8-18 in exchange of my 12-40?

travelbug

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
338
I am landscape photographer for the most part. I also dabble in some night and astro. My IG in my sig may give some of you an idea of what I like to shoot. I use an em5ii and these are my lenses: oly 12-40pro, laowa 7.5/2, mitakon 25/0.95, pana100-300

The 12-40 and lowa7.5 have proven to be a solid combination for landscapes. But I sometimes find myself not able to change lenses while outdoors and the laowa flares horribly when shooting directly into the sun when Im using my filters.

I was offered an opportunity to get the 8-18 in exchange for my 12-40 plus some cash. Im thinking of jumping the gun, although I will be losing 20-40mm in focal length. For landscapes though I dont use these focal lengths (except for 40mm).

My question is has anyone used both lenses and would you say the 8-18 is superior IQ wise. Also, if you were in my position, would you trade the 12-40 for the 8-18?

Thanks for reading and helping :)
 

ibd

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jun 5, 2016
Messages
340
I agree with wjiang somewhat. I found the 8-18 to be too short (!) sometimes when doing landscape shots, so still requiring a 2nd lens to cover longer focal lengths. It's not an "one fits all" lens.
You said you don't "need it (except 40mm)". So you will also need another lens around 40mm. So I would consider that when making the deal: You introduce the need for another lens, which is almost the same as spending some money already. ;)
 

travelbug

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
338
I have both the 8-18 and 12-40. The 12-40 is superior optically in the shared focal lengths. They serve different purposes.
Follow up question bud. The 8-18 won a number of lens of the year awards and as far as I know, the 12-40 didnt. The 8-18 isnt 2.8 constant which is I think the reason you say its optically less. However , do you notice better microcontrast and better sharpness in corners in the wider end of the lens?
 

travelbug

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
338
I agree with wjiang somewhat. I found the 8-18 to be too short (!) sometimes when doing landscape shots, so still requiring a 2nd lens to cover longer focal lengths. It's not an "one fits all" lens.
You said you don't "need it (except 40mm)". So you will also need another lens around 40mm. So I would consider that when making the deal: You introduce the need for another lens, which is almost the same as spending some money already. ;)
yes I realise the 8-18 isnt an all around lens but I do shoot landscapes 95% of the time anyways.
My plan is to sell the laowa for a 40-150 if the 8-18 proves capable.
 

wjiang

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Sep 7, 2013
Messages
7,114
Location
Christchurch, New Zealand
Follow up question bud. The 8-18 won a number of lens of the year awards and as far as I know, the 12-40 didnt. The 8-18 isnt 2.8 constant which is I think the reason you say its optically less. However , do you notice better microcontrast and better sharpness in corners in the wider end of the lens?
f/2.8 played no part. The 12-40 at it's wider end is sharper than the 8-18 at pretty much all apertures. I think it's just hard to make an UWA that is better than a standard lens.

The 8-18 is great as an UWA and quite an achievement with its relativeness compact size, great focal length range and ability to take filters.

The 12-40 is yet another standard lens, like many others. It is a partcularly good one that happens to have sold extremely well. But good standard lenses are not that uncommon.
 

speedy

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 27, 2015
Messages
2,061
I use the 8-18 exponentially more, up to about 12mm anyway, than the 12-40 range. I have the Panny 12-32, and very very rarely use it. And it's nothing to do with sharpness or the like. If I want to use the longer focal length range, I personally much prefer to use my primes. I generally use my 8-18 between about 8-10mm. But that's just me.
 

Wisertime

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 6, 2013
Messages
2,810
Location
Philly
Real Name
Steve
I would take the trade. You can always buy another 12-40 if you have regrets (or get the 12-100 instead of the 12-40 + 40-150). There are tons on the used market. Less so of the 8-18. You can recoup your money on the 8-18 if you think you no longer like it, but I think you will.
 

