I am seriously thinking about buying this lense but the fact you cannot attach filters puts me off a bit. Has anyone been using this lense and hand holding filters infront, and if so what sort of results are you getting?
For example, in bg2b's photo with the rock in the forground surrounded by yellow leaves (good shot by the way) a grad filter across the top of the shot would bring the foreground to life without loosing the colours in that brighter section.
I like to do stuff in camera.. so looking for any feedback on how people overcome this without getting into a photoshop discussion (you can't always bring back blown out highlights)?
Love the pics! I really want this lensHi,
I have just created an album with many 7-14mm shots here :
IMHO, one of the best lenses in the native µ4/3 family !
Hey Traveler,Hi Wilson and Rafael
Great shots! I'm thinking of buying the lens, but I'm wondering about the speed and size. There are other choices; I've been reading about the coming release of the 14mm/f2.5 pancake and of course there is the Oly 9-18mm both which I am also considering. Wilson mentioned that the lens is fast enough for interiors and that is demonstrated by a nice b&w by Rafael. Are there are reasons for a faster wide angle lens? Hard to judge from your photographs, Rafael, because the site doesn't list the technical settings--but for instance the nice view of the square. Was that shot 7mm? Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks,
Thanks for this rule of thumb, which, embarrassingly, I did not know. Going below the ideal shutter speed is to invite softness, but what about shooting well above the ideal level? That would be o.k. right?Traveler - when you get into wider focal lengths, the need for a faster aperture is diminished somewhat. The general rule to achieve in-focus, sharp photos is to use shutter speeds of 1/focal length (so a 50mm lens should be shot at 1/50th of a second - with the m4/3 format you would double it to 1/100th due to the crop factor as well).
Right, thus need for a faster lens.with a longer focal length, a faster shutter speed is needed to achieve a sharp image, but this also contributes to the amount of light coming into the lens. If you were using the 45-200mm at 200mm, you need to shoot 1/400th to get a sharp image - there is no way you could shoot at 1/400th indoors though, the image will be dark.
Sure, at that shutter speed f4 will let in plenty of light.with the 7-14mm, however, you only need shutter speeds of 1/15th-1/30th to achieve sharp images - these shutter speeds are also typical for a reasonably lit indoor scene.
Right this has always made me suspicious of these zooms with a huge range of focal lengths. Of course, I have learned to prefer primes to zooms in any case, which is the biggest disappointment about :43:--the lack of primes.So, having a constant f4 lens is nicer than the 4-5.6 that will be on the 9-18mm (constant aperture lenses also help with you are using flashes, especially off-camera flash which require additional setup). With that said, the fast speed is not AS important as it would be on say if there were an option to purchase the 45-200mm as the current f4-5.6 vs a (hypothetical) 45-200mm f2.8 constant aperture lens.
I see your point, and have thought the same thing myself looking at photographs of how unwieldy the 7-14mm looks on the E-P2. But it is here that I am really uncertain; I like some of the fantastic shots of landscapes that have been produced with the 7-14. Broad shots of landscape are very useful for me to illustrate lectures, though not absolutely necessary. What I absolutely need to take are wide angle shots in urban settings to show the layout of streets and buildings parks and natural features. This is the essential purpose for the lens--to illustrate lectures for my classes and other presentations. I am not experienced enough to know whether a 9mm or 18mm equivalent is wide enough for this purpose. I read that it takes quite a bit of practice to be deft with the 7mm FOV and to handle problems with distortion etc. On the other hand, I read in one of these postings that there is a substantial different between 14 and 18 mm that makes the Oly lens less useful as a wide angle lens altogether. In fact come to thing of it I read a thread some time ago that was 99% negative to the Olympus 9-18mm, even though the lens hasn't been released yet!7-14mm is also smack in the ultra-wide category. It is equivalent to a 14-28mm lens in 35mm terms, while the 9-18mm is an 18-36mm equivalent. I have owned both a 10-20mm and 12-24mm lens on my pentax dslrs (which equal 15-30mm and 18-36mm in 35mm terms). I can tell you the 9-18mm would be a more practical focal length if you intend to get the occasional portrait, and would be more suited to use as a walk-around lens. The 7-14mm is definitely more of a specialty lens, designed to get up close while getting absolutely everything in the frame.
Yes, not wide enough for my purposes I guess, but I'd like the lens anyway. I like small lens on the camera. It means I can pack it in my book bag and take it with me everyday.14mm pancake that is forthcoming is an entirely different category as well - alot of pentax shooters like to carry pancakes only, and if you enjoy the 20mm alot it is definitely another option, but 14mm (28mm equivalent focal length) is not extremely wide, especially compared to the 7-14 and 9-18 lenses.