The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

an inexpensive ultra-wide prime for Micro-FourThirds

Godfrey

Well-known member
Mine are the Summilux and the M.Zuiko.

I have not looked too closely. I was in a rush to get the pix on the web.
Oklahoma Act One
Oklahoma Act Two

Tony
Lots of good photos! Hard to make definitive statements about the lens performance with three such different focal lengths and without a testing setup. But the 14mm definitely looks like it is a fine performer, regardless how how it compares to the other two!

G
 

kit laughlin

Subscriber Member
I have the 14/2.5, the 20/1.7, and the 45/2.8 and in use in the same event situation, have not noticed any difference in colour rendering or any unsharpness (and we all know how good the 20 is). I feel the cheap, plastic, and tiny 14 holds up well; good enough for me at any rate.
 

ggibson

Well-known member
If you want to go even wider at a low price, the Rokinon 8mm fisheye is quite sharp and can be converted to rectilinear using software. I haven't compared, but it may even be superior to adding one of these wide-angle filters. Just a suggestion!
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
If you want to go even wider at a low price, the Rokinon 8mm fisheye is quite sharp and can be converted to rectilinear using software. I haven't compared, but it may even be superior to adding one of these wide-angle filters. Just a suggestion!
But the 14mm and the wide converter is smaller and lighter, and gives you two lenses with no software correction required. :)

G
 

Annna T

Active member
But the 14mm and the wide converter is smaller and lighter, and gives you two lenses with no software correction required. :)

G
I have one of those little Samyang fisheyes and it is very small and light, exactly the philosophy of MFT and I was agreeably surprised when I received it. I don't know the size of the wa adapter you are using on the 14mm, but when both are added, they may not be really smaller than 7.5mm Samyang/Rokinon :

Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 2.36 x 2.20" (60 x 55.8 mm)
Weight 7.65 oz (217 g)
(Copied from the BHphotovideo website)
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I have one of those little Samyang fisheyes and it is very small and light, exactly the philosophy of MFT and I was agreeably surprised when I received it. I don't know the size of the wa adapter you are using on the 14mm, but when both are added, they may not be really smaller than 7.5mm Samyang/Rokinon :

Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 2.36 x 2.20" (60 x 55.8 mm)
Weight 7.65 oz (217 g)
(Copied from the BHphotovideo website)

photo made with E-PL1 and Summilux 25

The 14mm weighs 64g and measures 54x20 mm (not counting caps and flange depth). Add the Sony VCL-ECU1 and it grows to 65x59 mm, 193g total.

So ... quite close, really. I paid $126 for the new but unboxed Lumix G 14mm f/2.5, and $100 for the VCL-ECU1. I like that the assembly requires very little in way of correction, nets a 10.5mm rectilinear FoV.

I'm still waiting for the Panasonic DMW-GWC1 wide converter to arrive. I want to compare the performance it produces against the 14+Sony converter. One thing that it will certainly have going for it is that the adapter will mount it both more securely and hopefully with more consistent centering. But the Sony converter does perform very well on this lens.

G
 

Annna T

Active member
The 14mm weighs 64g and measures 54x20 mm (not counting caps and flange depth). Add the Sony VCL-ECU1 and it grows to 65x59 mm, 193g total.

So ... quite close, really. I paid $126 for the new but unboxed Lumix G 14mm f/2.5, and $100 for the VCL-ECU1. I like that the assembly requires very little in way of correction, nets a 10.5mm rectilinear FoV.

I'm still waiting for the Panasonic DMW-GWC1 wide converter to arrive. I want to compare the performance it produces against the 14+Sony converter. One thing that it will certainly have going for it is that the adapter will mount it both more securely and hopefully with more consistent centering. But the Sony converter does perform very well on this lens.

G
Yes, pretty close indeed. Funny because your whole combo looks pretty similar to the Samyang, both the look ad the size/weight :




I got it to take pictures of the night sky and get some startrails, so I don't really care that it is a fisheye. However, I was surprised when I got it : since it is a rectilinear fisheye, so the perspective deformation is not too dramatic provided you keep the camera really level. There were presets floating on the web and I use the lens profile in LR to correct it. There is a choice of several different corrections (equal area, equidistant, rectilinear, stereographic). So this is not a hassle at all. Plus it is producing more agreable pictures than I thought it would.

This is taken with the 7.5mm Samyang with stereographic correction applied in LR. What it does to the rising sun was a curious bonus..



rrr_hhh
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
It's a cute little lens! :)

I'd be correcting it constantly. I had a Pentax 17mm and Pentax 10-17mm zoom fisheye in the past, found that while the curvilinear feel was entertaining for a bit it became tiresome quickly.

Actually, I also have the superb Olympus ZD 11-22mm f/2.8-3.5 ED lens. Max of 3% curvilinear distortion at 11mm, going to 0% by about 15mm or so. It's one of those lenses that I kept a camera to use it on even after nearly all my other FourThirds SLR equipment was sold...

I just wanted something smaller and lighter for the E-M1 that didn't cost so much. ;-)

G
 

jsnack

New member
I'm looking forward to the new Panasonic 12-32 to help solve this issue. Sure, it's a bit slower at the wide end but the whole lens is smaller and more versatile.
 

gekopaca

New member
I think I already posted it, but if it can be useful…

My DIY cheapo wide prime lens for MFT :

Hawk's Pentax 110 to MFT adaptor + Pentax 110 18mm f2.8 lens + 30.5 mm to 37mm Step Up Ring + Pixco 37mm 0.45X Wide Angle additive
= 17mm f4 eq. lens

Actually the 0.45X Wide additive seems to render approx. 0.58X, that is why my 18mm lens gives me a 21mm FF eq.
I didn't noticed any light lost with the wide additive on the lens, but by principe I prefer to note f3.2 instead of f2.8.
Sharpness, colors, corners, distorsion, deep of field, bokeh : see yourself (GH1, raw files exported without PP in LR4):






 
Last edited:

Godfrey

Well-known member
Does anyone have any idea how this Sony converter affects the Hyperfocal Distance of the 14mm?
Since it reduces the focal length from 14mm to 10.5mm, the hyperfocal setting at any given aperture will shift accordingly. For instance, with a 14mm lens on FourThirds format, the hyperfocal setting at f/5.6 is 7.62 feet. For a 10.5mm lens, it's 4.3 feet.

