Menu
What's new
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!

Panasonic 7-14

M

michaelnel

Guest
I have this lens and have enjoyed using it a few times. That said, it has not been a particularly USEFUL lens for me, even though the image quality is superb.



 
Jorgen Udvang

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Recipe for maximum fun with the 7-14mm:

Find a pretty girl with no photo experience other than with her iPhone. Show her that the LCD can be turned towards her. Watch :toocool:

All photos with GH1 and Pana 7-14, 2 @ 7mm and 1 @ 14mm





 
biglouis

biglouis

Well-known member
Some pictures from Stepney Green, a London Underground Station in the East End of London built in 1902. A simple cut-and-cover construction but pretty much unaltered since its construction. Now used by the District and the Hammersmith and City line trains.

GH-2 and Panasonic Lumix 7-14, iso1600

The stairs contain an original Edwardian sign which has survived the standardisation of signage which took place in the 1920s.



West bound platform



Est bound train - pigeons are not allowed on board



West bound arriving

 
biglouis

biglouis

Well-known member
Thames bank, by Blackfriars. The low tide often leaves some strange items stranded on the shore.

GH-2, 7-14

 
S

Skridlovian

New member
I'm a long-term Nikon user who acquired an OMD a few months ago. My D700 hasn't done much since. I've had the Nikon 14-24 2.8 since it was first released so the Panasonic 7-14 is an appealing equivalent given the general approval and many of the images posted. Right now it's hard to justify (OK: afford) this lens given that I have the Nikkor - which I can't bear to sell even though I don't use it a lot.

A couple of comments. Many of the shots posted here and elsewhere show conspicuous keystoning - which is obviously unavoidable in some circumstances. However where the vertical angles aren't extreme, I'm really surprised that people aren't correcting this extremely unsightly effect; it's often accompanied by the shot being out of level too, which is glaringly obvious with subjects that include architecture. I'd have thought that any IQ loss caused by PP correction of these effects would be hugely compensated.

The other characteristic that nobody except me seems to mind - and it applies to both of the lenses above, and no doubt all others at these extremely short focal lengths, is the "volume anamorphosis" distortion. This is most apparent where there are people toward the edge of the shot who appear disturbingly broadened. Obviously these aren't portrait focal lengths but the effect can be seen even with inanimate subjects, variably. The stretching effect is particularly noticeable where there are circular or spherical elements at the periphery of the shot .

As far as I'm aware the only RAW processor that corrects this is DxO, and I'm not sure whether the 7-14 is amongst their mapped lenses, or even if this correction can be applied to any lens of appropriate FL. They offer two different correction strategies.
Volume anamorphosis correction
Given that I have four RAW processors already I find it hard to justify (again!) buying this software however it's definitely worth downloading an evaluation copy to see if this facility makes a worthwhile difference.

Roy
 
B

BobbyTan

New member
My first post on this site. I've had the OM-D for a few weeks now although I haven't used it much. The OM-D is a nice lightweight system and it actually takes fantastic pictures. In fact, the IQ is good enough for me to think seriously about dumping my Canon 5D II, 24L, 85L, 70-200L II, et al. For sure, my Canon will not be going on another trip with me, so I may as well get rid of it so I can buy some more amazing lenses like the 75/1.8, 12-35/2.8 and 35-100/2.8. The Canon has served me well, but it's time to move on to better things. The bulk and weight of the DSLR is just too much for me, and I frankly think FF is overrated to an extent. The OM-D can certainly replace my 5D II and the 7-14 is definitely one of my favorite lenses.
 
jnewell

jnewell

New member
I bought the 7-14 with some concern about it being too specialized. I was wrong, and your pics certainly show it strengths nicely.
 
biglouis

biglouis

Well-known member
Skridlovian said:
I'm a long-term Nikon user who acquired an OMD a few months ago. My D700 hasn't done much since. I've had the Nikon 14-24 2.8 since it was first released so the Panasonic 7-14 is an appealing equivalent given the general approval and many of the images posted. Right now it's hard to justify (OK: afford) this lens given that I have the Nikkor - which I can't bear to sell even though I don't use it a lot.

A couple of comments. Many of the shots posted here and elsewhere show conspicuous keystoning - which is obviously unavoidable in some circumstances. However where the vertical angles aren't extreme, I'm really surprised that people aren't correcting this extremely unsightly effect; it's often accompanied by the shot being out of level too, which is glaringly obvious with subjects that include architecture. I'd have thought that any IQ loss caused by PP correction of these effects would be hugely compensated.

The other characteristic that nobody except me seems to mind - and it applies to both of the lenses above, and no doubt all others at these extremely short focal lengths, is the "volume anamorphosis" distortion. This is most apparent where there are people toward the edge of the shot who appear disturbingly broadened. Obviously these aren't portrait focal lengths but the effect can be seen even with inanimate subjects, variably. The stretching effect is particularly noticeable where there are circular or spherical elements at the periphery of the shot .

As far as I'm aware the only RAW processor that corrects this is DxO, and I'm not sure whether the 7-14 is amongst their mapped lenses, or even if this correction can be applied to any lens of appropriate FL. They offer two different correction strategies.
Volume anamorphosis correction
Given that I have four RAW processors already I find it hard to justify (again!) buying this software however it's definitely worth downloading an evaluation copy to see if this facility makes a worthwhile difference.

Roy
Click to expand...
I agree about needing to correct the distortion. I use the transform functions in CS to do this. It needs to be used carefully and scale compensation is always required or you end up with verticals which are compressed rather than corrected.

LouisB
 
T

Tonygamble

Member
Lovely shot TJU.

I keep trying to persuade travellers that wide angle is often prefereable to telephoto - if you have to travel with just one zoom.

Your shot is an excellent example.

Tony
 
Jorgen Udvang

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Thanks, Tony. I rarely bring anything longer than a 150mm eqv. when travelling anymore, and the 7-14 is what is mounted on my camera much of the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top