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!

Hikers! 7-14 or 9-18?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by turtleboy133, Oct 16, 2011.

  1. turtleboy133

    turtleboy133 Mu-43 Rookie

    Oct 13, 2011
    There are quite a few posts comparing the 7-14 and 9-18mm. In general, the consensus seems to be that the 7-14 may have slightly better optical quality, while the 9-18 is a great value and size. However, what it boils down to is what it's used for. All the threads seem to focus on which has better image quality versus the trade-offs (size and price); however, as a hiker/backpacker I am willing to sacrifice image quality for something that lets me get the shots I need while out in the mountains. As they say, the picture you take is (often) better than the one you don't.

    After getting tired of lugging my Sigma 15-30mm, 70-200mm and 10D all over the place, I have bought into the u4/3 system. I'm trying to decide whether the 7-14 or 9-18mm will be more appropriate for hiking. If you're a hiker or backpacker, do you have either and what has your experience been? If you have the 9-18mm, do you ever wish you had that extra 2mm for a landscape shot? If you have the 7-14mm, do you ever wish it was a little more compact?
  2. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    Having compared the two side by side in person, the smallness of the 9-18, especially when collapsed, is striking. I mean it is TINY.

    The 7-14 autofocuses faster, but they were both super quick.

    I think it really comes down to whether the extra width at the "short" end is more important to you than the extra length at the "long" end. Personally, I can see a lot more use in the 14-18 range than I can in the 7-9 range (but then, I'm not really an UWA guy)
  3. John M Flores

    John M Flores Super Moderator

    Jan 7, 2011
    My personal challenge with UWA is filling the frame with something interesting. At first I thought that landscapes where the right place for them, but I often ended up reducing dramatic mountains to small, distant hills. So now I will hike with the 14/2.5 and make it work. I can pack more peanut butter with the space and weight that I save...
    • Like Like x 1
  4. phrenic

    phrenic Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 13, 2010
    If you're going to be hiking I think the size/weight advantage and ability to put on filters to protect your expensive UWA lens swings it in favour of the 9-18mm. And it's cheaper should you drop it off a mountain or something. :p 
  5. BigTom

    BigTom Mu-43 Regular

    Sep 23, 2011
    The deal breaker for me was the lack of filters on the 7-14. However, I am amazed by how small and light the 9-18 is. Very happy so far, and don't find myself missing the extra couple of mm yet (inevitably it'll happen at some point though). Coming from a 10-20 on APSC.
  6. xdayv

    xdayv Color Blind

    Aug 26, 2011
    Tacloban City, Philippines
    i'll choose the 9-18, however the 7-14 is still relatively smaller and lighter when you are used to have an uwa for aps-c or full-frame.

  7. spatulaboy

    spatulaboy I'm not really here Subscribing Member

    Jul 13, 2011
    North Carolina
    Well I think it all depends on your shooting style really. I do a lot of hiking but find myself shooting at the longer focal ranges. Going through my photos I realize I hardly shoot wide angle. I mostly focus on details and wildlife(butterflies, birds, flowers, and such).

    If you shoot a lot of landscapes and vistas, then go wide!
  8. WT21

    WT21 Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Feb 19, 2010
    I find, for my taste, that UWA is not good for vista and landscapes. Like John Flores said, the details are lost as tiny bits in a larger picture. Last year in the rockies, I found my 14-140 much more useful -- at the longer end!

    Where I do like UWA is when I have a close subject and I want to fill the background with context. I was walking around an interesting city a few weeks back (Portsmouth NH) and used mainly the 14mm end of the kit lens plus a fisheye attachment to catch the city scenes (which are right there, at least compared to distant mount scenes). I bet the 9-18 would have rocked in that environment.

