Note of 2008: as of this update, the 14-45 mm ZD is no longer made, having been replaced with the compact 14-42 mm ZD (see the list below). The 14-54 mm ZD is, however, still in production, still remaining one of the more desirable Four Thirds lenses, even if facing a stiff competition from the 12-60 mm ZD (a great lens, but twice the price!).

Traditionally, a "standard" lens for a given frame format is one with the focal length equal to (or slightly larger than) the diagonal of the frame. In case of the 35-mm film, that diagonal is 43 mm, and F=50 mm is traditionally recognized as "standard"; for the Four Thirds system the corresponding focal length (providing the same angle of view) is half of that, i.e., 25 mm.

This focal length results in the perspective being most natural, especially when the final picture (print or screen image) is viewed from a distance close to the diagonal of the final size. This also means that this is the focal length most useful for most, if not all, shooting situations.

Predominance of zoom lenses changed the situation a bit. Photographers are becoming too lazy to walk closer to (or away from) the subject to get the proper framing; they often tend just to zoom in or out, and this is not the same. Worse, many users stay mostly at or near to one or the other end of the zoom lens focal length range, neglecting the useful middle.

Anyway, zoom lenses are here to stay, at least for the most general uses. Those with a focal length range centered around the "standard" value are often referred to as "standard" zooms. In terms of the EFL (equivalent focal length), a standard zoom will have a range from 28 or 35 mm to 70, 100, or even 140 mm. Extending this range from either end, although possible, comes at a price of smaller apertures, lower optical quality (resolution, vignetting, distortions), or both.

This article compares directly two "standard" zoom lenses from the Olympus Four Thirds line-up:

• 14-45 mm, F/3.5-5.6: the most common "economy" or "kit" lens for E-system cameras; it is usually bundled with the E-300, E-500, and E-330. The EFL range of 28-90 mm covers the angles useful in 85% of shooting situations, and, again, modest maximum apertures allowed the designers to achieve respectable image quality (more about that later).
• 14-54 mm, F/2.8-3.5: the mid-priced zoom, bundled with the E-1 (and, I can bet, with its upcoming successor), with slightly more of the long end, and wider maximum apertures.

I've been using them both extensively and, yes, I like them both, too. The real question is if the mid-priced version is worth the extra money, and if you are very impatient, you can jump straight to the Bottom Line section.

For the record: Olympus lists four more zooms which could be included into this group. (List updated in June, 2008):

• 14-42 mm, F/3.5-5.6; in 2007 it replaced the 14-45 ZD as the most common "kit" lens on Olympus SLRs. Very small and lightweight (61 mm long, 190 g), plastic bayonet, and surprisingly good resolution: equal to, or a tad better (at the long end) than the 14-45 mm ZD discussed here.

  For more on this lens, see my E-510 review and samples. (Note that the samples are from 10 MP frames, not 8 MP as those shown here.)

• 17.5-45 mm, F/3.5-5.6: this is the least expensive offering, originally sold only as a part of the E-500 kit on some markets. I haven't used this lens, but, at the EFL of 35-90 mm, with limited short end and modest maximum aperture, I would expect it to deliver images good enough for most uses.
• 14-35 mm, F/2.0: this lens, announced back in 2005, arrived to stores only in 2008 — a record for Olympus. With a constant aperture of F/2.0, it is quite big and heavy, with an impressive optical performance to match the price tag of $2200. (My original, 2006 guess of $1200 was way, way, below that!) I haven't used this lens yet, and I am not sure I will.
• 12-60 mm F/2.8-4.0 ZD ED SWD, which well may be the best "standard" zoom or any platform (at least below the "full" 24×36 mm frame). See my review to see why I think so. The lens debuted with the E-3 in 2007, and even if it is twice as expensive as the 14-54 mm ZD, it is worth the price.

There are a few other similar offerings, this time from Sigma and Leica/Panasonic — hheck my Four Thirds lens list.

The specs and what do they mean

Let us start from comparing the specs of both lenses, as provided by the manufacturer. The numbers in [] square brackets refer to my comments following the table.

