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!

DMW-GWC1 vs 7.5 FE

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by D7k1, May 15, 2014.

  1. D7k1

    D7k1 Mu-43 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Nov 18, 2013
    I know my two main primes will be the 14mm and 45mm. is the DMW-GWC1 good on the 14mm or should one just go with the 7.5 and defish? Anyone have and use both?
  2. barry13

    barry13 Super Moderator; Photon Wrangler Subscribing Member

    Mar 7, 2014
    Southern California

    The AOV/FOV after defishing should be wider with the FE.

    Another option to the DMW-GWC1 is a Nikon WC-E68, which will get the 14mm down to 9.5mm.

    I don't have any of these lenses, but I have done a little de-fishing with my 8mm ZD lens... iirc, I get a wider FOV doing that than my 7-14mm ZD gets, but I'd have to test again to be sure.

    • Like Like x 1
  3. Grinch

    Grinch Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jan 9, 2011
    We'll if corner sharpness is a concern forget the GWC1...
    • Like Like x 1
  4. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Compared to 'defishing' the 7.5/3.5? The GWC1's corners are nothing to praise, but it still gives far more detail than a defished image at the same resolution.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    I find the IQ and resolution of the 7.5/3.5 so excellent that I can't imagine any converter lens could come close. In fact, I think the 7.5 probably has better resolving power than the 14mm in the first place, problem is, it's a fisheye...

    That said, even if you defish and crop out the really stretched edges, you'll still get a wider FOV than a converted 14mm, and the quality should be reasonable.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. bikerhiker

    bikerhiker Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 24, 2013
    Here's a guy who is using the 14mm 2.5 prime a lot with the wide angle adapter and portfolio he took. Very good quality if you are not incessantly pixel peeping and in fact he's pretty good at using it no doubt!!

    • Like Like x 1
  7. tjdean01

    tjdean01 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Feb 20, 2013
    I have both. The converter is a pain in the butt because if you're walking around with that and the 14 you continuously want to take it on and off. I feel its presence stresses the threads of the 14 when bumped or in the bag. It's an 11.5mm, I believe, which isn't much wider than my 12-32. Sure, it's f2.5 instead of f3.5 and a bit wider but for most people, who cares at that point because the 12-32 at 12mm will give you a better image with better corners and a smaller, less clumsy lens. Plus the huge piece of glass on the 11 doesn't accept filters and is just begging to be touched or scratched.

    Why do I still have it? Because I've been too lazy to learn to defish the Rokinon. It beats all (yes all!) off my other lenses in terms of sharpness except maybe the Sigma 30. Defished idk but I'd place bets that if you a) defish and b) crop to 10mp you'd not only get a wider image but sharper, even in the corners, than the 14 + converter combo. I've seen this done where the Rokfish beats even the 7-14 in width as well as sharpness (though it's more distorted).

    Recommendations for you: Don't get the 14 at all, get the 20 + 45. Then, instead of deciding between buying a sloppy converter for the 14 or else a one-trick-pony fisheye lens, spend $4-500 on the 9-18mm. Then you'd have pretty much everything covered and if you need a standard zoom the Panny 14-42 II is awesome as is the Oly 12-50 and both under $200.

    Using me as an example in the wide department I have 7.5 Rokfish, 14-42, 12-32, 14, 11mm wide angle converter, 15mm body cap lens, 20. Those cost $1300. If I had to do it all over again, I would get the 9-18, 9mm body cap lens, and 20 and spend $900. Why? Whenever I have a kit zoom and zoom in a bit I'm sad that my aperture is f5.6 so I want a fast prime anyway. Wide, however, I usually want to shoot f8.

    I love the fun of the Rokfish and now that I have it I'll keep it but I'm sure the 9mm would have sufficed (it wasn't out back then, and is $100, and for the record I got the Rokfish + 15BCL for $235 both new). And on the wide end I want zoom as well as the long end but in the 20-100mm category I'd prefer fast primes.
  8. HarryS

    HarryS Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jun 23, 2012
    Midwest, USA
    I have both the fisheye, and the 14mm with adapter.

    First, here's the 14mm with and without the adapter.
    WIthout Adapter Click here for full size image.

