Customer Reviews:
Showing reviews 1-5 of 7
 So how does it compare to the Lumix 7-14? June 11, 2010
Stephen Wilesmith
24 out of 24 found this review helpful
I made an emotional leap and bought the Lumic G 7-14 right when I got my GF1 a while back. I had dabbled with wide-angle photography and found the images very compelling so I went for it.
For a long time I only had the 7-14 and the 20mm pancake and I have to say it changed my picture taking. Limited to this range, with no long zoom, I began to seek wider perspectives, and ways to use depth of focus to pull out an object that would otherwise be lost in its surroundings. Soon, my portraits, especially of groups, started to swim in context, something so often lacking in portrait photography. But most notably both lenses produced fabulous images, rich and deep in color, crisp and worth taking time to really study, rather than glance at.
I still longed for a telephoto, but was unsure whether the current 45-200 would meet the same optics standards as the 20 and 7-14 so I held off.
Then came the Olympus 9-18. Initially I dismissed news of the lens as covering an area I already had well in hand, but then I read reviews and began to think about it. Deciding to take the plunge I ordered the lens pretty much the day it came out and was surprised when it came very quickly. It is stunningly small, not to pile on but it is something to remember because it takes BIG images. Sweeping shots that encompass the scene and deliver it in one big, satisfying mouthful to the viewer. At the end I could find little to differentiate the images from the 7-14 barring the added range at the bottom end, which should not be discounted. But soon I found I was not carrying the 7-14 anymore. It was larger, more specialised. The 9-18 with my GF1 would hang around my neck with my 20mm in my bag and I would find myself forgetting to switch to the pancake, as the 9-18 came close to touching its range anyway.
So what am I saying? For those that enjoy wide angle shooting as a standard, the 9-18 is spectacular and will possibly become your go-to lens, especially during the day when you can keep your aperture as low as possible. For thiose that only dabble in big sky shots, the 7-14 has more of that fabulous bottom range and the images are a touch more vivid, crisper in the center, slightly more satisfying.
They both have their place, depending on what your desires are, but ironically I would recommend the 9-18 to the true lover of wide angle, and the 7-14 to the big shot tourist, even though that may seem counterintuitive. 9mm is that sweet spot of 90 degree horizontal view, and really where you want to be before barrel distortion becomes the main theme rather than a feature. So pick your poison and enjoy.
Olympus M4/3 lens on a Panasonic G1 August 5, 2010
a scientist
1 out of 2 found this review helpful
I haven't had the chance to really give this lens a thorough shakedown, but here are some immediate thoughts. First, many of the other reviewers are clearly using this lens on an Olympus. When "collapsed", this lens is almost half an inch shorter than the 14 - 45 mm kit lens, and therefore slightly shorter than the 14 - 42 mm kit lens. It is considerably lighter, too. That means that the whole package is really light and fun to use. Note that there's no image stabilization with this lens on a Panasonic camera, but I took some handheld indoor shots without a flash without much blur. Autofocusing worked nicely. The only thing that made my heart skip a beat is that the Panasonic camera does NOT recognize the lens until it is fully extended. After that the lens worked beautifully. It certainly corrects for distortion, but I've heard that Panasonics can't correct for chromatic aberration. I haven't had a chance to do the pixel-peeping and confirm this. All I know is it does the most important correction automatically, which I'm thrilled with.
The only other thing to note is that this lens is a bit pricey. It's normally 70% of the price of the Panasonic 7 - 14 mm F4 lens. Recently, Amazon had an instant rebate that brought the price down to 60% of the price of the Panasonic lens. At that price, it's a super lens. It's not quite the sharpest, or the best built, but in terms of capability per dollar, it's excellent, which is why I've given it five stars.
 Excellent images, small, light and accepts filters May 13, 2010
Neal K. Wagner (Maui, Hawaii)
21 out of 21 found this review helpful
The small size of the 9-18mm is the first striking observation when I unpacked the lens -- it's only slighty larger than the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 pancake lens and much smaller (in its retracted position, it extends for use with a small slide switch on the lens barrel) than the Panasonic 14-45mm lens. Zooming is smooth and the lens extends as it zooms but not enough to become awkward. Image clarity and color are very good and the field of view range is excellent for wide angle work. The lens is threaded to accept 52mm filters and does not rotate while focusing or zooming -- so a circular polarizer will remain in adjustment.
A slight amount of chromatic aberation is apparent in the corners of the image but not in the central area, not objectionable to my eye and easily corrected.
The 35mm equivalent 18-36mm field of view is outstanding on a Micro Four Thirds camera -- especially for such a small and lightweight lens.
The chief competitor is the Panasonic 7-14mm lens, also rated highly by reviewers and offering the advantages of wider field of view (35mm equivalent 14-28mm) and some auto-correction when used on a Panasonic camera but more expensive, larger and does not accept filters.
This lens is not stabilized on a Panasonic camera but is stabilized on Olympus cameras since they have camera-body stabilization -- although a wide angle lens shows little hand vibration.
I would give the lens 5 stars but I'm disappointed at this price that it comes without a hood or even a soft case, items that are included on lenses like the Panasonic 14-45mm, 45mm and 45-200mm lenses.
Overall, I highly recommend this lens so far based on a few days use.
