|
Author
|
|
PeterB666
Mu-43 Top Veteran
Registered: January 2010
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 762
|
|
Review Date: Wed May 12, 2010
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid?: $697.00
| Rating: 0
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact, light weight, sharp, fast & silent autofocus, low flare, great image quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
No lens hood or pouch in box. Before you take a picture you think "not much lens for the money"
|
|
I paid 455 UK pounds for this lens including EMS shipping from Japan, which works out at USD 697 so roughly the same price as in the US and substantially less than if sourced in the UK or Australia.
When you pick up the lens, it is so light and compact you think you have been ripped off. You wonder where all the money has gone. Well it has gone into the image quality and the compactness.
This is an outstanding lens, and despite the cost, great value for money.
The lens feels good on the camera (my E-P1). Although a telescoping lens, there is only minimal play when extended.
It focuses reasonably fast although I have only tested it in low light & indoors. It is probably a little faster than the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 which I use most of the time (or have up until now) and similar to the Panasonic 45-200mm zoom for focus speed. It is absolutely silent as far as I can tell.
It is a joy to use and the only caveat I place on that is that as the lens is so compact, I found that you can accidently change the focus (I shoot a lot of MF) when you zoom the lens. This shouldn't affect most users. Size-wise, the lens has similar proportions to the standard Olympus 14-42 zoom but I rarely use that lens manual focus.
There are no problems with using Cokin P series holder and filters which keeps me very happy. There is no vignetting with the filter holder at 9mm even when 3 P series filters are stacked. I am pleasantly surprised as I don't have to upgrade to Z-Pro filters.
Initial impressions are that there is a lot of detail in the photos and they seem pretty sharp from edge to edge. Flare is minimal at 18mm and low at 9mm. Even at its worst, flare is better than the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 or any other lens I have.
The diffraction of point sources of light when stopped down isn't as good as the Panasonic lenses even though it has a 7-bladed diaphragm. It should give a good 14-point star diffraction but it is a bit on the fuzzy side. My guess is that the less than distinct nature of the diffraction is due to the curved shape of the aperture blades.
It appears that the Olympus lens renders a slightly warmer image than the Panasonic lenses. This is probably due to differences in lens coatings and unless you are doing a direct comparison under the same conditions, you would never notice.
The lens is still small enough to fit with the camera into some compact camera pouches.
Overall, I am very impressed with this lens and thoroughly recommend it.
|
|
|
|
Streetshooter
Administrator Emeritus
Registered: December 2009
Location: Phila, Pa USA
Posts: 5129
|
|
Review Date: Wed May 12, 2010
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid?: None indicated
| Rating: 0
|
|
Pros:
|
Very compact
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
The lens is very compact. It focuses very fast even in low light.
On the street it is a great companion with the Pen cameras.
I keep it at 18mm as this is my normal FOV.
Then I can move in closer and adjust the Focal Length to get more info. It has the typical distortion of shapes on the edges of all super wides but I like that anyway.
It is silent. It will not come off one of my bodies as this is now my sweet spot.
I've been waiting for this option for a while. I don't like zoomies but this one will change my way of thinking and that ia always a good thing.
------------------------------
~ Shooter's Flickr photostream
Blog http://streetshooter.net
|
|
|
|
|
w7ox
Mu-43 Regular
Registered: June 2010
Posts: 36
|
|
Review Date: Fri June 18, 2010
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid?: $699.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Small, great IQ, good range (18-36mm equiv); fast focus
|
|
Cons:
|
Collapsing mechanism slows start up
|
|
This is one of my favorite and most used m4/3 lenses. The range, 18-36 mm equiv, makes for a good walkaround street lens and an excellent landscape lens. Not the fastest lens, but the E-PL1's excellent performance at higher ISOs makes up for that.
Only downside is the collapsing design, ala the 14-42 kit lens; but it is a much faster performer than the kit lens, once deployed.
------------------------------
Phil
GH3 (8 fisheye, 12-35, 35-100, 100-300)
GX1 (20 f/1.7, 9-18, 14-45)
|
|
|
|
|
Starred
Mu-43 Regular
Registered: August 2010
Posts: 134
|
|
Review Date: Sat August 7, 2010
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid?: None indicated
| Rating: 0
|
|
What would you prefer, a Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 or the Olympus ED 9-18mm f4.0-5.6?
|
|
|
|
|
WT21
Ninja Gear Churner
Registered: February 2010
Location: North East
Posts: 4228
|
|
Review Date: Sun September 5, 2010
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid?: $699.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, size/weight
|
|
Cons:
|
price, build quality
|
|
I had this lens for a short time, and was very, very impressed with speed of focus and results. I just don't shoot wide enough to justify the price for me -- but if you do shoot wide, I highly recommend it.
My issues with it are price and build quality, as with the 14-150 which I sold this lens to purchase.
------------------------------
EM5; 9-18, PL25, 100-300 and some others.
(also, 6D + RX100)
|
|
|
|
|
Jimboh
Mu-43 Regular
Registered: September 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 75
|
|
Review Date: Sat September 18, 2010
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid?: $598.99
| Rating: 0
|
|
Pros:
|
Size, Weight, sharpness
|
|
Cons:
|
Cost, "pumps" a bit when shooting video but focus stays sharp.
|
|
Was tough decision between Panny. If the price difference is not a problem, the Panny 7-14 is probably the better choice. However, I was price sensitive and now I have used this extensively, I do not regret choosing the Oly. Because it's UWA, you can get away with high ISO (1600) and not really see the noise in typical shot.
