8-18, wait for Oly 8-25, or Laowa 10

JonSnih

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
304
Location
CZE
After finally seeing the pictures and specs, I thought maybe 8-25mm F4 was too ambitious, but 10-25mm F1.7 is even worse, lol.
Olympus was always ambitious with SHG/Pro line-up. The 8-25mm F4 is a modern version of the Zuiko 11-22mm F2.8-3.5 (475 grams).
So... I just pulled the plug and ordered the PL8-18. I like my other PL lens so I think this will be great. Found it at discount also :)
How much did you pay?
 

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,500
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
Thanks! It seems to what I feel also. And to add, 14-18 is a range I really want so the PL8-18 looks great. The extra speed in wide end can be good to have also, compared the fixed f/4 I mean.

I actually made a comparison between 18 and 25 with a simulator. It is not that much actually. I slight crop of the 18 image will do for the 25. But obviously, you have more crop margin in the 25 :)
https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/simulator/

So... I just pulled the plug and ordered the PL8-18. I like my other PL lens so I think this will be great. Found it at discount also :)
I’m sure you won’t be disappointed. Remember for complete weathersealing, you need to add a filter.
 

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,500
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
Paul, can you be more specific about that, please?
Sure- the PL8-18 is a semi-internal zooming lens. What I mean by that is that is there's an inner barrel (to which the front element attaches) that moves forward and backward within the interior of the outer barrel. At 8mm, it's close to the filter threads, further away at 18mm. The lens is not water resistant at the point where the inner barrel meets the outer. However, put a filter on it and the whole lot in enclosed.
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2021
Messages
130
Location
Romania
Real Name
Cata
You can see it clearly in this video:

Thanks Paul. I can see exactly what you mean, but I have to mention that I have never heard anybody mentioning this "filter tip" when mentioning the lens' weather sealing. Not even this guy, he mentions only the rubber gasket around the lens mount. That's why I was asking you to elaborate on this. But I remember this same "add a filter to get the weather sealing" tip on the Tamron 17-28/2.8 lens for Sony E mount (IIRC), so I absolutely get what you are saying.

Now I'm going to search my filters stack to see it I can find an UV or protection filter on 67mm.
 

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,500
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
Thanks Paul. I can see exactly what you mean, but I have to mention that I have never heard anybody mentioning this "filter tip" when mentioning the lens' weather sealing. Not even this guy, he mentions only the rubber gasket around the lens mount. That's why I was asking you to elaborate on this. But I remember this same "add a filter to get the weather sealing" tip on the Tamron 17-28/2.8 lens for Sony E mount (IIRC), so I absolutely get what you are saying.

Now I'm going to search my filters stack to see it I can find an UV or protection filter on 67mm.
To be honest, I can't 100% confirm that weather sealing is compromised without a filter - but you'll certainly acquire water in the recess of the barrel without one and gaskets are not 100% effective in general. Putting a filter on is a belt and braces approach though. In addition, if you don't use the hood (which I don't - it's very wide and not very deep so it just makes the lens bigger, but doesn't add much protection either physically or in terms of shading), then the filter will add protection to the front element. It gets very close to the filter thread at the 8mm setting.
 

PhotoCal

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
392
I had the 9-18 a long time ago and eventually settled on 12-35, 35-100 f/2.8's for my standard zooms. And some other primes and 100-400 as well. After getting a new iPhone I've been intrigued by the UWA lens and how dynamic the images are compared to the focal lengths I've been shooting for the past 5 years. The 8-18 makes the most sense but I'm also intrigued by the other options:
  • 8-25 f/4, the extended range might be useful here. For example going mountain biking with friends the G9 is pretty heavy and I'm limiting myself to one lens. Or even going on trips I don't like taking ALL my lenses so this could be an alternative to the 12-35. On the downside if I only use the 8-12 range I wonder how much I will be letdown by f/4. As far as cost I have a seller lined up for the 8-18, but what are the chances of the 8-25 being somewhat cheaper than the 8-18? Other downside is who knows when this will come out.
  • Laowa 10 + 12-35. This was the other option I entertained because it's the cheapest but obvious downsides is having to switch lenses, no weather sealing, and not having AF which maybe a dealbreaker for some close up action that I want to take.
  • Pany 7-14, I guess there is this one to

What is the problem you are having?