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
6,554
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
Maybe it's copy related, but my 8-18 is in no way inferior to my 12-40. In fact, I think it's better :)

As an example, click here's a shot taken wide open. It's slightly cropped top and bottom, but not left/right. It's not often I shoot landscapes wide open, but as you'll see from the shutter speed, it was still fairly dark and it's hand-held. Click through to the Flickr page and then look at the hi-res version.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Day Break in Bruges by Paul Kaye, on Flickr
 
Last edited:

wjiang

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Sep 7, 2013
Messages
7,114
Location
Christchurch, New Zealand
Maybe it's copy related, but my 8-18 is in no way inferior to my 12-40. In fact, I think it's better :)

As an example, click here's a shot taken wide open. It's slightly cropped top and bottom, but not left/right. It's not often I shoot landscapes wide open, but as you'll see from the shutter speed, it was still fairly dark and it's hand-held. Click through to the Flickr page and then look at the hi-res version.

View attachment 750822
Day Break in Bruges by Paul Kaye, on Flickr
Have you shot them side-by-side at the same focal lengths and compared directly? Of course the 8-18 is guaranteed to win at 8-11mm...
 

Egregius V

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jun 14, 2015
Messages
564
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Real Name
Rev. Gregory Vozzo
Reviews of the 8-18 that I've seen indicate that it's sharper at the wide end than at the tele end. Just something to be aware of. One review also found increased field curvature at the middle of the zoom range - so if you're comparing lenses around 12mm, that's also something to be aware of.
 

speedy

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 27, 2015
Messages
2,061
Have you shot them side-by-side at the same focal lengths and compared directly? Of course the 8-18 is guaranteed to win at 8-11mm...
I've shot my 8-18 at 15mm, side by side with my PL 15, and they're that close it's not funny. I was pretty surprised to be honest, as the 15mm is no slouch. There's so many small variables that can tip the balance one way or the other, and you really have to go looking to see them.
(I think I've deleted the test shots I took due to the big Flickr cash grab)
I also think that the 8-18 is outstanding wide open at 8mm, which is really all what I bought it for. In saying that, I've never tested it against anything else, but I honestly can't think of any improvement I'd like there
 

comment23

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
962
Location
Hampshire, UK
Real Name
Simon
I am landscape photographer for the most part. I also dabble in some night and astro. My IG in my sig may give some of you an idea of what I like to shoot. I use an em5ii and these are my lenses: oly 12-40pro, laowa 7.5/2, mitakon 25/0.95, pana100-300

The 12-40 and lowa7.5 have proven to be a solid combination for landscapes. But I sometimes find myself not able to change lenses while outdoors and the laowa flares horribly when shooting directly into the sun when Im using my filters.

I was offered an opportunity to get the 8-18 in exchange for my 12-40 plus some cash. Im thinking of jumping the gun, although I will be losing 20-40mm in focal length. For landscapes though I dont use these focal lengths (except for 40mm).

My question is has anyone used both lenses and would you say the 8-18 is superior IQ wise. Also, if you were in my position, would you trade the 12-40 for the 8-18?

Thanks for reading and helping :)
Based on your IG (very nice btw) you might well get some good benefit from the Panasonic-Leica 8-18.

But I would be surprised if you didn’t also have some regret about not having the O12-40 any longer. If you’re anything like me you’ll probably end up repurchasing another the copy later :oops:
 

Hypilein

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 18, 2015
Messages
1,400
My travel and landscape setup consists of the 8-18 and 35-100. I think it's the ultimate sweet spot in a compact two lens setup. I could see exchanging the 35-100 for the 12-100, but the lens is bigger and slower and I need f2.8 for my non-landscape stuff. I'd say go for it. Standard lenses are overrated!
 

dirtdevil

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Apr 9, 2017
Messages
818
I remember 1.5 years ago, the 2 Canadian guys now at Dpreview (from the Camera Store) gave the 8-18 the "lens of the year" award. What makes that lens superior/attractive is its rectilinearity. So I guess it should be compared with other lenses that go from 7 to 14mm (which are not rectilinear).
 

dornblaser

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 13, 2012
Messages
3,382
Location
Chicago-area
Real Name
David Dornblaser
I have both lenses and it is an apples - oranges discussion. The 8-18 is an excellent lens and it has become part of my 2 - 3 lens city travel kit along with a 17mm.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom