Laowa 7.5 f2 or Oly 9-18 f4-5.6

[FreightTrain]

Hi all, I am looking to buy a wide angle lens. Either the Laowa 7.5 f2 or the Oly 9-18 f4-5.6 Any one else considering these two lens . I am just a recreational photographer but am not interested in the fish eye lens . Which would you get .

 

[tradesmith45]

What subjects might you use a UWA on?

 

[FreightTrain]

What subjects might you use a UWA on?

I am planning a trip to Europe that a would like to have a wide angle in a couple of years. Inside churchs ,narrow streets and just something to be a bit more creative with.

 

[tradesmith45]

What software do you use for post processing? Does it have any radial filter or devignette adjustment?

 

[FreightTrain]

What software do you use for post processing? Does it have any radial filter or devignette adjustment?

I am using ACDsee Ultimate 9, not sure about those features , i will have look next time i open it up.

 

[SpecFoto]

Although I have the excellent Oly 7-14mm f2.8, for my annual trip to Thailand this year I purchased the Laowa 7.5mm, mainly due carrying around too much gear in a very hot climate. I have been shooting with it for about 5 weeks now and I use the ultra wide angle for interior shots of temples, caves and lot of nature shots. (BTW, I have the Samyang 7.5mm fisheye, but really don't care for it and that is why I bought the non fisheye type lenses.)

Thoughts so far are that the IQ of the Laowa lens is excellent, it is tiny and very lightweight, easy to change focus with its smooth focus ring and takes my standard 46mm filters, a big plus. Most of my shots have been set to f2.8 to f5.6 and you need to change the aperture ring on the lens to do this, the camera will not change aperture. The aperture is not shown in the viewfinder, but the SS and EC are. So you can use a dial to adjust the SS to get the EC to be what the camera thinks is the proper exposure.

But, the actual focusing part and seeing what is in focus is not so easy with my EM1's, especially if inside or in shadows. Not nearly as easy as my Nikon gear ( I have 10 MF lenses). Partly my fault as I have not worked at mastering the magnify function. Also at f2-f2.8 there is vignetting.

Bottom line is that the Laowa is a very good lens, but MF will take some extra effort to get the results you want.

 

[tradesmith45]

I've got 2 more questions for you: do you own/will you take a WA lens to Europe in addition to a UWA? How will you display your images?

 

[SpecFoto]

I've got 2 more questions for you: do you own/will you take a WA lens to Europe in addition to a UWA? How will you display your images?

I own the 3 Oly f2.8 Pro zooms, 7-14, 12-40 and 40-150. But for this trip, as I brought along a Mavic Pro drone in my camera bag, some items had to be left home and it was 2 of the Pro zooms. I brought the 12-40 zoom for WA and the 7.5 for UWA, along with 3 other fixed primes, 17mm f1.8, 42.5 f1.2 and 75mm f1.8, and a Pany GX 45-175 zoom.

The temples in Thailand are similar to shooting the older architecture in Europe. Most don't want or allow flash or tripods for interior shots. I would bring both a WA and UWA, and a camera body with IBIS. Haven't displayed any photos from this trip.

 

[gtm]

I recently purchased the Laowa 7.5. Although I thought the lens felt great (tiny on the E-M1, smooth feel to the focus ring,...) the image quality was unacceptable at almost any price, much less for a moderately expensive, totally manual lens. The lens was soft at all aperture settings. Focus at infinity was reached well before the indicated setting on the lens barrel and rotating to the hard stop resulted in the lens going pretty far out of focus. Zone focusing was impossible. A little on-line investigating will show many instances of questionable quality control. A great lens in theory and I enjoyed the perspective. Make sure you can try before you buy, or can return the lens if you are not happy. Mine went back but I will probably repurchase it if quality control improves and I can get a good copy.

 

[SpecFoto]

Re GTM comments above. I seem to have a better copy as mine is sharp. But I do agree that infinity focus is reached before the infinity mark, so I have been hyperfocal focusing and it has worked OK.

