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.jpg
  2. Mellow

    Mellow Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 27, 2010
    Florida or Idaho
    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

    Apr 20, 2011
  4. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

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

    optigan Mu-43 Regular

    Mar 19, 2013
    Los Angeles
    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
    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

    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 Subscribing Member

    Mar 19, 2012
    Albuquerque, NM
    Mike Barber
    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
    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

    May 21, 2012
    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
    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

    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.