I can't believe how TINY my new 9-18 is!

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by TetonTom, Aug 28, 2013.

  1. TetonTom

    TetonTom Mu-43 Regular

    I got one of these the last day of the $599 sale, and I can't get over how small it is. Here it is alongside my Nikon 12-24, which currently resides in mothballs ( for sale on eBay and NikonCafe if anyone's interested, or message me!) ImageUploadedByMu-431377712228.230922.
     
  2. Mellow

    Mellow Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 27, 2010
    Florida or Idaho
    Tom
    I agree

    I agree; it's one of the gems of the m43 system. I don't mind it's collapsible design at all; in fact, I thank Olympus for designing it that way every time I pack it in my bag for a trip!
     
  3. Liamness

    Liamness Mu-43 Veteran

    375
    Apr 20, 2011
    Yeah. It's a bit absurd, you can just put it in your camera bag and forget about it. Look at the equivalent lens for NEX. It's pretty unique. Have fun using it!
     
  4. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
    Yes, I prefer it over the Lumix 7-14 but this is an individual choice :smile:
     
  5. optigan

    optigan Mu-43 Regular

    36
    Mar 19, 2013
    Los Angeles
    Andy
    Wish I could decide between these two lenses. The 9-18 seems more logical since I don't need the extra 2mm. I don't have an Olympus zoom for video either so it would take care of that too. But the extra f-stop would be useful as I shoot more low light and I just can't help but wonder if the 7-14 is more spectacular the way my P25 is more magical than my O45.
     
  6. pxpaulx

    pxpaulx Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 19, 2010
    Midwest
    Paul
    I never really thought there was much of a difference between them myself. Keep in mind that with a wide angle you can shoot at much slower shutter speeds than even the 25mm or 45mm (assuming 1/focal length before IBIS you can be anywhere between 1.5-3 stops slower than either of those lenses) - for this reason, unless your low light shooting also involves action I'd say go with the 9-18!
     
  7. stevendotwang

    stevendotwang Mu-43 Regular

    100
    Mar 13, 2011
    Seattle, WA
    Steven W
    If you don't need the extra 2mm, I would recommend going with 9-18, but make sure you really don't need that 2mm... worst would be getting the 9-18 only to realize it isn't as wide as you would like.

    There have been many comparisons done on these 2 lens and pretty much every comparison I've found agree that 7-14 is sharper than 9-18, however, unless you're making big prints or pixel peeping, I doubt you'll see the differences. The constant aperture of 7-14 is nice, but I don't see it as a significant advantage. 7-14 doesn't take filter (not easily) which could be a deal breaker for many. It also has purple glare problems (do a quick search and you'll find a few threads talking about this).

    I personally have the 7-14 because I really wanted the extra 2mm, it is freakishly sharp on my OMD and I pretty much use it as a 7mm f/4 prime :)
     
  8. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    I've got both the 9-18 and the 7-14 but I didn't mean it to be that way! I bought the 9-18 first and was pretty happy with it - but curiosity played its part and I picked up a good used copy of the 7-14. Now darn it, I can see uses for both and can't bring myself to offload either of them!

    The 7-14 is wider, sharper and faster - but it doesn't take filters and there's the purple flare issue. The 9-18 is smaller, almost as sharp and takes filters - but it's not as wide and slower. I can live with the smaller aperture and slight drop in IQ, but there are times when you just need to go WIDE and 2mm is actually a big difference. I've got a Sammy 7.5 fisheye heading my way and if that de-fishes well, I'll offload the 7-14 and keep the fisheye and the 9-18.

    OTOH - I might end up with THREE wides that I can't make a decision on!
     
  9. zapatista

    zapatista Mu-43 Top Veteran

    668
    Mar 19, 2012
    Denver, Colorado, USA
    Mike
    The only similiar focal length (eq.) lens I can think of is the 11-22mm for the Canon EOS M. It'a bigger, but not much considering the sensor size difference.

    Compact Camera Meter

    I haven't used the 9-18mm but would like to try it out....GAS strikes again.
     
  10. stratokaster

    stratokaster Mu-43 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Jan 4, 2011
    Kyiv, Ukraine
    Pavel
    I think the right comparison is Samsung NX 12-24 f/4-5.6 (same FOV and max. aperture). Samsung is bigger and heavier, but not by much (just 50g of difference).

    Sony 10-18 f/4 is closer to Panasonic 7-14 in FOV, max. aperture and size.
     
  11. noohoggin1

    noohoggin1 Instagram: @tomnguyenstudio

    373
    May 21, 2012
    MN
    Tom
    Been craving ultra-wide angle to add to my arsenal for a while now; been having a lot of trouble deciding between this and the Panny 7-14, but I think the tiny size and significantly cheaper price might tip me over to the 9-18mm...! :)
     
  12. I was pretty impressed when I first got my 9-18mm.

    <a href="http://s883.photobucket.com/user/ttlonline/media/m43/P8274810-PR.jpg.html" target="_blank">[​IMG]
     
  13. DHart

    DHart Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 7, 2010
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Don
    Yes, the 9-18 is a gem and I use mine as much (possibly somewhat more so) than any other of my 14+ m4/3 lenses. I don't view it as a replacement for the 7-14, however, which I use as a 7mm prime, but I do happen to use my 9-18 more than I do my "seven".
     
  14. Liamness

    Liamness Mu-43 Veteran

    375
    Apr 20, 2011
    My quick calculations have the Samsung as 60% larger by volume than the Olympus. I hadn't heard of that Canon lens for the EOS-M system that someone mentioned, but apparently that's only 30% larger, which is impressive considering it has to cover a larger image circle. I suppose it's not completely unique now then.
     
  15. TetonTom

    TetonTom Mu-43 Regular

    I went through the same decision when choosing an UWA go my Nikon DX years ago. The choices at they time were between 12-24 or 10-20 (i chose 12-24); more or less equivalents of 9-18 or 7-14 (I've chosen 9-18). For me, they both serve the same function, but I'd rather have 18 on the long end than 7 on the wide end.