1. The extra 20% at the long end is of some (if not substantial) advantage for the mid-priced model; 105 mm used to be one of the most popular lengths for portrait photography with 35-mm film cameras. But, most importantly, both lenses offer the wide-angle EFL of 28 mm, very useful!
2. These are nominal values, quoted after Olympus. The difference in maximum aperture is equivalent to about 0.6 EV at the wide end (more exactly, 1.56× exposure factor), and to 1.3 EV (2.56×) at the long one.
3. For the Four Thirds frame size, F/22 is as far, or ever further, than the diffraction effects allow before degrading the image sharpness. Usually I keep the aperture limited to F/11, or even F/8, closing the lens down even more only in a desperate need for more depth of field.
4. Olympus quotes the close-focusing distance measured from the sensor plane, as customary in traditional lens measurements. Some makers measure that from the front of the lens, as the numbers look more impressive this way.
5. I find the manual focus scale on the mid-priced lens close to useless. While it provides some visual feedback, its accuracy is questionable at best. The distance range between one meter and infinity takes less than 4 mm on the scale; and the whole range (22 cm to infinity) — just about 2.5 cm, or about 30° of angle.
6. More elements may provide better correction of lens aberrations, but this comes at a price: each additional glass surface is an extra source of internal reflections and flare. The real proof is in image quality, and this may vary.
7. Lens elements with aspherical surfaces are more efficient in controlling optical flaws, especially at wide apertures; low-dispersion glass can be used to reduce chromatic aberration. Both are more expensive to manufacture.

   Aspherical elements can be also made from molded plastic compounds: not quite the same, but "good enough" and cheaper. One of the downsides is that their optical properties may change with time. We do not know if any of the aspherical components of either lens are made this way.

8. In some lenses the front element rotates while zooming and/or focusing. By avoiding that, both Olympus lenses allow for easy use of tulip-shaped hoods (included with both) and polarizing filters.

   Neither of these lenses uses internal zooming or focusing, where both functions are performed without changing external lens dimensions. This feature, while nice to have, puts extra limitations on lens design and construction, so be it.

9. Filters are more expensive in the larger size, but we have to live with this.
10. True, the mid-priced lens somehow manages to look larger than it really is.

    The length as given is measured from the lens flange to the front rim (excluding the mount protrusion).

    Interestingly, the budget lens is an extra 6 mm or so shorter when partially zoomed out to 24 mm.

11. The weight difference can be explained by more elements and their larger size (wider aperture!), but probably also by more solid construction of the mid-priced version.
12. The lens prices shown are based on B&H mail-order quotes by B&H and Adorama, as of July, 2006. While Olympus offers a $50 mail-in rebate on the 14-54 mm, the budget lens costs only $100 or less when purchased in a kit with the E-500 (kit price minus that of the body alone). For example, B&H offers the kit for just $50 more than the body!

First impression: make and feel

Actually, the less expensive lens does not look or feel less expensive. Well, maybe just a tad. Zooming and focusing rings in both are made of the same ribbed rubber; the outer finish also looks similar, although the exposed pieces of the outer barrel in the budget lens are smooth plastic, while on the mid-priced lens they are crinkled (looks like anodized metal, but maybe an imitation; I haven't checked that). The inner barrel (sliding when the focal length changes) is of smooth plastic in both lenses.

The 14-54 also has a collar grip facilitating mounting and unmounting, but this is a minor difference. It also has the manual focus scale under a transparent window, but the scale is of dubious usefulness, as I mentioned elsewhere.

Another cosmetic difference is the lens designation, painted on shiny aluminum plaque in the 14-45 mm lens, while on the 14-54 mm we have two such plaques (one with Olympus logo and another with focal length and aperture data), both using raised lettering. Looks more expensive, true, but the beauty is only skin-deep.

The "fly by wire" focus ring feels similar on both lenses (and I do not like it); the zoom ring is a bit stiffer (and, maybe, more positive) on the 14-54 mm than on its cheaper cousin. Both inner barrels show similar amount of play.

Surprisingly, the zoom ring action is more to my liking in the economy lens; in the 14-54 mm one it is not as smooth and uniform. This may have something to do with weatherproofing of the mid-priced lens.

I would expect the more expensive lens to have more solid internal construction (including cams), as the weight of optical elements alone seems not enough to explain the 150 g difference in weight. As I haven't disassembled either lens, though, this is just a guess.

Both lenses use a metal mount.

The 14-45 mm lens is made in China; its more expensive sibling — in Japan. This does not seem to affect the build or finish quality to any visible degree.

Weatherproofing

The mid-priced (14-54 mm) lens is splash- and dust-proof; the economy (14-45 mm) one is not. A number of Readers pointed out this difference, but I consider this to be a secondary feature. Any lens will survive an occasional exposure to a light drizzle, and when it rains heavily, I take my camera inside.