    To sum, for me at least, I don't find UWA useful for distant objects, but instead for close ones. Therefore, I'd recommend a longer lens for hiking, and a wider one for uptight, closer spaces.
  9. Tight quarters

    Have only used the 9-18mm. Cost, compact size & filter protection were the reasons I purchased the 9-18mm over the 7-14mm. Find it to be useful lens at the two extremes. Wide view vistas & when space limits me.
    Below is an a non-landscape image shot at 9mm. No room to back up. No other real angle to take the photo without being in the water (too deep & cold).

    For a trip where the hike is the primary reason vs. a photo backpacking trip I would pack the X 14-42mm as my one lens kit if it's equal to or better than the 14-45mm. For a minimalist trip the mu43 gear would stay home. Pack the LX2. Have spent too much $$s to drop the base weight just to gain it back in photo gear mass.

    Attached Files:

  10. DHart

    DHart Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 7, 2010
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    I have the 7-14 and love it for those dramatic wide angle applications and tight spaces. But I think the 9-18 would be a better hiking lens as the 9mm end is likely to be more than wide enough for vistas and the lens is smaller, lighter, less costly, and most importantly, can take a polarizer filter, which may be very desireable for vistas. I find the 7-14 good for very tight quarters and as mentioned above, for getting close in to an object, while also including a dramatic sweep to a distant background. The 7-14 is a bit more of a specialized lens and the 9-18 is a bit better suited to general use.

    Funds permitting, I see plenty of utility in owning both lenses and will likely add a 9-18 to my kit at some point, even though I also have the 7-14. I do see the two lenses with somewhat separate and distinct missions. Having both would probably be a bit extravagant for the average user, but I can use the gear for work and it's a deductible expense, so perhaps not so extravagant from that standpoint.

    If I were you, I'd buy the 9-18.
  11. JJJPhoto

    JJJPhoto Mu-43 Veteran

    Jul 8, 2011
    Cincinnati, OH
    Jerry Jackson Jr
    If you're a hiker who is planning to use a wide angle lens as a landscape lens then filters should be important to you. It's one thing to like/dislike using a UV filter, but with landscapes you often need a polarizer or neutral density/gradient filter to help balance the exposure between the bright sky and the foreground.

    The 9-18mm takes filters but you have to do some workarounds to get filters in front of the 7-14mm.

    The 7-14mm is a great lens, but the simple fact that it can't easily be used with filters makes it far less useful to me. I went with the 9-18mm.
  12. WT21

    WT21 Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Feb 19, 2010
    I tried a CPL on my 9-18 on the wide end, and I found with such a wide FOV, it couldn't create even results across the frame. It would invariably be darker on one side than the other. I could see the use of a ND or a UV, but not sure I buy the usefulness of a CPL, unless I'm missing some trick???
  13. Lawrence

    Lawrence Mu-43 Veteran

    Oct 8, 2011
    The decision to go for the 7-14mm or 9-18mm took me quite a long time, and at last I bought the 9-18mm, and I am happy with it.
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    View attachment 179699
    • Like Like x 3
  14. turtleboy133

    turtleboy133 Mu-43 Rookie

    Oct 13, 2011
    Thanks for all the great suggestions. It seems the general consensus among hikers is to go with the 9-18mm. 7 is too wide for most landscapes (at least it won't be missed) and the size/weight are much more reasonable. I had originally discounted the size/weight factor because I am coming from a 10D with a Sigma 15-30mm (a huge beast) and figured that the 7-14mm is tiny compared to it.

    You guys now have me wondering whether my 14-150mm plus 20mm 1.7 is sufficient for hiking. A mountain should be able to fit in a 14mm shot ... well, at least the ones in the US :) 
  15. turtleboy133

    turtleboy133 Mu-43 Rookie

    Oct 13, 2011
    Yes, I've heard that the usefulness of the CPL is limited; however, a UV filter is probably a great idea for protecting the front glass when hiking. When I used a Sigma 15-30mm (full-frame lens), the front glass was very similar to the 7-14mm and I was always worried about it getting damaged.
  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.