one step closer to buying into ultra wide on 4/3

[pellicle]

Hi

for some time I've hesitated on re-purchasing a lens like the Olympus 9-18mm zoom (which I sold back in 2009). My reason for hesitation was that I happen to own a OM 21mm f.35 which is a lovely compact lens (in contrast to the 9-18 on the m4/3 which is quite the lump).

So this weekend I took some time to borrow a 5D and examine the OM21mm f3.5 on the camera(here). I was a little disappointed with the lens and felt that the Olympus 9-18mm on my G1 actually did a better job most specifically when fully open.

The question which remains for me now is which wide to get? Dpreview seems to suggest that the m4/3 version isn't quite up to the same standards as the 4/3 version is tested as slightly sharper. For sure the AF of the ZD lens on m4/3 is a bit rattly, but the MF touchup does activate the zoom-in on the view finder which is attractive. Of course the 7-14 looks lovely and might be the better choice.

Lastly (and to muddy the waters) I also compared my OM100 f2.8 on the 5D to my 50mm on the GH1 (both the Olympus f1.8 and the FD 1.4) and found that I did prefer the look of the 100mm on the 5D. In the past I have only compared 100f2.8 on 35mm film to G1 + 50f1.8 ... that was a much closer match.

At the moment I'm feeling like I will not put the money into a 5D and perhaps instead put it onto a 7-14mm

anyone have any thoughts?

 

[httivals]

I had a Canon 5D, and then a 5DII, and have owned various wides that I used on it, including the OM 21mm f3.5, OM 18mm, and about 5 or 6 copies of the Canon 17-40mm f4L, the last sample of which was tested by Mark Hubsand of the 16:9 site, as being almost neck and neck with the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8.

I now own a couple of GH2s and the Panasonic 7-14mm. The GH2 and the 7-14mm, is, in my view, easily a better option than a 5D and the OM 21mm. The OM 21mm had a lot of chromatic aberration as I recall. Also, the GH2 and 7-14mm gets you a lot wider. The 7-14mm is not a small lens, but it's a fantastic lens, even wide open. At the 21mm focal length equivalent, the 7-14mm is, in my opinion, better than the OM 21mm f3.5.

I would look at the review on the bythom website of the Olympus 9-18mm. I think that's the lens, Thom Hogan is using on m4/3. If I wanted compact, I'd probably get it over the 7-14mm. When I want compact, I use the 14mm prime. You might also consider the 12mm Olympus prime, which is supposed to be an excellent lens and is pretty close to the 21mm equivalent focal length.

Hi

for some time I've hesitated on re-purchasing a lens like the Olympus 9-18mm zoom (which I sold back in 2009). My reason for hesitation was that I happen to own a OM 21mm f.35 which is a lovely compact lens (in contrast to the 9-18 on the m4/3 which is quite the lump).

So this weekend I took some time to borrow a 5D and examine the OM21mm f3.5 on the camera(here). I was a little disappointed with the lens and felt that the Olympus 9-18mm on my G1 actually did a better job most specifically when fully open.

The question which remains for me now is which wide to get? Dpreview seems to suggest that the m4/3 version isn't quite up to the same standards as the 4/3 version is tested as slightly sharper. For sure the AF of the ZD lens on m4/3 is a bit rattly, but the MF touchup does activate the zoom-in on the view finder which is attractive. Of course the 7-14 looks lovely and might be the better choice.

Lastly (and to muddy the waters) I also compared my OM100 f2.8 on the 5D to my 50mm on the GH1 (both the Olympus f1.8 and the FD 1.4) and found that I did prefer the look of the 100mm on the 5D. In the past I have only compared 100f2.8 on 35mm film to G1 + 50f1.8 ... that was a much closer match.

At the moment I'm feeling like I will not put the money into a 5D and perhaps instead put it onto a 7-14mm

anyone have any thoughts?

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

7-14 all the way for me. Although it's not exceptionally compact, it's very light and much smaller that anything else with that kind of FOV. It also balances beautifully on the GH1 etc. bodies. Optically, it's all I'll ever need an ultra WA to be, and in combination with the 16:9 aspect ratio, interesting things can be done. This was taken at 7mm last Saturday inside a Lotus Elise, the epitome of cramped space:

 

[pellicle]

Guys

thanks for the inputs. I will look carefully at the 7-14 and ponder if the lack of filter mount will pose me any issues. I use polarizers in the rainforest to take the sheen off leaves a bit, for example:

the 12mm sounds attractive too

 

[PeterB666]

Well polarisers don't work well on an ultra-wide even if it does have a filter thread (especially for the sky) as they rely on the light coming from the same direction. Shooting into the sky with say a 9mm on an Olympus and using a polariser will give you an uneven sky.