 

[tradesmith45]

Jim, I do not own the Laowa but have researched it. I do own the MZ 9-18mm & had the much larger Kowa 8.5mm f2.8. Used the Kowa for an aurora trip & it was great. But like the Laowa, it has lots of vignetting that remains even stopped down. Both the Kowa & Laowa require de-vignetting for nearly all images. So your post will be a bit more time consuming. Don't know about the Laowa but the vignetting on the Kowa also had a color shift to blue so correction was not just an edge brightness correction. If I had the Laowa, I'd create & use a lens profile.

The MZ 9-18mm has a bit of CA that also needs correction if you plan to display it large say 11x14 or larger. It's also a bit soft. And pretty slow for interiors of churches so higher ISO will be required which will yield noise.

I use the 9-18 lots for IR outdoors & frequently wish I had wider still. Like most zooms, for me its 1.5 lenses since its always @ 9mm but occasionally at 18 (where its softest). If I was buying again, I'd get the new PL 8-18mm. It has shorter FL, sharper & larger aperture.

Whether you get the Laowa, Pana or Oly, getting a bad copy is always a risk because these are complex lenses.

 

[Turbofrog]

@barry13 Do you think this post could be moved to the Native Lenses discussion forum? It's not a showcase thread, and so might be a bit confusing for someone looking for images comparing these lenses.

 

[wimg]

Hi all, I am looking to buy a wide angle lens. Either the Laowa 7.5 f2 or the Oly 9-18 f4-5.6 Any one else considering these two lens . I am just a recreational photographer but am not interested in the fish eye lens . Which would you get .

Neither, currently.

The Laowa seems to have too many problems, it is a high risk lens wrt the quality you will receive. Obviously you could keep on returning lenses until you have a good one, but that may take time.

The Oly 9-18 is not all that great, but then, maybe it is good enough for recreational purposes.

Personally, I would go for the Panny 7-14 F/4. Very, very good lens, and if you can afford it, even the Oly 7-14 F/2.8 Pro. The Panny also is significantly more expensive than the Oly 9-18 is, but it is more than worth it IMO, well both are IMO.

Maybe you could look into getting a used Panny 7-14?

Kind regards, Wim

 

[Matt Leppek]

Personally I would go for the Laowa. I think the majority of the lenses are quality, so the odds are in your favor. When people get a good copy, they don't jump on to review it. However when someone gets a bad copy, they won't keep quiet about it. This gives the impression that there is a lot worse quality control then their actually is.

My first copy is tack sharp, and keeps up with the 64mp high res mode without any problems. Even my 12-40 pro is noticeably softer using the high res mode ~f2.8-f8.

The Laowa definitely has its downsides and limitations, but I am super happy with it. Its been great for indoor real estate, star trails, and landscape photography. Its also tiny and great on a glide cam for video if that will ever interest you. Read up on all of the negatives with the lens, and decide if you can live with that. Chances are you might not even notice some of them, as I didn't notice the aberrations or agmitism until I read a review. Even after reading it, I haven't noticed any agmitism in my astro photos.

Best of luck!

 

[FreightTrain]

Neither, currently.

The Laowa seems to have too many problems, it is a high risk lens wrt the quality you will receive. Obviously you could keep on returning lenses until you have a good one, but that may take time.

The Oly 9-18 is not all that great, but then, maybe it si good enough for recreational purposes.

Personally, I would go for the Panny 7-14 F/4. Very, very good lens, and if you can afford it, even the Oly 7-14 F/2.8 Pro. The Panny also is significantly more expensive than the Oly 9-18 is, but it is more than worth it IMO, well both are IMO.

Maybe you could look into getting a used Panny 7-14?

Kind regards, Wim

Thanks for your reply Wim, a used Panny 7-14 may well be the ticket. They seem to get quite good reviews.

 

[MRM]

I own both and the 9-18 is a good lens but the 7.5 loawa is a great lens. I checked it immediately for decentering and was prepared to send it back, but it was perfect. Sharper in the corners and center at all aperatures then my 7-14 pro that I then sold. Vinetting isn’t a issue normally as most pictures benefit from some vinetting anyway and it does go down when you use 4.0-5.6 aperatures which is where you will use these lenses the most. Manual focusing is real simple too. As you basically set at infinity and forget it for anything but close but I also set a button to be a focus magnifier just in case. It’s my choice as it is very very sharp when you get a good copy. The 9-18 is a lens that punches above its weight for sharpness and overall image quality but I found 9 to be too close to 12 for me so I just use my 12-40 pro which is sharper and more versatile and if I need to be a little wider most of the time I can back up or do a two shot panarama.