Besides, a weather-proofed lens makes sense only with a weather-proofed camera body. Unless you're using the weatherproof E-1, you will not experience any real advantages.

Performance: vignetting

As you remember, the effective aperture of a lens for off-axis subjects is less than for on-axis ones; therefore the corners of an image are getting somewhat less exposure. Our eye is usually quite forgiving in this aspect, but if the effect is visible, we refer to it as vignetting. The effect is strongest for the shortest focal lengths.

So here I am, on a Sunday morning, armed with a sheet of matte-white plastic, trying to spot any differences in vignetting between both lenses.

After fifty or so frames, shot with both lenses and analyzed on my computer's LCD screen both with the naked eye and with an RGB dropper tool, I may draw the following conclusions:

• At the focal length of 14 mm and full aperture of F/2.8, the mid-priced zoom shows a little bit less vignetting than the budget one at the full aperture of F/3.5. The difference is not very significant.
• When the aperture is stepped down to F/5.6, the effect fades away for both lenses, with just a tad remaining for the budget lens.
• Surprisingly, the firmware-based vignetting correction ("shading compensation") in the E-500 seems to work somewhat better for the mid-priced model than for the budget one.

In most shooting situations you will not be able to spot any difference in vignetting performance between the two lenses, but nitpickers will find the 14-54 mm one slightly better in this aspect.

Performance: resolution

The mid-priced lens is supposed to be sharper (have higher resolution) than the budget one. This is illustrated in the following MTF charts, which I've compiled based on data posted at the Olympus Japan site (just to stress: these are measurements by Olympus, not mine).

I am not going here into a detailed discussion of the MTF used to represent lens sharpness; have a look at my general introduction to the subject. It is enough to state that our graphs at 30 cycles/mm show higher contrast for the 14-54 mm lens, which is an indication of higher resolution (better "sharpness"). This holds at both ends of the focal length range, and that in spite of the fact that the 14-54 mm lens has a wider maximum aperture.

While the MTF graphs clearly show the difference, they do not allow us to say how visible this difference is when you are looking at actual images of real-life subjects. Here is where I dump the whole MTF thing and start taking pictures, to see things with my own eyes.

• When shooting images of static, flat subjects (test target, computer screen), critically focused, I can quite easily see the difference, especially near the frame center. The difference is not large, but clear enough.
• When shooting real-life, three-dimensional subjects, I have a problem finding any difference in sharpness of images.

To put it shortly: yes, the 14-54 mm is optically better, but you will be hard pressed to see the difference. For the proof, refer to the Samples section below,

Larger aperture

As I have mentioned, the mid-priced lens has a larger maximum aperture, with the difference equivalent to 0.6 EV at the wide end, and 1.3 EV at the longest focal length.

This translates into three effects, all in favor of the 14-54 mm lens:

• Faster (more handholdable shutter speeds) at the same lighting conditions. This shows more at the long end of the focal range, i.e., exactly where most needed.
• Brighter finder image, again, especially visible at the long end.
• More control over the depth of field (i.e., less of it when the lens is fully open): it is easier to blur the background if needed.
• A derivative of the above: more precise focusing (both auto and manual), especially in low light, as the AF is done at full aperture.

For many users these factors may be enough of a reason to spend the extra money, even if all other things were equal.

Distortion

The lens magnification may change with the distance of the object from the axis. This leads to straight lines being depicted as curved, if they are not radial (passing through the image center). Obviously, the effect is most visible for lines running close to image edges.

If such lines are shown as bending inwards, the distortion is referred to as pincushion; if outwards — barrel. For most zoom lenses, at least the decent ones, the only real problem is pincushion distortion at the shortest focal lengths (widest image angles).

I haven't measured the distortion in either lens, but here is something better: a head-to-head comparison, taken from a sample shown further down. Both images are full-width fragments, resized to fit the width of this page.

Clearly, the economy lens exhibits some amount of barrel distortion at the widest-angle setting. I haven't measured this, but my guess would be a tad more than 1%, quite acceptable. The mid-priced lens gets rid of that effect — almost entirely. You can still see some (use an edge of a sheet of paper against your screen as a reference), but nothing worth mentioning. This is as good as I have seen in any 28 mm EFL lens.