You can use DOFMaster.com to calculate a chart.

G
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Nice idea G, thanks for posting the samples.. I wonder how it compares to Panasonics own GWC1 ?
Granted the Sony is wider at 0.75 while the Pana is 0.79
...
A few reviewers I read about the GWC-1 used terms like ok. I assume it was not great. Not a lot of samples that I could find.
...
Finally located a reasonably priced Panasonic DMW-GWC1 wide converter ($99 out of Japan, free shipping) so I could try it out and test it against the Sony. it's a lot smaller and lighter, fits the lens more snugly, and should be better centered due to the threaded mounting.

Setting up to test now ... :)

G
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Tested: Olympus ZD 11-22 @ 11, 14 mm against Panasonic Lumix G 14mm w no accessories, w Sony wide converter, and w Panasonic wide converter.

Results:

- ZD 11-22 @ 11mm is not quite as wide as the Lumix 14 with either converter
- ZD 11-22 produces the least rectilinear distortion
- ZD 11-22 rectilinear distortion and CA, when used with E-M1, is reduced in LR 5.3 substantially when lens profile and CA correction is turned on, both become virtually nil.
- ZD 11-22 is sharper and higher contrast at corners and edges at all aperture settings, but the difference becomes small by f/5.6-f/8
- ZD 11-22 has less CA than either Lumix G 14mm
- Panasonic converter produces slightly wider FoV than Sony converter
- Panasonic converter produces more barrel distortion than Sony converter
- Sony converter produces slightly sharper results than Panasonic converter
- Sony converter produces slightly more purple fringing than Panasonic converter

It's actually amazing how well the Lumix G lens compares against the ZD 11-22 at 14mm ... the ZD 11-22 does perform better, but the results are close enough to say that for non-critical work you could pick either and not worry about it.

With the converters, the 14mm's performance is degraded a little, particularly at corners and edges, and both show increased barrel distortion. The Sony wide converter performs better overall, but shows asymmetrical aberrations which I can only conclude come from not being as well centered as the Panasonic wide converter. Because the Panasonic wide converter is actually covering a bit more FoV than the Sony, you can turn on LR's rectilinear full auto correction and then the two are almost indistinguishable—a tiny bump to contrast on the Panasonic image and the perceptual resolution difference becomes identical.

Conclusion: The Panasonic 14mm fitted with Panasonic wide converter is very small and very light weight, even compared to the same lens fitted with the Sony converter. Given some additional image processing for the Panasonic, results with either of these two can be nearly indistinguishable from the much larger and far more expensive ZD 11-22 lens.

Now ... how these results compare to the Olympus M.Zuiko 12mm f/2 I don't know, and won't without testing. But using the 14mm and either of these converters is a lot less expensive, and likely a slightly wider FoV.

G
 

JBurnett

Well-known member
WOW -- thanks for doing all that work, Godfrey. Great information (especially the tip about turning on LR's correction for the 14 + DMW-GWC1).

In anticipation of the Black Friday/Christmas deals, I knew I'd be looking at purchasing either the 12mm or the 75mm, but not both. I decided to give the DMW-GWC1 a try and to invest in the 75mm (which just came a few days ago). I'm not looking for an indoor, low-light ultra-wide, so using the 11mm (14 + DMW-GWC1) at f/5.6 is fine by me.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member

Olympus E-M1 + 14mm f/2.5 + DMW-GWC1 0.79x wide converter
ISO 800 @ f/4 @ 1/5 second

Exercising the 14mm plus DMW-GWC1 combination, figured I should add it to this thread too. I think the Sony produces slightly sharper results, but I do mean slightly. This setup is smaller, lighter, handier.

Thanks for looking. Comments always appreciated.

G
 

JBurnett

Well-known member
Reviving this thread because I happened upon quite a good deal for the M.Zuiko 9-18mm f/4.0-5.6 zoom (the Micro-4/3 version). I don't do so very much Ultra wide, so I had been using the quite capable Panasonic 14mm f/2.5 and DMW-GWC1 converter for a 10.5mm prime, and I though I'd compare the two. A quick summary of what I found with my copies:

• Collapsed, the Oly 9-18 is just as small as the Panasonic 14+GWC1.

• At 10.5mm and 14mm, the maximum apertures for the 9-18 are f/4.4 and f/4.9 respectively. The Panasonic has a maximum aperture of f/2.5. I use UWA mostly for landscapes, so shooting at f/5.6 (on tripod) is usually just fine for me.

• At f/5.6, the Olympus has slightly better corner sharpness at both focal lengths. I was expecting this at 10.5mm because of the addition of the wide converter, but I was surprised that the Olympus was also slightly better at 14mm.

• The Olympus exhibited more red-green fringing in the corners than the Panasonic, either natively or with the GWC1.

• The 14+GWC1 showed more barrel distortion than the Olympus.

• On paper, it seems almost insignificant, but 9mm is appreciably wider than 10.5mm (18mm vs 21mm equivalent FOV).

• The Olympus is weakest at 18mm, although performance is still quite acceptable (and I have other options at this focal length).
 
Top