Leica D 14-50mm lens review

Full review at: http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Leica1450mm/ : A nine minute tour around the Leica D 14-50mm zoom lens by Gordon Laing, Editor of www.cameralabs.com. This demonstrates the only anti-shake option for existing Four Thirds cameras including the Olympus E-410. For complete results and sample images, please check out our full review by clicking the link at the start of this text.

Category:

Howto & Style

Tags:

• Leica
• 14-50mm
• lens
• Lumix
• L1
• Olympus
• E-410
• cameralabs

[ichirootaniguchi]

the whole "in body stabiization" marketing push is flawed.... think about it.

Image stabilization is NOT needed if you're shooting anything wider than 50mm unless you're a coffee addict.

lens stabilization is far better due to the fact that if a NEW IS system is out. you simply upgrade the lens. no need to fork out thousands more on a new body,

that is why the bigger companies have not moved to in body IS.

[cameralabs]

@ichirootaniguchi I disagree. What if you want do do a handheld half second exposure on, say, a wide angle lens - that would be impossible on a system without stabilisation, but it is possible on a system with stabilisation built into the body. IS is not just for long focal lengths - it's very useful for long exposures at wide focal lengths too.

[pingtran]

Why havent you reviewed the Leica D Lux 3 and 4?

[cameralabs]

@pingtran There's no point. They're rebadged Panasonic proiducts which I've already reviewed at cameralabs . com, and the demand for Leica is extremely small.

[xMandalorex]

Can you please tell me, what camera body is that ? looks retro ! thank's !

[cameralabs]

18 seconds into the video I tell you! It's a Panasonic L1.

[ordotrajanus]

He is so British, informative, well spoken and knowledgeable...

[MrCOLTSR2]

@cameralabs good point my friend..though a half sec exposure would i feel be pushing even an ISS lens!

[MrPlaystationboy]

audio transcribe ftw turn it on and go to 5:38  ''so im gonna do switch that stable aisan of again''

[fb8568]

Is it 4/3 mount instead of M4/3??

[ichirootaniguchi]

@souleateryo regardless of the 2x crop factor unless you are a coffee junkie you don't need IS/VR/OIS for anything shorter than 200mm.. in body IS is ridiculous

[souleateryo]

@ichirootaniguchi the 50mm has a 100mm equivalent on the camera

[PashaElectro]

Leica D 14-50mm is not a genuine Leica Lens, this a marketing trick

...Leica's Lens is more expensive than other analogical lens from Nikkor, Zeiss, Canon and others.

[ichirootaniguchi]

@McIntyreJack also. professionals have different needs to the regular consumer. that is why they are using primarily the Nikon/Canon/Fuji system for small format SLR use simply because they built what professionals actually need. olympus do make great cameras. and i do admit the in camera stabilizer can be handy. but out of my own experience (coming from film) i have never once needed IS at anything lower than 200mm (in low light), alot of other working photogs would say similar things........

[ichirootaniguchi]

@McIntyreJack yes they add up to a few thousand pounds but think about it. those lenses can be mounted on multiple bodies in turn saving you money in the long run. and as my point earlier. if a new IS system is upgraded. and you so desperately need it. then you would simply just sell the old lens (or trade it in) and get the upgrade. simple as that. no need for upgrading the complete body, if professionals truly needed built in IS the major companies would introduce it.

[ichirootaniguchi]

@cameralabs i do hand held exposures without the need for any stabilization whatso ever........ think about it this way. if IS was THAT important for most shooting sittuations. why don't professional medium format cameras have it? it's the same as to why they don't have live view and all the other bullshit that's introduced in lower level cameras.... i shoot for a living and i find that in body IS is not neccessary..... only regular consumers need this crap

[McIntyreJack]

@ichirootaniguchi Your 'if a new system is introduced' argument is flawed - its much cheaper to replace a £2000 body than even say... 3 of Canon's top lenses that could total up to £10000.