You said you had the 9-18 but didn't say why you abandoned it. Is it like an old friend that you now realize was very good and you miss it, and think a new friend will take its place?

I bought a used 9-18 years ago and it's been great. I'm not about to get rid of it because of something shiny and new.

If it failed I'd try to find a newer copy.

If you can identify the problem you have you can find a longer-lasting solution.

Unless, that is, you just want to spend money/GAS. That happens here too, unfortunately.
 

doady

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
475
Location
Canada
Getting rid of lenses like Generationfourth did with his 9-18mm seems like the complete opposite of GAS (gear forfeit syndrome?). And I don't see how buying a 8-25mm instead of a 9-18mm means GAS either. Either way, it only one lens, and they aren't that different in price ($1400 CAD vs. $950 CAD here in Canada).
 

Generationfourth

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
371
Quick update

I posted somewhere mid thread that I did in fact purchase an 8-18. Some thoughts after some pretty heavy usage:
  • I underestimated how useful the filter threads are. I pretty much always have a CPL mounted on the front of it because I'm always shooting near water or in harsh daylight
  • 8mm at 2.8 is a bare minimum for astro. Since picking up an em1iii with starry AF, live composite, etc I've rekindled my interest in astrophotography and there is no way f/4 would cut it.
  • 8-11mm is a whole other world and is challenging to use. I shoot a lot more portrait mode at these focal lengths
  • On the 'long' end 18mm is still tighter than the standard wide iPhone lens, but yes this is a lens that needs to be carried with another lens. I've tried pairing it with the 35-100 f/2.8 for backpacking, and recently a 14-140 for bike packing. I liked the latter combination and interestingly I hardly touched the 8-18
  • Looking at the newly released 8-25, I think I'd still go with the 8-18. I think 8-25 would be good for a landscape/travel photographer who doesn't do astro or fast action.
What is the problem you are having?

You said you had the 9-18 but didn't say why you abandoned it. Is it like an old friend that you now realize was very good and you miss it, and think a new friend will take its place?

I bought a used 9-18 years ago and it's been great. I'm not about to get rid of it because of something shiny and new.

If it failed I'd try to find a newer copy.

If you can identify the problem you have you can find a longer-lasting solution.

Unless, that is, you just want to spend money/GAS. That happens here too, unfortunately.
I didn't want to write my m43 life story but to elaborate it's been close to 10 years since I owned the 9-18. Bought it full msrp and ended up selling it shortly simply because I needed the money. For the last 9 years 12mm is the widest I had shot so I felt the 'problem' I tried to solve was simply exploring wider angles.
 

Danny_SWE

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Apr 30, 2013
Messages
1,740
Location
Sweden (Gothenburg)
Got the 8-18, just in time for a three-day kayak adventure! What a lens! It served me very well as a all-round lens during the adventure. I brought the 40-150R also but never used it.
Ok, I am a nature photographer mostly, landscapes, or cityscapes (and actually, some architecture also). How could I have lived this long without an UWA-zoom?? 🤔

It was everything I imagined, versatile, great IQ, quite light, size as imagined also (have done lots of comparisons). The extra speed f/2.8 in wide end was very useful at evenings by the campfire. Feels very satisfied overall! I will add an UV filter on it to make it more dust/water proof.

_6110001.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Here at the beach I unboxed the lens and took the first shot! :)

_6120048.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

One of my favourites from the weekend. What a scenery!


---

And, as I do like comparisons, here are some :)

IMG_20210614_214458.jpg
I used it on my E-M5.3, it handles well because of the good grip on the Mk III. Size is barely "ok" I would say. Weight is ok.

IMG_20210614_214643.jpg
Paired with the 40-150R it makes a versatile travel combo when in need for casual tele shots (in good light then).

IMG_20210614_214846.jpg
But on the G80 it feels really great! The 40-150R on the E-M5 could serve as a two-body kit when on photo adventures and you don't want to swap lenses all the time. Or maybe the GM1 with any of the 35-100.

One reason why I went for the 8-18 was that I want to upgrade my G80 to a newer panny body in the future if/when they make something. I really really hope they come out with a body like this but with newer sensor and up to date on other specs. It would be my dream. Now I am ready for the future! 😀
 

walter_j

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Sep 10, 2013
Messages
845
Location
Hagwilget, B.C., Canada
Real Name
Walter
I have both the 7-14 pro and Loawa 10 f2. Although I like the fl of 10mm, I find it's difficult to nail focus - even with magnification on. As a result, images are not always sharp enough. The size and weight of the 10mm is cool though. Maybe I'm just spoiled by the optics and af of oly lenses.
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
4,455
Location
Massachusetts, USA
and gaskets are not 100% effective in general.

