Anyone moved from the 7-14 f4.0 to the f2.8 ?

[Tonygamble]

My 2.8 7-14 was the first lens I bought when I moved to m43. I used it a lot and loved it.

I tend to use my faster lenses these days. I know that 2.8 is only one stop faster but has anyone made the move around here and feels it was a good/bad decision?

I ask now as, if I am to do the swop, early January ought to be a good time to get a good price.

I'm also partly prompted by finding some prints from my Hassleblad Xpan that did lovely panoramics using double the normal 35mm frame width. The Panny at 7mm will replicate the width and all I need to do is crop the top and bottom viciously.

Tony

 

[archiM44]

In 2010 I had the f4 micro 4/3 next to my Leica M8 and M9 and sold all the 4/3 stuff.
This year purchased Olympus D and the Olympus 7-14 f2.8 after trying the latest 4/3 cameras and lenses.
I still had all the f4 images in my computer and just looked at them. The quality amazed me in spite of them having been taken with
older panasonic and olympus cameras. The images from the newer lens and cameras are also excellent.
The only disadvantage I see in the new lens is its size which is very large. Maybe if I had checked out my old pictures (Mostly architectural )
I would have gone for the f4. If you can loan or rent the 2.8 I would try it out. It is weather sealed which might be worth it.

 

[drofnad]

My 2.8 7-14 was the first lens I bought when I moved to m43. I used it a lot and loved it.

I tend to use my faster lenses these days. I know that 2.8 is only one stop faster but has anyone made the move around here and feels it was a good/bad decision?

This reads sensibly if one subs '4.0' vice '2.8' at the start.
Yes?!

-d.

 

[Tonygamble]

Thanks d, but that is not the case.

I started with the F4.0.

Since then almost all my lenses have been faster.

What I want to hear from is someone who has owned this and f2.8 and find the extra stop and weight are worth me swopping the 4.0 for it.

Tony

 

[biglouis]

Yes. I had the 7-14/4 and not wishing to diss it, it was a pretty good lens but not a spectacular lens. I found the distortion at the edges wide open very bad indeed but often at 7mm the view is so dramatic you are not really looking at detail.

I sold the lens and for some time did without an UWA. Then I bought the Oly 7-14/2.8 Pro which is an absolute stellar performer on both my GX8 and GH5. This was before the Lumix 8-18 was announced.

I would only switch to the Lumix 8-18 if I could borrow one and compare - I rely on the Oly Pro so much I can't afford to take a chance just to stay in the Panasonic family.

Here is a typical shot with the 7-14/2.8 Pro which I used in my first book on Whitechapel, 'Whitechapel in 50 Buildings'. Tripod mounted on the GX8, 7mm f11 iso200 inside St George's In The East, church.

 

[Tonygamble]

Thanks Louis,

I looked at that 8-18 but the moving aperture put me off.

I use my 7-14 a lot at the widest end and only go to 14 when I realise I have the wrong lens loaded.

Yes, it is distorted but I shoot RAW and process in Qimage. Mike Chaney created a good correction algorithm for the lens. OK I do get the odd purple flash on the E-M5 but not often enough to be a problem.

Tony

 

[ptomsu]

If you are serious with a great WA zoom for m43, the the Olympus 2.8/7-14 PRO is the only choice!

It is on my immediate wish list (together with the recently released 1.2/45 PRO) ....

 

[biglouis]

Thanks Louis,

I looked at that 8-18 but the moving aperture put me off.

Tony

Unless you are going to be doing a lot of low light stuff, I don't think that is a big deal. I rarely use the 7-14 at anything less than f8. It is the quality of the glass not the fast aperture which is why I like it.

If you are serious with a great WA zoom for m43, the the Olympus 2.8/7-14 PRO is the only choice!

It is on my immediate wish list (together with the recently released 1.2/45 PRO) ....

You are right but it is large and it doesn't take filters (although I bought an after market colar which allows me to mount my Lee 100mm filters - not that I have actually ever done so!).

LouisB

 

[drofnad]

Thanks d, but that is not the case.

I started with the F4.0.
Tony

???
That is precisely the point of my comment!
(You write "My 2.8 7-14 was the first lens I bought".)

To my awareness, there wasn't such a swell of admiration for the Olympus's much bigger & costlier --esp. being new and so w/o used copies on sale-- 7-14, and so I found a good copy (luck) at KEH.com of the Panasonic's 4.

I rarely use the 7-14 at anything less than f8

I'm surprised at Louis's apertures --both vis-a-vis the WA & 4/3 DoF & diffraction (about which I read various explanations and then my head hurts :talk028: ). F8-11-16, and at 7-10mm ... ? DoFMaster puts DoF at infinity from 1m, e.g., w/3m focus point even wide open (so 2.8-4.0 as available)!? ... reading some remarks about Oly's great field curvature :: leads to stopping down or closer focus point!?

-d.

 

[Tonygamble]

(You write "My 2.8 7-14 was the first lens I bought".)

Correct. I did. It was a mistake. The 2.8 did not exist then.

Correct. The 2.8 did come out to mixed reports. That is why I started this thread. To see if the passage of time had produced a few more enthusiasts. DPR (unlike GetDPI) has a lot of posts from people actually admit they haven't even bought the bit of kit they are commenting on !!

Tony

 

[biglouis]

???

I'm surprised at Louis's apertures --both vis-a-vis the WA & 4/3 DoF & diffraction (about which I read various explanations and then my head hurts :talk028: ).
-d.

Lol! I was exaggerating a bit. However, I did check out the stats in Lightroom and out of 54,000 photographs in my library, over 10,000 were shot at f8. Filtering on the Oly 7-14, I've used it for 4,267 photographs of which 2,230 were at f8. The next largest use is at f5.6 - 454 photographs and I have only used it 159 times at f2.8.

I was in desperate need of a UWA in February 2016 and I did not want to buy any more Sony/Zeiss glass for my A7 series cameras as each piece of glass I bought, brought more disappointment.

I have never been disappointed with the Oly 7-14 and I have pretty much exlusively used it on my GX8 (3,330 times) versus my GH5 (928 times).

It is great what you can get out of the filtering stats on Lightroom!

BTW, I mainly shoot at f8 because all the lens I own do not exhibit diffraction before f11 or upwards, so I know I am in a safe zone. (Well, to be fair my Sigma DP0Q exhibits awful diffraction above f8 and I rarely use it above f5.6)

I hope that isn't too much information

LouisB

 

[Tonygamble]

Unless you are going to be doing a lot of low light stuff, I don't think that is a big deal.

I do.

I don't use LR so I don't have the stats but I reckon that at least half my shooting is at evening indoor events.

I am not sure one extra stop will make a lot of difference and hence my reason for starting the thread to see if there were other factors to encourage me to make the change when the January stock holding panic sets in.

Tony

 

[Tonygamble]

Bought a used F2.8 on Black Friday at a price too good to miss.

Did my first shoot on Sunday.

http://www.tonygamble.uk/Ski_Sunday_2018/index.html

I had my 42.5mm 1.2 with me but I am sure you gurus can spot which is which.

In my mind there is no doubt that it is a sharper lens. Heavier and bulkier but that does not bother me as I have stopped travelling with my m43 so it will only get used at, and close to, home.

The f4.0 is on eBay today. It may go quite cheaply as it has a scratch on the barrel caused by a tumble on Laos many years ago. I am sure the optics are fine.

Happy snapping.

Tony