/ Register


  1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Comparing the Panny 7-14mm lens to the Oly 9-18mm?

Discussion in 'This or That? (MFT only)' started by landshark, Jun 8, 2010.

Top Rated
Page 1 of 2
  1. landshark

    landshark Mu-43 Veteran

    307
    Apr 27, 2010
    SO CAL
    Cool images.
    Do any of you have the pany 7-14 as well, if so how do they compare?
     
    landshark, Jun 8, 2010
    #1
  2. BBW

    BBW Super Moderator Emeritus

    6,229
    Jan 13, 2010
    Near "Playland" outside of NYC, NY, USA
    Time for a new discussion?

    Landshark, I took the liberty of moving your post from the Oly 9-18mm image thread and started a new one because I know you're not alone in wondering about this. Hope you don't mind.:smile:
     
    BBW, Jun 8, 2010
    #2
  3. Streetshooter

    Streetshooter Administrator Emeritus

    5,138
    Dec 15, 2009
    Phila, Pa USA
    I used the Panny for a short time. It's a great lens.
    The Oly is much smaller and lighter. For me that's key to this format.
    Oly really pays attention to that and they always did.

    That size/weight thing should be the deciding factor.
    Oh, and you wallet will weigh more with the Oly cause it sells for less.
     
    Streetshooter, Jun 8, 2010
    #3
  4. landshark

    landshark Mu-43 Veteran

    307
    Apr 27, 2010
    SO CAL
    no worries, I was just curious, not about which was better or worse. I already have a 7-14 and was wondering about the 9-18, I like the size.
     
    landshark, Jun 8, 2010
    #4
    • Like Like x 1
  5. landshark

    landshark Mu-43 Veteran

    307
    Apr 27, 2010
    SO CAL
    Street shooter, the lens looks like fun, but was wondering if you miss the more "constant"aperture of the 7-14
     
    landshark, Jun 8, 2010
    #5
  6. ChristopheG

    ChristopheG Mu-43 Regular

    49
    Jun 4, 2010
    I can feel that you have put in hard efforts. Good job!!
     
    ChristopheG, Jun 9, 2010
    #6
  7. PeterB666

    PeterB666 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    780
    Jan 14, 2010
    Tura Beach, Australia
    Peter
    I never enterained getting the 7-14mm due to the fact you cannot fit filters to the front and of course the price. I have the 9-18mm M.Zuiko lens and am very happy with it. Good value for money and close enough to the size of the standard kit zoom.
     
    PeterB666, Jun 9, 2010
    #7
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Streetshooter

    Streetshooter Administrator Emeritus

    5,138
    Dec 15, 2009
    Phila, Pa USA
    Bob,
    That's the only thing I miss in this format. Having it on my Canon lenses was nice. I miss it but still feel the size/weight of the 9-18 makes up for it.
    Actually from 5.6 up you have constant aperture anyway.
     
    Streetshooter, Jun 9, 2010
    #8
    • Like Like x 1
  9. adam

    adam Mu-43 Regular

    68
    Apr 21, 2010
    Maryland
    I was just considering posting a thread about this, as I'm going to buy a UWA zoom in the very near future. I'm leaning towards the 9-18 right now...I was very happy with the normal Four Thirds version and kinda regret selling it...the micro version is TINY, has similar image quality, and takes filters.

    The main advantage of the 7-14 for me would be the extra 2mm, and I'm not sure that justifies the extra size and cost...
     
    adam, Jun 9, 2010
    #9
  10. Streetshooter

    Streetshooter Administrator Emeritus

    5,138
    Dec 15, 2009
    Phila, Pa USA
    Adam,
    it doesn't. You will adore the 9-18.
    Peter, Ray, myself and others are just loving it.
    It's so nice and compact....
     
    Streetshooter, Jun 9, 2010
    #10
  11. BBW

    BBW Super Moderator Emeritus

    6,229
    Jan 13, 2010
    Near "Playland" outside of NYC, NY, USA
    Personally, I'm hoping Santa Claus (AKA my bank balance) will bring it to me, if I am very very good. The 9-18mm, that is.
     
    BBW, Jun 9, 2010
    #11
  12. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    2,704
    Apr 17, 2010
    Near Philadephila
    "The extra 2mm" doesn't sound like much, but its quite a bit, when you look at focal length comparisons of the field of view. Is it worth the size, weight and cost? Only you can decide. Another thing to think about, though, is the long end and what you might be likely to use that for. With the 7-14, the long end is still pretty wide. On the 9-18, the long end comes right into fairly common prime territory (ie, right between the 17 and the 20). I've found myself using the 18 for a fair amount of the same kind of street shooting I'd use the 17 or 20 for, as long as it wasn't REALLY low light. Here are a couple that weren't taken with all that much light, but enough (not great shots - wouldn't show them for content, but as a lens demo, what the heck....).