I have the Olympus 9-18mm and Olympus 12mm lenses. Both are excellent although fringing is a little bit of an issue in some conditions with the Olympus 9-18mm. On the other hand, both lenses have outstanding resistance to flare and are good performers. If you don't need to go wider than 12mm, pay the extra for the fixed focal lenght lens. In poor light you will appreciate the extra brightness and the manual focus setup is outstanding.

BTW, I did consider the Panasonic 7-14mm very briefly but to be honest there are too many circumstances where I need to use grads or ND filters.

 

[pellicle]

Well polarisers don't work well on an ultra-wide even if it does have a filter thread (especially for the sky) as they rely on the light coming from the same direction. Shooting into the sky with say a 9mm on an Olympus and using a polariser will give you an uneven sky.

agreed ... but then that's not where I use one.

I have the Olympus 9-18mm and Olympus 12mm lenses. Both are excellent although fringing is a little bit of an issue in some conditions with the Olympus 9-18mm. On the other hand, both lenses have outstanding resistance to flare and are good performers. If you don't need to go wider than 12mm, pay the extra for the fixed focal lenght lens. In poor light you will appreciate the extra brightness and the manual focus setup is outstanding.

thanks ... I was a bit 'put off' by the 12mm price but that's interesting to know. The results from the New Oly m4/3 45mm look good, so I'm expecting the 12mm to be as good.

 

[Paratom]

Hi

for some time I've hesitated on re-purchasing a lens like the Olympus 9-18mm zoom (which I sold back in 2009). My reason for hesitation was that I happen to own a OM 21mm f.35 which is a lovely compact lens (in contrast to the 9-18 on the m4/3 which is quite the lump).

So this weekend I took some time to borrow a 5D and examine the OM21mm f3.5 on the camera(here). I was a little disappointed with the lens and felt that the Olympus 9-18mm on my G1 actually did a better job most specifically when fully open.

The question which remains for me now is which wide to get? Dpreview seems to suggest that the m4/3 version isn't quite up to the same standards as the 4/3 version is tested as slightly sharper. For sure the AF of the ZD lens on m4/3 is a bit rattly, but the MF touchup does activate the zoom-in on the view finder which is attractive. Of course the 7-14 looks lovely and might be the better choice.

Lastly (and to muddy the waters) I also compared my OM100 f2.8 on the 5D to my 50mm on the GH1 (both the Olympus f1.8 and the FD 1.4) and found that I did prefer the look of the 100mm on the 5D. In the past I have only compared 100f2.8 on 35mm film to G1 + 50f1.8 ... that was a much closer match.

At the moment I'm feeling like I will not put the money into a 5D and perhaps instead put it onto a 7-14mm

anyone have any thoughts?

For me m4/3 is about being compact. I own the 9-18 (m4/3 version) and really like it.
For my use 9mm is wide enough- but I guess thats a question only you know.
I find the range of the 9-18 very usefull, the compact size nice.
What I dont like so much that its pretty slwo at the 18mm end.

I couldn see myself buyng a small m4/3 camera and the using regular (large) 4/3 lenses with an adapter just to gain a little optical quality.

 

[greypilgrim]

I use the 7-14 on Panny bodies (GH1, G2). It balances really well. I take a lot of shots with it that would be similar to what you seem to be aiming at. I must admit that I have not felt the lack of a polarizer when reducing reflections off of leaves as you describe. And for the record, I do use a polarizer on other lenses for exactly that purpose.

There have been a couple of times I wished I could use a polarizer with water shots and the 7-14. However, it has not ever had me cursing if you know what I mean.

I find the 7-14 and the 20mm to be a really nice kit. I am looking at adding the new Oly 45mm.

That said, I really like shooting pries, and I would be sore tempted by the new Oly 12mm if I did not have the 7-14 already.

The ability to go sooo wide with the 7-14 does provide some really interesting photographic opportunities that you cannot get with the 9-18 or the new Oly 12mm.

What I would choose today... lighter and 12mm and prime or the range of the 7-14... hmmm....

