I'll do some comparisons between the 16-35 and the 7-14. The 7-14 has a bulbos front element rendering filtering difficult. I do know that some people have modified the plastic lens cap for the 7-14 to be able to accept/fit ... I think a 72mm filter. It doesn't seem all that difficult.

G

__________________
"Everywhere you look there are photographs, it is up to us photogs to see them."- Gary Ayala
My Snaps are Here: Unsharp At Any Speed
Critiquing my images is welcomed and greatly appreciated.

If the 16-35 is the sharpest lens you have used you haven't used any sharp lenses. I have it, it is a very nice lens... Very very nice. But there are dozens of other EF mount lenses (half not made by Canon) that are way sharper than it.

I have both the 9-18 and the 7-14. They are similar in some ways, but different enough that I use them for different purposes. I use the 7-14 mostly as a 7mm prime when I really want to create great UWA... and it is incredible. I use the 9-18 as more of a general-use UWA with more versatility at the long end and when I want to bring something wide but don't want to bring all of my high-end, larger lenses. They each meet different needs in spite of seeming to be directly comparable.

For serious UWA work, the 7-14 is the pinnacle. In fact, it's arguably THE sharpest native zoom lens in m4/3 world. The extra 2mm at the wide end is a significant increase in FOV over the 9mm.

For walk around, keeping weight and size to a minimum, the 9-18 does an awesome job creating UWA images and at the 18mm end, can capture some more general-range focal length work as well.

As for filters, I've never felt the need to put any filters on either one of them. UWA is typically about employing great depth of field, therefore, I usually shoot them stopped down a fair bit - even if that means higher ISO and longer shutter speeds. If filters are important to how you shoot, you can make it work one way or another.

I have no experience with the 17-40.

__________________
Don

Thanks Gary, im really looking forward to see what you come up with!.

I've used a 17-40L for a few years, it is a great lens for daylight landscape photography but you have to stop it down to f8 or f11 to get really sharp images. I've also had the 7-14 and found it pretty sharp already at f4 so I find it more useful for landscape as you can get deeper DOF with less light.

But I don't think they are comparable because the difference between 14mm and 17mm is bigger in real world use than one would think, those 3mm really make a difference.

__________________
My FLICKR
RX100
OMD|EP5|EP1 + Olympus 9-18, 17, 45, 75, 75-300
M9 + Summilux 35 ASPH FLE + Summilux-M 50 ASPH
Zuiko 24 f2.8, Zuiko 50 f1.4, F. Zuiko 38 f1.8, Contax G Zeiss 90 f2.8
Olympus OM-1, Olympus 35 SP, Rolleiflex 2.8 E, Leica IIIf

I have a 17-40L and it was more or less glued to my 300D - the 24-105 replaced it for daily use on the 5DII however. Pretty great lens stopped down for landscapes, and decent corners wide open, but not the best L in my arsenal.

The 7-14 is, based on my limited experience with it, a truly phenomenal ultrawide - the additional mm on the wide-angle end mean its particularly useful for interior architectural shots and the like and gets more use. It does flare quite easily when the sun's in frame, and I'm hoping DxO releases modules for it and the EM-5 sooner rather than later to get the most out of it. It is the better of the two ultrawides, although the Canon is absurdly good value.

__________________
EOS: 5DII, 30DIR, 24-105L, 35L, 135L, 15/2.8 FE, Σ 50/1.4, Σ 105/2.8 macro
Mu43: GF2, E-M5, P14/2.5, P20/1.7, O45/1.8, P7-14, O12-50, P12-35, P100-300
Legacy: Contax Zeiss 50/1.4, 35/2.8, Leica R 50/2.0, 28/2.8, Pentax 50/1.7

Check this excellent 9-18 & 7-14 comparison.


Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm f/4.0-5.6 Lens Review

__________________
Joe


...my stuff is on flickr

what do you mean the C17-40mm is a bit slow @ f4? isnt the P7-14 an f4 lens as well?

Yes. What I meant was that neither is considered "fast", especially by the "I only shoot fast glass wide open" crowd. None of these are, really. But the 17-40 is *only a bit* slow on a FF body like the 5D compared to the 9-18 being (IMHO) quite slow on the G3 I used it on.

I didn't mean it negatively, fast glass isn't much help if you're trying to shoot landscapes with 30+ second shutter speeds.

__________________
OM-D E-M5 || O12-50 | P45-175 | P100-300 | PL25 | O45
Adapted: Minolta MD 28/2.8 Celtic, MD 35/1.8, MD 50/1.4, MD 85/2.0, MD 200/2.8, Nikon 100/2.8 E
Wish List: GH3, 12/2.0, 17/1.8, 75/1.8, Oly ZD FT SHG 300/2.8
Pentax K-5, K-01 || 18-135 WR | Sigma 30/1.4

It looks like it is on DXO's roadmap for August, so not much of a wait now.

By all accounts the Nikon 14-24 is about the best UWA zoom in existence, and the D800 the best FF body in existence. So, relevant to this thread would be this pretty neat comparison of the D800/14-24 vs the E-M5/7-14 over on DPR. Obviously the D800/14-24 is better. What is interesting is just how well the E-M5/7-14 does in comparison.

This link:

Re: Nicely done! Request for those working the RAWs:: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Provides 50MP upsampled images from each combination. RAW files from the OP are available in the thread as well.

FWIW, I've got the 7-14. It is the lens that made me both enter and stick with m43 coming from Canon land. It is one of the better UWA lenses in any system. On Olympus bodies there is residual CA. Shoot RAW, remove CA in LR or ACR and it isn't a problem at all. You can even setup an automatic import preset to do it for you.

Ken