    For me, the long end was a big part of what made the 9-18 a no brainer. Size and weight were real factors too. And the money, but if I'd REALLY wanted the 7-14, I'd have found a way to rationalize the difference. :) 

    -Ray

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/4686956728/" title="R-5 by ramboorider1, on Flickr"> View attachment 145838 "1354" height="1050" alt="R-5" /></a>

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/4686956794/" title="Broad St Line by ramboorider1, on Flickr"> View attachment 145839 "1354" height="1050" alt="Broad St Line" /></a>
     
    Ray Sachs, Jun 9, 2010
    #12
    • Like Like x 1
  13. LisaO

    LisaO Mu-43 Top Veteran

    798
    Mar 18, 2010
    New York Metro Area
    Lisa
    I too prefer the 9-18 for it's compact size and stealth ability.
     
    LisaO, Jun 9, 2010
    #13
  14. landshark

    landshark Mu-43 Veteran

    307
    Apr 27, 2010
    SO CAL
    Thatis my issue, trying to talk myself into owning both lenses, The size, stealth and 18mm part of the Oly are what appeals to me, the F5.6 is what make me think.
     
    landshark, Jun 9, 2010
    #14
  15. Alan_N

    Alan_N Mu-43 Regular

    100
    Jan 22, 2011
    Yorkshire UK
    Alan
    I have been looking into getting one of these lenes to use on my GF1. At the moment it is looking like the oly mainly price, I can just about justify the oly even more if I buy a second hand one I see advertised. I do like the fact that then Pany is slightly wider and constant f4 but price is just to high for those factors alone. On image quality from what I have read here and else where both are good with both having their fans. If the Pany lens was closer in price then I think might go for that. Will keep reading and looking until decide. Then I might decide to go longer rather than wider but that for aother post. will need to see which end most of my photos are taken at of my 14-45 then decide! :43:
     
    Alan_N, Feb 6, 2011
    #15
    • Like Like x 1
  16. joele

    joele Mu-43 Regular

    163
    Dec 12, 2010
    Melbourne, Australia
    Price, filter thread and size lead me to buy the 9-18mm, I'm happy with the performance..
     
    joele, Feb 6, 2011
    #16
  17. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    2,494
    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    Having tried both in the store on my GF1, the Panny AF'd twice as fast as the Oly. Amazingly fast.

    Before decrying the price, note the recent drops of the 7-14, while the 9-18 has held steady - bringing their price within $200 of each other (new)
     
    ~tc~, Feb 6, 2011
    #17
  18. Narnian

    Narnian Nobody in particular ...

    1,465
    Aug 6, 2010
    Richmond, VA
    Richard Elliott
    I have noticed them coming closer in price. I had tentatively planned to buy the 9-18 in the spring after I get my annual bonus (depending on the size) if it dropped to $500 or below. Instead it has gone up and the 7-14 has dropped considerably.

    There is a rumor that Panny is going to replace the 7-14 with an OIS version and that may be driving the cost down.

    I like the size of the Oly 9-18 more but if the 7-14 drops another $100 it would be hard to resist. That extra 2mm is a lot extra FOV.
     
    Narnian, Feb 6, 2011
    #18
    • Like Like x 1
  19. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    2,494
    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    I will say the 7-14 seems a lot bigger in person than it does in pictures, while the 9-18 when collapsed is positively tiny. Extended, with a hood (an optional extra $) they would be about the same I think

    In the end, I would really like to have something wider than the 20/1.7, and I think the proposed 12-50 zoom would be enough, so I'm going to hold off for now. I see the biggest use indoors, or in tight outdoor situations where the extra stop or two of the bright zoom would be vital
     
    ~tc~, Feb 7, 2011
    #19
  20. Danny_Two

    Danny_Two Mu-43 Regular

    182
    Oct 30, 2010
    London
    The Panny is still holding its price in the uk at around £900, compared to the Olympus at just under £500. I got mine for £460 when is dropped to its cheapest for a short while.

    The ultra wides are fairly specialist though, I wouldn't want to spend more than £500 on any lens really.
     
    Danny_Two, Feb 7, 2011
    #20
Page 1 of 2
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Accept Learn More...