Of course you could then say ALL the weatherproof lenses (Oly or Panasonic) then are not really 100% effectively weatherproof since they all use gasketing. So arguing for a filter on one lens for this theoretical failure you really should then be arguing for all weatherproof lenses needing a filter, right? ;)


to elaborate it's been close to 10 years since I owned the 9-18. Bought it full msrp and ended up selling it shortly simply because I needed the money.
Nope,
sour puss.gif
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
says you did it wrong. Time and financial needs are not valid reasons, no siree Bob. :p
 

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,500
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
Of course you could then say ALL the weatherproof lenses (Oly or Panasonic) then are not really 100% effectively weatherproof since they all use gasketing. So arguing for a filter on one lens for this theoretical failure you really should then be arguing for all weatherproof lenses needing a filter, right? ;)
Well, maybe - but there's nothing you can do about gaskets on most other lenses, but fitting a filter on the 8-18 will add additional protection. As I said, belt and braces.
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
4,455
Location
Massachusetts, USA
but there's nothing you can do about gaskets on most other lenses, but fitting a filter on the 8-18 will add additional protection.
But again, I am not sure what it is you think is more deficient on this lens than any other lens that you think you need an addition of a filter, which offers no extra gasket BTW, you think somehow compensates for a poor weather sealing design. You are essentially telling people that Panasonic's claim of weather sealing is not factual or that this lens is less effective than others which may be a disservice to people who are on the fence about this lens.
 

Danny_SWE

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Apr 30, 2013
Messages
1,740
Location
Sweden (Gothenburg)
The 8-18 is unique in the design I think, have never seen any lens with "internal slide" like this. The front element slides on the inside of the barrel. Usually there is no barrel like this and the front part slides externally. Like the 12-45 Pro, 40-150R, P12-35/2.8 and such lenses.

The sliding part is the most weak I think, very exposed to dust that can slide into the lens. Have some dust in my P12-35/2.8. On those lenses it is impossible to protect the sliding part. BUT, on this lens, you can protect it with a filter if you want :) I intend to do it to keep dust out of it. Not too worried about water but the small dust finds its way often.

IMG_20210615_081911.jpg
 

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,500
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
But again, I am not sure what it is you think is more deficient on this lens than any other lens that you think you need an addition of a filter, which offers no extra gasket BTW, you think somehow compensates for a poor weather sealing design. You are essentially telling people that Panasonic's claim of weather sealing is not factual or that this lens is less effective than others which may be a disservice to people who are on the fence about this lens.
Well, whatever. I gave my view - readers can take it at its face value.
 

Brownie

Thread Killer Extraordinaire
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
3,981
Location
SE Michigan
Real Name
Tim
The 8-18 is unique in the design I think, have never seen any lens with "internal slide" like this. The front element slides on the inside of the barrel. Usually there is no barrel like this and the front part slides externally. Like the 12-45 Pro, 40-150R, P12-35/2.8 and such lenses.
Actually a common feature among the more expensive lenses in other formats. I think they use tromboning lenses in M-4/3 to maintain the 'small' factor. If you ever saw a 100-400 fully extended it ends up almost half again longer, from 7" to 10". If they used an internal zoom it would be more expensive and be 10" long all of the time. They can use internal zooming on a lens like the 8-18 due to the inherent small size and short 2.25X zoom without adding a lot of cost.
 

Generationfourth

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
371
The 8-18 is unique in the design I think, have never seen any lens with "internal slide" like this. The front element slides on the inside of the barrel. Usually there is no barrel like this and the front part slides externally. Like the 12-45 Pro, 40-150R, P12-35/2.8 and such lenses.

The sliding part is the most weak I think, very exposed to dust that can slide into the lens. Have some dust in my P12-35/2.8. On those lenses it is impossible to protect the sliding part. BUT, on this lens, you can protect it with a filter if you want :) I intend to do it to keep dust out of it. Not too worried about water but the small dust finds its way often.

View attachment 893143
What I really like about the design is it retracts as it get's toward the longer focal lengths- making the lens hood effective at all lengths.
 
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
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom