Great Stuff Peter
I hope you really enjoy it - I'm sure you will, those lenses are lovely (and I always loved my E3). Just one thing . . . where's that 12-60 for those lighter moments?
all the best
Not a question for me, but here's my take anyway:
Interestingly, the 12-60 is a lens that never fascinated me. Maybe it's because of the relatively slow aperture at the long end, maybe it's because the 14-35, the 11-22
and the 14-54/II are all sharper as well as having faster apertures.
I've come to the conclusion that that I have increasing problems accepting lenses with weaknesses.
Not because I'm a pixel peeper, but because I'm
not a pixel peeper. And I have a bad memory. I can't run around trying to remember that this lens isn't really sharp in the corners at 12mm and f/2.8, or this one shouldn't be extended beyond 220mm.
And I hate having to check images for sharpness, and then find that this really lovely shot can't be printed bigger than a thumbnail because the lower right corner looks like mud. (Unless of course it
is mud, which it is a number of the places where I take photos, but that's another advantage using Olympus: the lens and camera is mud, dust, water, marmalade as well as coffee resistant.)
It's so much simpler with a lens like the 14-35: It's sharp from 14mm to 35mm and from f/2.0 and up. Period. It does throw overboard most of what I've said the last few years about wanting a lightweight kit, but unless something sensational appears for m4/3 this year, it
is the sharpest standard zoom in town, and if you only count those that offer IS, it's very far ahead of any competition.
Which was one of the reasons for the start of this thread: a standard zoom that is sharp across the frame from f/2.0 and offers IS, offers so much advantage compared to the competition that the need to shoot at ISO 3200 or above mostly disappears. It's that simple.