, natural light, portrait or folded frame. The key is catching the prominent up-front pin-sharp mod portrait-like, amidst blur/movement of big city hustle/bustle in wide expanse. At least that's when I get it right, obviously doesn't always happen, mounds of uncontrollables. Lots of examples on Flickr, a few on SmugMug. You can see where the f/2 14-35 would sing in this mode. I'd shoot the lens mostly at 2.8, usually adequate DOF control there, but at 2.0 for even more bokeh and when I can't get adequate separation between model and surround. I don't need super fast AF, but do need pin-sharp, these old eyes can't compensate. The 12-60 does the job, but max aperture drops off pretty quickly as FL increases. At the fixed f/2 of the 14-35, however, well, that would be a different matter. But 14-35 AF is iffy, back to the drawing boards. We'll see.

swintonphoto

slrgear has a great review of the 14-35 2.0. I have a major craving for that lens.
Here is the link to the review:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1137/cat/15

RovingEyePhoto

swintonphoto wrote:

slrgear has a great review of the 14-35 2.0. I have a major craving for that lens.
Here is the link to the review:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1137/cat/15

Very fine review. Thanks for the lead.