Doug

 

[httivals]

I'd really like to try the 12mm, but I'm so pleased with the 14mm prime that I'm not sure I'd use the 12mm. The 14mm prime is really tiny. I've not yet been let down by it, and I take photos very often wtih it wide open. The 14mm is a bargain new and I've seen some extremely low prices for it used. So the 7-14mm with the 14mm prime would be a nice combo (which I have). That said, I'd really like to try the 12mm. . . .

 

[ptomsu]

My choice would be either the Oly 12 or the Oly 9-18 or both of them.

 

[Brian Mosley]

In an ideal world, I think I'd have the Lumix 7-14 for maximum UWA flexibility, and the 12mm f2 for prime lens image quality and compactness.

Currently, I find the mZD 9-18 a very good compromise between the two... wide enough, and very compact with excellent image quality.

Good luck with your choice, the 12mm could be a good start for you - considering your desire to use filters.

Brian

 

[ggibson]

I'll echo the thumbs up for the mZD 9-18mm. I had the 7-14mm for a while (great lens), but switched to the Olympus for the smaller package, filter thread, and longer range. It's more affordable to boot!

 

[kit laughlin]

I'm interested in the lightest kit possible, and have the GH2, 14-45, 20/1.7 and the 45/2.8, and am thinking of adding either the Panny 7-14 or the Oly 9-18.

The latter is a more practical range—are there any comparos of the optical qulaities of one against the other?

TIA, Kit

 

[saxshooter]

I played with a colleague's olympus 12mm. Very impressive lens. Compact, although not as "short" as the 14mm. I particularly liked the AF to MF focus clutch switch mechanism. Worked really well on my ELP-1 using the EVF. The fast aperture is also nice to have...

 

[kwalsh]

The latter is a more practical range—are there any comparos of the optical qulaities of one against the other?

Well it is only numbers and little checkerboard patterns rather than real world images, but DPR has data on both lenses:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews...sreviews/widget/LensReviewConfiguration.xml?4

The 7-14 is certainly better optically, the the 9-18 appears to be a decent performer and more compact. I really haven't heard anyone complain about either lens, those with the 9-18 seem happy to have traded a little IQ for a smaller, cheaper lens that takes filters and those with the 7-14 seem happy to have paid a bit more for a slightly sharper lens that goes wider at the expense of no filters.

Ken

 

[ggibson]

Also, I would add that shooting ultra-wide can be very difficult. I had never owned a lens wider than a 34mm equivalent when I first bought the 7-14mm, and it was a bit much for my beginner skills. I had many shots with distorted people, skewed perspective, too-small subjects, and cluttered scenes. For anyone looking into wide-angle photography for the first time, getting your feet wet with the 9-18mm may be a wiser choice.

 

[henningw]

I've always been a wide angle shooter, and only do the telephoto stuff for special events, so I got the 7-14 as soon after it was announced as possible, and have been delighted with it. I now also have the 12/2 and it is also just a great lens. I bought a Nikkor 24/2 when it came out in the 70's and used it a lot, but it is hardly in the same league optically as the Olympus.

Yes, it would be nice if the 7-14 were smaller or took filters, but I can work around the lack and enjoy the angle of view and the performance. I tried the 9-18, but don't feel I would pick it up over the 7-14 if I went out shooting, so there's no point. The difference in optical performance is not great, but it's definitely there and because in very wide shots some of the details are often very small, a little bit of smudging goes a long way.

Henning

 

[Tonygamble]

"Also, I would add that shooting ultra-wide can be very difficult. ....when I first bought the 7-14mm ............I had many shots with distorted people, skewed perspective, too-small subjects, and cluttered scenes."

I'm flushing up this thread as we have just had our seventh holiday when all I took was the 7-14 for daytime use and the 1.7 20mm for after dark shots. I still feel that for reportage/atmosphere shots the wide zoom is THE tool. Quite a few of the shots on the following folder fall into the category of what I'd call environmental portraiture. And, yes, there are shots with distortion - but I feel it adds to the vibrance of the picture.

Every shot here was on the 7-14 apart from the four, or five, clearly taken when it was dark(ish). If you are chasing animals on a safari then take the tele zoom - but if you are chasing people take the wide one and get up really close.

Selection of 100 pictures

Enjoy

Tony

 

[ggibson]

Excellent set of images, Tony. I think you've shown that you have great skills with a wide-angle lens.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Excellent set of images, Tony. I think you've shown that you have great skills with a wide-angle lens.

+1 :thumbs: and another proof that limitations can often extend ones vision.