an inexpensive ultra-wide prime for Micro-FourThirds

[Godfrey]

I'd read about this combination on DPReview in the Micro-FourThirds Talk forum and it intrigued me: with a Panasonic Lumix 14mm f/2.5, the Sony VCL-ECU1 0.75x Wide Converter designed for the NEX 16mm lens is a near perfect fit. The converter snaps over the 14mm's lens bezel and holds reasonably securely.

So of course I had to do a quick test to see FoV and corner-edge sharpness:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25268645/oly_e-m1_wide-test/index.html

Enjoy!

G

 

[Tim]

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

Its a bit strange as the top corners don't hold up quite as well as the bottom, to my eye.
The LOTR book looks similar the the center where at the cargo label at the top seems a bit ragged?

Conversion Lenses | PRODUCTS | LUMIX | Digital Camera | Panasonic Global

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.

Another combo I' like to try is the Sigma DP1 Merrill with the Ricoh GR 21mm wide adapter. The Ricoh lens is 49mm thread as is the Merrill so it just screws on.
You are raising my old chestnut of a 10mm prime for m43. Something compact but high IQ. I would forego some brightness.

 

[Godfrey]

The person I chatted with about this setup seemed to have tried the Panasonic lens and felt this was a better performing combination.

The Oly 12mm is certainly better performance, but for the price this seems to work well. Since it's a Clip-on fit, I presume top to bottom or side to side variation is a matter of just how centered I managed to get it.

G

 

[JBurnett]

Thanks for this. In the past I tried to get a handle on what kind of quality either the Sony or the GWC-1 might give me, but online pics weren't very helpful, and I don't have access to either add-on lens locally. Just today I was at yet another location where I could have used something wider than my 14mm. I can't seem to justify either the 7-14 or 9-18 zooms, and aside from a de-fished 7.5mm, I'm don't know of any other economical options. I might give this a whirl.

 

[Tim]

Thanks for this. In the past I tried to get a handle on what kind of quality either the Sony or the GWC-1 might give me, but online pics weren't very helpful, and I don't have access to either add-on lens locally. Just today I was at yet another location where I could have used something wider than my 14mm. I can't seem to justify either the 7-14 or 9-18 zooms, and aside from a de-fished 7.5mm, I'm don't know of any other economical options. I might give this a whirl.

You are making my cry, ... this is the path I've been down with my thinking also. I am sure the 7-14 is a superb lens but I just don't want to lug the weight or size and I'd only use the 7-10 part of the zoom anyway. Its the point of m43 to reduce size and weight. I also have the 14mm, the black MIJ version and I also still find I want wider often.

I am stuck in this lack wide prime m43 rutt because of the Zuiko 21mm f3.5 and f2 that I had in film days. The 21/f3.5 is less than the size of the 20mm Panasonic. I suppose the 12mm Olympus would suffice and its a wonderful lens but its a lot to spend and still not quite get what I want.

As crazy as it sounds I am considering the Sony A7 so that I could team a VC21 or Zeiss 21. Hoping the IQ holds up with the wides in that instance.

 

[dhsimmonds]

Godfrey

An interesting test of just what can be done with a bit of thought and planning.

Also pleased to see that you are also a fan of "Downton Abbey" which we know better by it's real name of Highclere Castle, which is quite close to where we live in fact!

It is very surprising to me just how many folks from your side of the pond are fans of the series. At the last meeting of the Leica Fellowship, several members from the US were going on to visit "Downton Abbey"!

 

[Godfrey]

The series has been a runaway hit here. I was skeptical, I'm not a big television watcher and even less a soap opera follower, but one episode got me hooked on it. The writing and production are truly splendid throughout, great sense of story and history.

Great fiction and narrative, presented well, is what it's all about. We all have to remember that about our photography too.

G

 

[dhsimmonds]

Godfrey- the Author for the series is an aristocrat and an actor, so he grew up with this sort of real life experience. In my view this is what makes it so realistic and believable! (Next episode tonight here in the UK!)