Distortion often depends also on focusing distance. My impression is that it is more visible in both lenses at distances of less than one meter or so, with the 14-54 mm, again, clearly showing less of the effect.

Close-focus capability

I was able to verify the manufacturer's claims regarding close-focusing capabilities of both lenses, by changing the subject-to-camera distance until no AF was any longer possible.

• The mid-priced lens, indeed, focuses down to 22 cm — and this is measured from the sensor plane, located near the back of the camera. This is an impressive close-focus (almost macro) performance: at the longest focal length the distance between the subject and the lens front thread (not the hood!) was just about 6.5 cm. The measured field of view was 65 mm across.

  In the world of 35-mm film cameras this would be referred to as 0.55× magnification. I was able to focus manually even a tad closer, but I haven't analyzed those images critically for loss of sharpness.

• The economy model goes down to 38 cm (again, from the image plane). Fully zoomed out, this is 23 cm from the lens front, resulting in a field of view 105 mm across.

  This is typical for a "digital" lens of this type; better than we used to experience with film cameras, but no match for the 14-54 mm lens.

The pictures below may serve as a quick-and-dirty demonstration of the difference in close-focusing between both lenses. It turns out the 14-54 mm lens can be quite useful in such applications.

The samples

Comparing MTF graphs is very useful for those who want their lens to give best MTF results. Shooting resolution targets is also good — for those who want to have best pictures of resolution targets. While these methods can easily spot a really bad lens, for lenses of decent quality I've learned to trust a careful inspection of enlarged images.

And here I've run into some problems. While, for example, I was easily able to tell the difference in performance between two longer zooms I've tried: the Sigma 55-200 mm DC and Olympus 40-150 mm ZD, of which the latter is clearly better, with these "standard" zooms by Olympus I was hard pressed to tell the results apart.

Yes, this is true: in most situations I find it quite difficult to see any difference in performance between these two lenses, with price differing by a factor of two.

Here is an example, two pictures shot handheld, within a few seconds apart. I am not going to tell you right away which is which, have a look first.

As always in my samples, images at the left are full frames, reduced in size and re-sharpened, with the red frame showing the location of full-sized fragments which are shown at the right. The latter are unprocessed (just cropped), and re-saved as low-compression JPEGs.

True, under sunny conditions the aperture was stopped down quite a bit, and this is where most lenses will perform respectably. Still, even at wider apertures I experienced problems with this exercise. The pictures were taken at the wide end of the zoom, so there was plenty of depth of field available, and the focus was set at the full-size sample area.

Nota also that my in-camera sharpening is set way down; I believe that it is more proper to do sharpening at the post-processing stage.

OK, here it is: Lens A (top) is the 14-45 mm, "economy" zoom, lens B (bottom) — the 14-54, mid-priced one. (The economy lens was set to 16 mm to provide a similar frame; with no tripod I might have moved a bit when changing lenses.)

Clearly, a couple of casual shots is not enough to see any differences in lens quality, as long as both lenses are "good enough", which seems to be the case. Small differences in AF accuracy, for example, may affect images to a greater degree.

Therefore here is a series of comparative samples shot under more controlled conditions. A medium-weight tripod was used to provide exactly the same standpoint and greater camera stability, and this series was shot at the maximum aperture (smallest F-number), which puts the "economy" lens at some advantage; fine with me.

Most importantly, the series below was shot with the camera in the Manual Focus mode, autofocusing done by pressing the Lock button, and with a five-frame focus bracketing, to select the sharpest image out of the series. (As it turned out, in each case the first frame, as set by the AF system, was the best, so the precaution was not really needed. This just confirms that the system works fine.)

All these images were shot in the Vivid picture mode, with sharpness adjusted to -1; white balance manually set to Sunny (5300K). Images were saved as JPEG SHQ files (compression of 1:2.7).

First, the samples at the widest focal length of 14 mm (28 mm EFL):

As we can see, the mid-priced lens seems to be just a tad sharper; this was confirmed by my wife and myself scrutinizing the full-size samples blind, i.e., not knowing which is which. The difference, though, is really small.

Next, samples for the "normal" focal length of 25 mm (50 mm EFL):

Here the difference in favor of the 14-54 mm lens, although still small, is a bit more visible.

Lastly, a comparison at the telephoto end, which is 45 mm (EFL of 90 mm) for the economy lens, and 20% longer, or 54 mm (EFL 108 mm) for the mid-priced one:

The comparison is not as straightforward for these samples because of the 20% difference in focal length, working in favor of the mid-priced lens. Still, the latter appears to have a slight edge here, if only by a small margin. Keep in mind, though, that the shooting aperture is by 4/3 EV larger for that lens.