Definite must buy for MFT users May 26, 2010
Harry M. Shin (Livermore, CA USA)
15 out of 16 found this review helpful
1. I pretty much agree with the initial reviewer of this lens. Here are a summary of my random thoughts after several days use of this lens:
a. First of all, as all initial reviews have stated--> it's small. It's an obvious statement, but unless you actually see / physically handle the lens, it's somewhat difficult to appreciate. It's about the same size as the kit lens. The main issue for me (and perhaps for some others), is that it is definitely smaller than the olympus 9-18mm regular four-thirds lens (which I have)... so much so that just based on size alone, I do feel it's worth getting this lens for your EP camera, even if you already have the 9-18mm four-thirds version.
b. This is just pure personal impressions, but this lens seems to be built better than the kit lens. The zooming action seems to be a bit more... smoother. I don't know if that means that it's a better built lens, but in general it feels fairly nicely made (although as with all of these types of lens--> plastics etc...). Hey, it's not a Zeiss Distagon etc...
c. Autofocus--> basically, decent enough for me. Expect in dim lighting, the autofocus is quick and precise. For those with the regular four-thirds 9-18mm, this micro fourthirds 9-18mm is much much much quicker in regards to autofocus. Just based on this reason alone--> get this lens.
d. Image quality: Good enough for the purposes of this lens, for this type of camera system etc... Good enough for me means that you'll get images that you'll be very pleased with. Again, it's unfair to compare this lens to... something like my favorite Zeiss Distagon 21mm 2.8. With that being said, you'll be able to get high quality images that you should be happy with. In regards to the comparison to the regular four-thirds 9-18mm, I haven't done any head to head testing, but I'm going to guess that it's very similar and again, based on the small size factor and autofocusing advantage, if you have a micro-fourthirds camera--> this is the superwide angle lens to get (esp if you have an Olympus).
e. I appreciate the ability to put on a filter etc...
f. Movies: This is probably going to be my main lens for shooting video clips. Perhaps because of the formatting size of the video screen, but I find it easier to shoot video with a fairly wide angle and this lens is perfect for shooting video; I like it better than the kit zoom.
2. Downsides? I completely agree with the initial reviewer that Olympus should have included the lens hood. I mean, come on--> you're going to want /need a lens hood for this superwide angle lens, you're putting out decent bucks--> please just include the lens hood. Furthermore, the lens is out, but as of this time, I can't figure out where in the world to buy the lens hood (I'm sure in time it'll appear somewhere).
The plastic nature of lens construction these days, I guess that's the way it is. It would be nice if the construction was a bit more... professional.
Slow lens? I guess that's the way it is as well--> ie faster lens--> bigger lens--> more expensive lens etc...
3. Overall, I'm very happy with this lens purchase. I would think that most all micro-fourthirds owners would be happy with lens.
Panny 7-14mm vs Oly 9-18mm July 20, 2010
J. A Harring (Fla)
6 out of 7 found this review helpful
(This is the same review posted in the Panasonic Review.) Panasonic 7-14mm f/4.0 Micro Four Thirds Lens for Panasonic Digital SLR Cameras
Probably everyone is wondering the same thing as I did: The Panny 7-14mm, or Olympus m.zukio 9-18mm?
So I bought both. While testing showed in daylight they are about the same, low light was interesting. First let's tak about the size.
When you see these two diminuitive lenses, you may think, I spent how much for this?? But this is one of a few cases where less really IS more. The Oly lens is about the size of a small jar of baby food, the Panny is probably a about the size of those half cans of Coke. Both are so small/light (compared to the GH1 14-140mm) you may think you forgot the lens. GH1 feels like a toy, but it's really a powerful tool I can carry all day, no sweat.
These ultra-wides beg to be used indoors or to capture places like Times Square. Needless to say, you don't always get good lighting indoors. So speed of the lens was a concern. I shot 200 photos in a high end hotel lobby--dim lights, wonderful artwork, walnut bars, you know the place. I shot ISO100 and 400 in raw and on tripod w/ timer to ensure minimal external influence.
Both WA lenses produced RW2's that were brighter than what I saw with the naked eye. Also, both are significantly sharper than the stock GH1 14-140mm lens, in fact on par or better than just about any WA lens I have used. While both are pretty sharp lenses, I found the Olympus to be slightly sharper in just about every test I ran. I was astonished I could see details on a wine bottle label 15 feet away in Adobe Bridge.
On balance, the Oly seemed to give me 1/2 stop more metering in same scene (dark hotel lobby). As a result, I found the F4-5.6 of the Oly vs f4 of the Panny to not be significant. The Oly hunted slightly as it was focusing, but the photo betrayed no loss of focus.
7mm vs 9mm on WA is very significant on m4/3, at least about a foot or so extra width on either side shooting down a 15' wide entrance hall. If you must have maximum WA, stop reading, go with Panny, if you want slighty sharper pix, go with Oly. I suspect a good RAW workflow could largely equalize these two differences. As far as the 7-9mm range, objects close to the lens will show the fisheye type curvature (not that bad), anything over 10 feet away will look pretty normal.
Oly screw-on filter nice, but not a must have, unless outdoors a lot. I also wish Oly included a lens hood.
Video out of both lenses gives you what you want, amazing perspective. Slight up/downward angle induces some interesting distortion, straight on (level) with nothing near the lens looks almost widescreen anamorphic. The Panny might be a better choice for video, again the 7mm making a difference.
When researching my DSLR, one recurring post on message boards was how many missed a shot because they didn't carry their too big/heavy DSLR around. So, size/weight largely led to my taking the risk on the largely unproven m4/3 platform. Those of us who took a risk on m4/3 vs the traditional DSLR route are being validated by lenses such as these. Both are great lenses, but I went with the sharper Oly lens. I can still recommend the Panny if you need ultimate WA, as I doubt you will notice the slight softness without side by side comparison.
Finally, I offer a grateful thanks to both OLY/Panny. First by having a camera that is practical to easily carry and now by astonishing lenses such as these at a fraction of the weight and size and every bit as good as the DSLR for the average shooter. You both have succeeded in makin selection darn difficult.
Showing reviews 1-5 of 7
|