 

[JBurnett]

Thanks to Godfrey for prompting me to investigate. I ended up purchasing the Panasonic DMW-GWC1 for the 14mm, in part because it was more readily available in Canada at the time of my purchase, and in part because the on/off system seemed like a good idea.

I haven't done any "tests", but it works a treat for some situations. In the photo below (at a Christmas Tree farm) I was standing right at the edge of the flat-bed of the truck -- there was nowhere else for me to go. In this case, the extra wide (11mm vs 14mm) made all the difference.

There's only one problem -- I used to think that I didn't do enough of this type of shot to justify purchasing the 12mm, 7-14mm or 9-18mm. But, now that I've spent a day with an adapted 11mm, I have to admit that the extra-wide perspective can be addictive!

 

[Godfrey]

Looks like the performance is good!

...
There's only one problem -- I used to think that I didn't do enough of this type of shot to justify purchasing the 12mm, 7-14mm or 9-18mm. But, now that I've spent a day with an adapted 11mm, I have to admit that the extra-wide perspective can be addictive!

And that's not a bad problem to have. Having ultra-wide at your disposal is a treat.

G

 

[Tonygamble]

Godfrey,

I don't suppose you have a 7-14 that you could photograph on your camera so I could compare it with your widened 14mm pancake?

I ask as I already have the 7-14 and wondered how much your solution reduces size and weight.

And Jim,

Is the variant you are using a firm fit or clip on like Godfey's ?

Tony

 

[JBurnett]

Is the variant you are using a firm fit or clip on like Godfey's ?

Tony, the DMW-GWC1 comes in two parts -- a base which you screw onto the lens's filter mount, and the element(s), which bayonet on to the base. The base almost looks like it would cause vignetting, but it doesn't. The base also come with caps, so you can leave it on and use it as a lens-cap when you don't have the adapter mounted. The downside is that you can't use filters with the base screwed on. NOR DOES THE WIDE ADAPTER HAVE FILTER THREADS, which is a real disappointment, but I knew that pre-purchase.

The wide-angle adapter also has both caps, so it can be in your bag, or mounted on the lens, and you always have both the lens and adapter protected. The bayonet mount isn't exactly a bayonet -- you position and twist on, then twist off in the same direction. I was totally confused until I figured out the somewhat ambiguous directions. The mount seems nice, tight and secure. It is NOT metal, however. Long-term, it might not be the best if you were going to mount/unmount A LOT.

There are alignment detents, but they are not easily seen in low light. However, I discovered that the word WIDE on the edge of the adapter is right where you need to align, and this helps.

As for size, I think the combo of 14mm + GWC1 would be smaller than the 7-14mm but not substantially so.

 

[f6cvalkyrie]

I have, but very seldom use, a x0.25 Super Wide Converter.

The manufacturer mentioned is DANUBIA, but it seems to have been made in Japan.

It mounts into the the lens filter mount in one piece.
Dimensions are roughly the same as the 14-45 kitlens from Panasonic, and it turns this lens into a 3.5mm (circular Fish-Eye effect) to 11.25mm lens.

Unfortunately, IQ leaves much to be desired
But it was very cheap, and fun to use from time to time ...

C U
Rafael

 

[Tonygamble]

Thanks John,

If it is about the same size as the 7-14 I'll not bother.

Like you I love wide angle. My first digital camera, in around 2002, was a Canon zoom jobbie and I remember buying a wide angle converter (in the US as they were not yet in the UK) and having it shipped direct to our ski holiday hotel in Breckenridge.

My first m4/3 was the G1 and I bought mine without the zoom but with a 20mm pancake and the 7-14. I took it to Argentina having only had it about three days. Daft but there was no alternative. I love the shots it takes - particularly at the 7 end.

Tony

 

[Godfrey]

..
I don't suppose you have a 7-14 that you could photograph on your camera so I could compare it with your widened 14mm pancake?

I ask as I already have the 7-14 and wondered how much your solution reduces size and weight.