    WIth Adapter Click here for full size image.

    I didn't take the same view with the fisheye. Having both lenses though, I don't do much defishing of the 7,5 mm images. I've tried defishing. Here is a simple defish in Lightroom4 of my Rokinon 7.5. You lose a lot of the edges if you want to keep the same aspect ratio, I cherry picked this one though. Depending on how the original shot was taken, it can be very hard to defish.



    By the way, I have tried hugin for defishing and have not figured it out yet. However, the panorama stitcher is awesome.

    If you already have the 14mm, the GWC1 is good for WA on the cheap. I don't know that it makes sense to buy them together as a deliberate approach to go wide. Wait for a refurbished 9-18 zoom to come up ($399 at getolympus,com).
    • Like Like x 1
  9. SojiOkita

    SojiOkita Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 23, 2014
    You can't compare a 7.5 mm fisheye and a 11 mm rectilinear lens.

    If you don't want fisheye images, I think it's a bad idea to buy a fisheye for the following reasons:
    - In the viewfinder/LCD you won't see the defished image.
    - defishing works only with images taken with much care on the orientations
    - corners are just ugly on an defished image. you will need to reframe and the final image would be taken from a portion of the full sensor.

    It's great to have the option to defish images sometimes, but in my opinion, it doesn't make sense to make it your principal use.

    I didn't take exact angle of view measures but a defished image with the 7.5 mm seems much wider than a 7.5 mm lens.
    I compared to my 10-22 canon lens at 10 mm, which is supposed to be equivalent (in terms of horizontal angle of view) to 8 mm approximately.
    If I cut 25% of my image I got the same horizontal angle of view, so I think it makes an approx. 6 mm rectilinear lens when defished.
    (anyway, if you want a decent quality you will reframe a little to avoid the extreme corners which are just ugly when defished).

    In terms of angle of view, comparing a defished rockinon with the 14 mm + adapter is like comparing a 25 mm and a 45 mm.

    In the end it all depends on what you want.
    If you want a fisheye, the rockinon is great.
    If you want a rectilinear wide angle, the GWC1 is a quite cheap way to get one (not very wide), the 9-18 is another (more expensive and more versatile) option.
    • Like Like x 2
  10. D7k1

    D7k1 Mu-43 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Nov 18, 2013
    Thanks all who answered. I already have the 14mm and find the new software for the EP5 really makes that lens work well. Probably will get either the 9-18 or the CWC1. Just have and decided, thanks everyone for the information.
  11. bikerhiker

    bikerhiker Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 24, 2013

    I was in the same boat as you were having just recently acquired 14mm prime at a very good price myself and this copy is good (surprised) and since I own a Nikon WC-075A 0.75x wide angle converter which was for the Coolpix P7000 which I no longer own, I decided to marry them together after reading so much great things from this guy's blog with the Lumix converter. Now, I have a 10.5mm on the 14mm f/2.5 (21mm equiv @ f/2.5) and 13mm on the 17 f/1.8 (26mm equiv @ f/1.8) and quality is quite sharp at the center and borders (sharp) with only the extreme corners smeared and soft if you pixel peep -- certainly better than a Sony A7 or a Leica M9 with a Voigtlander Super Heliar 15mm. I still need to play with the flange distance a bit. Having been inspired by Art Wolfe wide angle work, I am really digging into the new 11mm and the 13mm with the converter, plus the 0.18m close focus on the 14mm is better than the 9-18 and I have both a f/2.5 and a f/1.8 not a f4-5.6 so I can do astrophotography now more effectively. And the converter seemed to make the blue and greens more punchier! Plus the Nikon WC-075A comes with a 77mm filter thread which can take a polarizer or variable ND filter with no apparent vignetting. The Lumix converter does not. It costs me a step up ring to convert to a 46mm thread and JB Weld to jerry rig it.
  12. bikerhiker