More generally, I think a UWA (nonfisheye) should be in every shooter's kit. Tilt up/down can totally change the perspective of the shot. UWA's are not well suited to portraits, due to intrinsic distortion. Be careful shooting the wife with this lens!
------------------------------
Panny GH-1 [RIP Nov 2011] Panny G3 | Panny 14-140mm | Oly 9-18mm
Nikkor F: 35mm f/2 o-series
Canon FD: 85mm f/1.8 | 135mm f/2.5 | 200mm f/2.8
Novoflex Canon FD-m4/3 | Voigtlander Nikkor F-m4/3 | Metz AF-1 48 Flash
|
|
|
|
|
joefer
New to Mu-43
Registered: April 2010
|
|
Review Date: Fri November 19, 2010
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid?: $650.00
| Rating: 0
|
|
Pros:
|
great little lens
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
took a trip to mexico and most of the shots were with this lens good for closeups and land scapes love it
|
|
|
|
|
MP Burke
Mu-43 Rookie
Registered: July 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 24
|
|
Review Date: Sun May 1, 2011
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid?: None indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Weight. size, sharpness, 52mm filter size
|
|
Cons:
|
Chromatic aberrations, slow maximum aperture
|
|
I bought this lens for outdoor photography, where one of my particular interests is visiting and photographing archaeological sites.
The 9mm focal length gives an angle of view that is wide enough for most circumstances and I like having the enormous depth of field.
I prefer to have a filter protecting the front lens element and found the absence of a filter thread a major drawback of the 7-14mm Panasonic.
I like the collapsing feature as it makes for a very compact lens when in the closed position and appreciate the low weight when I am walking in the hills of Snowdonia.
I took some photos with a lens before I bought one to check out the chromatic aberrations. It is easy enough to correct them but I would recommend anybody with an interest in this lens to try it out first. As far as I am aware there is no software solution to automatically correct the CA (as is done with the Panasonic ultrawide).
Olympus has made the lens just over half the weight of the 4/3 version with a much smaller filter size and I think it's a great example of the advantages of m4/3 for lens construction. The downside of the small size is the comparatively slow maximum aperture, but I think many people will use this lens in combination with a faster fixed focal lens.
|
|
|
|
|
kevwilfoto
Mu-43 Veteran
Registered: September 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 294
|
|
Review Date: Fri June 1, 2012
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid?: $649.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
small, light, sharp, filter threads
|
|
Cons:
|
distortion, cheap construction, slow aperture
|
|
If you want to use filters with your ultra-wide micro-4/3 lens, you won't get very far with the Panasonic 7-14. Thats why I got this lens. And it's less expensive, too.
It has very good sharpness, color, and contrast. It is very small and light - extremely portable.
If you shoot RAW you'll notice it has quite a bit of distortion at the wide end.
Lens diffraction becomes noticeable about f/7.1 and gets worse as the aperture gets smaller. if shooting at 18mm, you've got 2/3 of a stop to work with. :(
It feels kinda cheap to me, rather plastic-y and flimsy, but I'm sure some people won't care about that.
All in all, a very nice lens. Nothing beats it for a keep-in-your-jeans-pocket ultra-wide lens.
------------------------------
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
|
|
|
|
|
yekimrd
Mu-43 Top Veteran
Registered: June 2012
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 952
|
|
Review Date: Thu June 21, 2012
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid?: $525.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
very small, reasonably priced
|
|
Cons:
|
good IQ but not as good as the oly 12mm or panny 7-14mm
|
|
Purchased this before but have since moved on to the Oly 12mm prime. I'd say the IQ is good to very good but noticeably subpar compared to the 12mm (or the panny 7-14mm so i've heard).
Diffraction sets in quite early at f/4 on the wider end and at f/5.6 at the higher end so remember this when you're shooting. The advantage of the m43 system is your aperture stop is effectively twice that of in a FF camera due to its cropped sensor. What this means is you SHOULD be able to get away with a detailed UWA shot at f/4. And I say SHOULD because I personally shoot cityscapes and IMHO I don't get as much detail in the building windows and textures with this lens compared to the Oly 12mm prime. I can imagine this won't matter for landscape photography.
Lens distortion is acceptable until you get to the widest focal length (9-10mm). I've used this in interior and medium-to-low light and I can say that it still performs well and doesn't hunt as much when it autofocus. If you are a zoom person and want to shoot landscapes/cityscapes this is your best option right now (the panny is just too bulky and very expensive); if you wait a couple of months, you can get the panny 12-35 f/2.8. Otherwise, I would recommend the 12mm oly.
Overall, a very good lens but IQ-wise is at the bottom of the pile compared to its counterparts (the 12mm oly and 7-14 panny).
------------------------------
Pediatric oncologist, photo enthusiast, and proud Pinoy!
PL 25/1.4, mZD 75/1.8 (technically still an MFT owner)
www.pixoto.com/omdem5
|
|
|
|
|
Micro Four Thirds User Forum