Sorry, I don't have one of them. I've debated buying one many times, but the one I want is the olympus ZD so that I can use it on both the E-1 and E-M1. And it's simply too expensive for the amount of use I'd get from it.

For me, the major reason to be interested in using one of these converters is the low cost, which fits my usage well.

G

 

[Godfrey]

Tony, the DMW-GWC1 comes in two parts -- a base which you screw onto the lens's filter mount, and the element(s), which bayonet on to the base. The base almost looks like it would cause vignetting, but it doesn't. The base also come with caps, so you can leave it on and use it as a lens-cap when you don't have the adapter mounted. The downside is that you can't use filters with the base screwed on. NOR DOES THE WIDE ADAPTER HAVE FILTER THREADS, which is a real disappointment, but I knew that pre-purchase.

The wide-angle adapter also has both caps, so it can be in your bag, or mounted on the lens, and you always have both the lens and adapter protected. The bayonet mount isn't exactly a bayonet -- you position and twist on, then twist off in the same direction. I was totally confused until I figured out the somewhat ambiguous directions. The mount seems nice, tight and secure. It is NOT metal, however. Long-term, it might not be the best if you were going to mount/unmount A LOT.

There are alignment detents, but they are not easily seen in low light. However, I discovered that the word WIDE on the edge of the adapter is right where you need to align, and this helps.

As for size, I think the combo of 14mm + GWC1 would be smaller than the 7-14mm but not substantially so.

This sounds very interesting, I'm curious enough that I ordered one. I will compare the Panasonic vs the Sony converter on the 14mm lens.

The nice thing about using a converter is that the little 14mm lens is actually quite a nice performer, and is so tiny and light. Even if I only use a converter rarely, having the 14mm lens is worth it.

G

 

[Tonygamble]

"the little 14mm lens is actually quite a nice performer,"

Indeed. I have just processed about 700 shots taken on Sunday. The 14mm looks sharper than the 25mm and the 45mm.

Tony

 

[Godfrey]

the little 14mm lens is actually quite a nice performer,

Indeed. I have just processed about 700 shots taken on Sunday. The 14mm looks sharper than the 25mm and the 45mm.

Which 25mm and 45mm lenses are you referring to?

I have two 25mm lenses (ZD 25mm f/2.8 and Summilux-DG 25mm f/1.4 ASPH) and there is both the M.Zuiko 45mm f/1.8 and Macro-Elmarit-DG 45mm f/2.8 ASPH OIS. I've got one of the Macro-Elmarit 45mm lenses coming in tomorrow or Thursday.

I haven't done any specific resolution testing between the 14mm and 25mm lenses, but all three of them are pretty darn nice performers.

G

Addendum: You piqued my curiosity so I set up the E-M1 on a tripod and photographed my bookcase again with Summilux 25, ZD 25, and Lumix G 14 lenses. Results below.

 

[Tonygamble]

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

 

[Godfrey]

Lens comparison results ...
Brought the JPEGs and raws into Lightroom 5.3RC. Results are

- with camera set on "Normal" rendering, the JPEG and raw in LR look virtually identical. Looks like Adobe has improved and finalized the E-M1 camera calibration profile!

looking at .ORFs only, cropping 14mm to 25mm FoV:
- ZD 25 shows pronounced barrel distortion compared to the other two. The 14mm has slightly more than the Summilux 25. The Summilux has very little.
- without CA correction turned on, the Summilux shows the least. With CA turned on, virtually the same.
- Summilux holds good sharpness even wide open (f/1.4) in the corners, but by f/2.8 it is substantially sharper. Other two lenses are almost as sharp at f/2.8. By f/5.6, all three are very good, impossible to tell apart on sharpness alone.
- Contrast seems virtually identical for all three, from wide open all the way to fully stopped down.
- ZD25 and G14 both stop down to f/22, Summilux stops at f/16. Diffraction losses from f/11-f/16 are very close, a little more for the 14mm.

My evaluation summary: All three lenses are fine performers. For critical work with the ZD25 and rectilinear subjects, I'll need to do some barrel distortion corrections.

G