 

[FreightTrain]

I own both and the 9-18 is a good lens but the 7.5 loawa is a great lens. I checked it immediately for decentering and was prepared to send it back, but it was perfect. Sharper in the corners and center at all aperatures then my 7-14 pro that I then sold. Vinetting isn’t a issue normally as most pictures benefit from some vinetting anyway and it does go down when you use 4.0-5.6 aperatures which is where you will use these lenses the most. Manual focusing is real simple too. As you basically set at infinity and forget it for anything but close but I also set a button to be a focus magnifier just in case. It’s my choice as it is very very sharp when you get a good copy. The 9-18 is a lens that punches above its weight for sharpness and overall image quality but I found 9 to be too close to 12 for me so I just use my 12-40 pro which is sharper and more versatile and if I need to be a little wider most of the time I can back up or do a two shot panarama.

Thank You for your reply Matt. I do like the size and price of the loawa . Sounds like a good lens .

 

[jsusilo]

From technical perspective -Laowa is worth trying it at least. Yes you may get bad copy, and yes you may have edge softness / vignette when at larger apertures BUT simple PP will clean that up fairly easily. It is reasonably priced lens, fairly well build, light and small, PLUS option to put on standard m43 filter size when needed. Unless you really need zoom coverage of 9-18, it should be fairly easy decision here.

 

[Jeff Storck]

Hi all, I am looking to buy a wide angle lens. Either the Laowa 7.5 f2 or the Oly 9-18 f4-5.6 Any one else considering these two lens . I am just a recreational photographer but am not interested in the fish eye lens . Which would you get .

I don’t have the 9-18, but I do have the Laowa 7.5. I can highly recommend it. It is sharp from corner to corner, even wide open. The build quality is excellent. Great lens.

 

[archaeopteryx]

Which would you get?

Assuming you've other lenses from 12+mm which you plan to use as well it doesn't matter a whole lot for most things. So lens selection is mainly down to personal preference. If small size and low weight are important that favors the 7.5 and 9-18, if flexibility with the field of view's important that favors the 7-14s, if using ND filters or such is important then the 7-14s are rather a hassle, if you do a lot in the dark then the 7.5's attractive, if you're willing to apply money to reduce other compromises the 8-18 is a good choice.

Personally, with UWAs I use the 7.5-10.5 range quite a bit. So I favor zooms. But the 9-18 isn't really as wide as I'd like and I do occasionally want wider than 7.5. I've owned fisheyes and defished as well as owning rectilinear UWA primes. But they've got sold for lack of use. I've argued for the 9-18 in other threads since, if you've a good composition at 7.5, it usually works well at 9 too (7.5 is a 110 degree diagonal angle of view, 9 is 100; in my experience it's not as big a difference as it's sometimes made out to be). So I don't particularly see additional width as necessarily critical; it can be vital for interiors but much of the rest of the time I'd rate it more a nice to have. In some regions the perspective effects of 7.5 aren't an issue but often what puts me to longer focal lengths is I'm photographing things where 7.5 starts to look over the top. In other circumstances, I find myself wanting a rectilinear in the 5-7 range to avoid spending time defishing in post.

If you're new to UWA, wanting to fully explore the range, prefer to spend time behind the camera rather than in post, and don't find weight critical I'd suggest a 7-14 as others have. If this is more in the direction of wanting go wider but not having to change off lenses a lot (or carry a second body) then the 9-18 and 8-18 can work well as they get to the wide normal range. I like the lens and a half description above; while I mostly use the UWA range of such zooms the number of images of the 15-18mm range ends up not insignificant.

I agree with the criticisms the 9-18 is a bit overpriced for what you get. So is the 8-18. Also, for what Venus wants for the 7.5 one can buy a Rokinon 12 and put a basic 16MP APS-C body behind it. Pricing will change over time but, at the moment, I'm not especially compelled by any of the m43 UWA options. However, if I had to pick up a 7.5 or 9-18 today I'd take the 9-18 as it's more versatile and potentially less expensive.