How do you like your Panasonic Lumix 7-14mm lens?

i dream of that lens but have not had the pleasure of using it  

 

I am waiting to see the Oly 9-18 that will be available in 1Q10 before I choose between these 2 lens. 7-14 is wider with fixed aperture but $300-400 more expensive

 

da_snuff AKA Aldan, posted this over on the Panasonic 7-14mm Image Thread and never got an answer, so I've taken the liberty of copying his post and moving it over here in hopes of his getting a response.:smile:

 

Recently sold my 4/3 7-14 and took a $$ punishing. I'm also waiting on the 9-18. The 7-14 takes a bit of 'learning' to get the most out of it.

 

I've had this lens a week now and love it! I hardly ever zoom off 7mm, which seems the perfect focal length when in enclosed spaces. It's small, light, easy to hold attached to the GF-1 and although expensive, I reckon the the size and IQ makes it worth it.

 

I was going to get the 9-18mm as well - compact size, filter threads were what drew me. Unfortunately the panasonic EPP business affiliate pricing was just lowered, basically to an offer I couldn't refuse. I will live without the filter (just wanted it for IR, will use my pentax gear for it), f4 constant will be nice as well. bottom line, this thing will still be dwarfed by my (soon to be gone) pentax 12-24mm!

 

Just put some test shots here.

https://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=1699

Wilson

 

Hi,

I have just created an album with many 7-14mm shots here :

https://www.mu-43.com/gallery/showgallery.php?cat=783

IMHO, one of the best lenses in the native µ4/3 family !

C U
Rafael

 

Love the pics! I really want this lens

 

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,
Mark

 

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). Image stabilization helps to achieve even slower shutter speeds (but is not available on the 7-14mm, unless you use it on an olympus m4/3 body).

So 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. 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.

The rule of course also depends on how well an individual can hand hold their camera - some do a better job than others, and that is something you will learn with your own practise. Finally, at slower shutter speeds there is never a substitute for a solid tripod!

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.

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. The 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.

 

Hi,

I appreciate the 7-14mm as an ON/OFF lens, I either use it at 7mm or at 14mm.
I have never had the thought that the lens was (too) slow.

Mark, the shot of the city centre of Bruges was taken at 7mm

I hope this helps !

Have a nice day,
Rafael

 

Hey Traveler,

The 7-14 is a great lens and the constant f4 is easily fast enough for interiors. The lens can be hand held at 1/30th of a second and produces sharp results. Here is a 100% crop and the original taken at f4 and 1/30th, neither has been sharpened:

 

Thanks for the tutorial . . .!

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?

Right, thus need for a faster lens.

Sure, at that shutter speed f4 will let in plenty of light.

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.

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!

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.

Thanks for taking the time, much appreciated. Mark

 

I love primes too, they make you think and you end up with some great shots if you just take yourself, your camera, and a single fixed lens for a day of shooting! Of course you can shoot at faster speeds, if I said recommended I meant more along the lines of a usable minimum!

It is a tough conundrum to be in, deciding between these two. The aperture to me wasn't much of a factor. If I knew the 9-18mm was going to hit a street price of $500 in the near future, it would have been the clear winner. As it is, the 9-18mm isn't yet available (though soon from speculation I have read?). I will live without filter threads for that exchange and stick to my Pentax gear for Infrared photos (the reason for wanting filter threads). The smaller size of the 9-18 would be nice as well, but neither of these is anywhere near as unwieldy as my pentax 12-24mm, with a hood that I can fit the GF1 through!

For broad landscapes (i.e. countrysides) I would actually probably specifically want the 9-18mm. When you get down to 7mm, you need an interesting object in the foreground to take up space (say, a tractor in a field, or a large interesting looking rock along a river) - without an interesting foreground subject, it feels too far removed, therefore the 9mm wide end is plenty, and 18mm can be useful on the tele end as well.

But, if you intend to use it for more close up subjects, i.e. cityscapes and buildings where you are often confined to a certain distance, the 7-14mm does make the most sense.

 

Here are a few from the weekend, all at 7mm:
1.

2.

3.

4.

 

Lumix 7-14mm

Lumix 7-14mm is a compact and versatile lens for travel.

url=https://www.mu-43.com/gallery/travel/p2899

 

Can somebody show on two photos what is the practical difference in field of view between 7mm and 14mm? How much is the 7mm wider than 14mm end?

 

View from my bedroom taken with the 7-14mm. I love this lens it was worth the expense...