    bikerhiker Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 24, 2013
    Personally, I never find 9mm or 18mm equiv FF all that wide at all and is closer to a 11mm with the adapter. I find 7mm or 14mm equiv FF much wider and more worth while. I looked into the 9-18mm, but then I'm basically paying for the 9mm f/4 end for like $400 refurb or $600 new for a rather slow lens. My m43 is already 2 stops behind full frame, so why am I intentionally buying much slower lens to work with the m43? Which was why I went with the converter route; in this case I already have a Nikon 0.75x lens handy and it works with both my Lumix 14 and Olympus 17mm f/1.8 lens giving me both an equivalent 21mm FOV and 26mm FOV full frame with very little loss of light. I'm still a stop and more ahead of the 9-18 zoom, giving me more flexibility and dynamic range as I work in the lower ISO ranges as opposed to someone who needs to shoot higher ISO because of the f/4-5.6 variable aperture. So what if the extreme corners are a bit smeared and soft, you can not manufacturer less noise, additional detail due to wider DR when working in lower ISO with Photoshop or DXO Optics Pro. It meant that I can print bigger with a lower ISO than someone who is forced to print smaller due to added noise and reduced DR range.
  13. tjdean01

    tjdean01 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Feb 20, 2013
    Okay, I have a few questions:

    Exactly how wide IS the 14 + converter combo? Since it's 0.79x would it be simply 11mm?

    How do you guys use the combo? Do you leave the adapter ring on and twist the converter on and off (which isn't fun) or do you simply treat the converter like a filter and screw it on and off as you need it? (Also not fun.) Considering Panasonic is nice enough to give you a cap for the adapter ring itself, I'm assuming the first is the recommended way, but I like the second method better, actually.

    If I get a 37mm-46mm stepup ring I could use the lens on my 12-32. It would make it a 9.5mm, but probably vignette. Anyone try?
  14. bikerhiker

    bikerhiker Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 24, 2013
    The Nikon wide angle converter gives my Lumix 14 a 10.5mm focal length, which is equivalent to a 21mm lens full frame -- the same as with the former Coolpix that it served for. The real Lumix converter gives you a 11mm focal length, which is equivalent to a 22mm lens in full frame. Focal length is a measurement of the subject matter taken in "INFINITY". That's how all manufacturers derive their focal length numbers for all lenses. The exception would be for lenses that can not focus at infinity in exchange for close focus ability.

    Having said that, the angle of view of the lens may be reduced when you close focus and depending on the distance, the effect can be quite pronounced especially with lenses that have closer focusing ability, for which the Lumix 14 is capable of. What you are experiencing here is that, @ close focus distance the Lumix converter with the Lumix 14 would give an equivalent angle of view of a 11.5mm focal length lens when shot in infinity. Your observation is correct as I am noticing a reduction of angle of view as I focus closer so I get about 11mm with my Nikon converter. I don't know if your angle of view changes with the 9mm on the 9-18mm, but I saw one person who did such a test on the web and compared it with his Lumix converter and concluded that the difference is not much; like 2mm difference when used for close focusing. Due to the fact that guy used 9mm mainly, there was no point for him to keep the zoom. He sold the zoom and kept the Lumix converter. Speed is more important for lower ISO and I tend to agree with his analysis. Another benefit is that it makes my Olympus 17mm f/1.8 a 13mm f/1.8 lens -- finally my ticket to the Milky Way without having to pay for the pricy 12mm f/2 lens and since my destination is mainly for prints, it's plenty sharp enough!

    So for the Milky Way, both lenses with the converter will have the real 10.5mm and 13mm based on the conversion rate.

    Best of all; I paid for it long ago for like $50.
  15. bikerhiker

    bikerhiker Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 24, 2013
    Lumix 14 with converter combo = 11mm. My Nikon combo = 10.5mm Don't confuse both.
    Mine is attached like a regular filter. I converted it to a 46mm thread via a setup ring and then JB Welded it. So I put it on and take it off like a threaded filter. I found 14mm to be the max cause I needed to stack to put some distance between converter and my Lumix to reduce edge smearing and softness. Too close, smears a lot, but too far than it vignettes. The Nikon converter and your Lumix are designed to work well with a 28mm focal length lens. When I introduced a 35mm FF equivalent like my Olympus, I can see a slight loss of sharpness but just slightly. It's acceptable for the Milky Way and the night skies at least for me.
    You can try the step up ring with your 12-32. It'll be interesting if it works. If it doesn't, then it's just a step ring you're out of pocket of.
  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.