To be frank, I should have applied a -0.7 compensation here, to extract the weathered wood texture better. Never trust the camera's automation; as a human you are supposed to be smarter! This adjustment is applied in the next sample:

The slight edge the mid-priced lens has here is not a surprise. Have a look at the bottom of the shack, though: clearly, it is curving out in the first sample. This shows the effect discussed above in the Distortion section.

One more comparison, this time shot without focus bracketing, but with a tripod; lens at F/8, widest angle. The focus was set at the wooden stairs.

Surprisingly, even when both lenses are stepped down to F/8, the mid-priced one has an advantage, as slight as it may be. I expected to see no differences at this aperture.

In addition, the image shot with the 14-45 mm lens seems to have a slightly cooler tonality. I would rather attribute that to a small cloud momentarily obstructing the sunlight (the shots were taken 37 seconds apart), as other pictures of the wooden boardwalk series, and I shot 16 of those, do not show a similar effect.

I'm afraid you may be sick and tired of looking at image samples; so am I. To recap my impressions regarding lens resolution:

• Yes, the 14-54 mm lens is slightly sharper than the 14-45 mm one;
• No, most probably you will not be able to see the difference without a careful, side-by-side comparison, and it will show only if you print your pictures larger than 9×12";
• Yes, the "budget" 14-45 mm lens is surprisingly good; "good enough" for most of what I'm doing.

OK, so now we are ready for...

The bottom line

After almost two years with the "economy" 14-45 mm lens and a solid few months with the "mid-priced" 14-54 mm one, I may say that both are good, with the 14-54 mm — somewhat better.

While the advantage in optical quality is not always large enough to be visible (the 14-45 mm is "good enough" for most of my uses), the wider aperture makes quite a difference, and closer focusing is a bigger advantage than it may seem at the first glance. Also, the wide-angle distortion is almost non-existent. The (slightly) longer tele end is a nice bonus as well.

If you've got your camera with the 14-45 mm "kit" lens, should you run out and spend another $400 to get the 14-54 mm one? Not unless you're an advanced photographer, convinced that it is the lens, not yourself, being the bottleneck at least in some of your pictures; or if you really need the larger apertures (more DOF control) and/or better close-focusing capability. Or — if you just have to have the best.

My experience with the more expensive lens was very good. I brought it along to a vacation trip to Anguilla, where it got a good work-out, especially as a portrait lens near the long end, fully open.

E-500, 14-54 mm zoom at 49 mm (98 mm EFL); aperture priority (-0.3 EV): 1/1000 s at F/3.5, ISO 400; Natural picture mode, WB at 5300K. No postprocessing except for re-sizing and re-sharpening.
An XGA version can be found here.

All right, so disregard what I just said above about upgrading. If you have a $400 to spare, go and get the 14-54 mm lens. Let's face it: the 28-110 mm EFL range is what we use to take 90% of our pictures. Don't these 90% deserve as good a lens as you can get?

A second opinion

Great minds think alike: my British friend and a fellow E-System user, John Foster, just posted his comparison of all three Olympus "standard" zooms, adding the 17.5-45 mm ZD, and throwing in some impressions on other lenses as well. In general, John's conclusions are close to mine, but check for yourself.

Note of 2008: When going through John's 1:1 samples, keep in mind that they were shot with a five-megapixel E-1. The limited pixel resolution of this camera (30% linear difference from the E-500, 41% from the E-510 or E-3) may hide some of the lens resolution diffrences — once that resolution is "good enough" for that pixel count.

Other Web resources

The German PhotoZone site used to have extensive reports on both lenses, but they have been taken off air in 2008, perhaps because the tests, measuring the joint lens/camera performance, were done with use of the eight-megapixel E-300 — which, additionally, seems to have a stronger blur (anti-aliasing) filter than the newer models (E-410, E-510, E-3).

If you are ready to accept this caveat, you may use the Wayback Machine archives to dig up these articles (both posted in 2005, archived in August, 2007):

• The 14-45 mm F/3.5-5.6 Test Report
• The 14-54 mm F/3.8-3.5 Test Report

I still consider them a recommended reading. (Warning: the pages will load quite slow; this is the price you pay for accessing archived Web contents.)