Lens comparison @ 14mm?

Curious about this myself.

I have the 7-14mm and rate it very highly. Had it from day one of m4/3 ownership and it was the deciding factor in going for this format. I was using a Nikon D300 with the Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED for architectural and interior shots (both record and marketing material).

The 7-14mm compares well despite being nearly half the size and requires only vertical perspective adjustment where the Nikon created a "w" barrel at 12mm, which was time consuming to correct in PS.

Have found it to be ok for hand held night shots (due to it being wide and less prone to shake) and the lack of IS is not really an issue for the same reason btw.

If price, size and brightness are important then it's the 14mm. If geometrical accuracy and massive width are required, then the G-vario 7-14mm is the only wide lens you'll ever need. Panasonic did some testing of the 14mm in HK after Photokina . The impression I got was that this lens barrels slightly and is a little blurry at the extreme corners.

Another thing to consider is DOF, the Vario has huge DOF and creates a different type of shot to the 14mm pancake.

Hope that is useful.

 

Hi eastspur,

At 43rumors Tom Hogan was quoted by the editors as 7-14 is a highly recommended lens. Read the full review:
Short Reviews of Micro4/3 Lenses by Thom Hogan

By the way, may be the brightness of 14 mm prime is a real advantage for you?
I wear the same shoe, and voted both to get...   The reason is imple: the 14 mm prime is a pencake, and may be held in a pouch instead of a larger case...

Prof

 

I would say that comparing the two lens would be like comparing apples to oranges; specifically, a big ripe, juicy apple to a wedge from a mandarin orange. Sure, they both will give you nourishment, but if you need a concealable bite, then the apple is just far too big, while if you need a full snack, the mandarin slice won't cut it.

The 14mm is simply the smallest lens of the :43: family. It covers a single, useful focal length, provides better than the rest brightness, and gives reasonably good image quality. It won't give you ultra wide and if you need the highest IQ (from a pure stats point of view), it probably is a little behind. However, the 7-14mm, while small, doesn't exactly make a pocketable camera. As many have pointed out, a pure stats view of IQ does not always mean that you will have the best lens for your shots; some "faults" create character. The 14mm's are not bad at all, so if you need that small form-factor, it can't be beat.

I guess what I'm saying is that the 7-14mm, if you already have it, will probably give you exactly what you need UNLESS you need that small size and/or larger aperture. In such cases, the 14mm seems to be plenty capable.

 

There is another difference between the choices.
The strongest difference is not about CA, Sharpness, size etc.
It's about Seeing. You will see different with a prime than with a zoom.
There are advantages to both but the 14mm is the one we all are wanting. Well, atleast those that want it.

You will see 28mm and that's it. Your mind will adjust the eye for framing like it can't do with the zoom. There is no option but to frame and frame correctly. You can't move the ring and crop. So that is the real advantage of the prime 14 over the zooms.
This may be obvious to many and I applaud those that are aware of the prime/zoom issues but there exist many that are not aware of those issues.

 

fixed versus tele

I’ll just mention one point that has “brought it home to me”

It depends on what kind of “day” you want to have when you take your camera out AND what subjects interest you

In the city, I just like a fixed lens – I do not even like changing that lens or FOV – the word “intent” has been used – when I go out now, (thanks to learning from the Forum over the past 9 months), I just want to concentrate on taking “that” shot and I want the camera and lens to feel as familiar to me as possible.
e.g in Bordeaux I prefer to take (mostly) my M8 plus 28mm, (effective 36mm), or sometimes a 35mm, (effective 46mm), I never take both (lens) – I do also take my EP-1 with the 20mm f1.7 – but I concentrate on using just one camera – the other is for back up.

In the countryside it is different, (I use my D300 more), plus at night (socially) when a compact may be needed because of size

(my preference) - I now find that for 80% of my time I use a fixed lens and am also now finding that even my S95 compact is beginning to annoy and confuse me, because of the tele function - maybe I should look for a fixed lens compact

Just my (personal) views

(I do crop too much (sticking to the conventional formats) - but I find that with a good quality fixed lens I can crop and still get the same or a better IQ than I would have got had I used a short or medium tele – if you see what I mean - I am trying to improve my photography to avoid excessive cropping - but it is difficult for me, even more so as I like the 16 x 9 format)

 

I thought I had seen a comparison on here or dpreview forum, but not sure if it included the 14 pancake.

The test reviews I have seen of the new 14/2.5 haven't been too impressive.

But in the end, I guess it depends on what kind of photography you do. A lot of mine is travel, and I dont necessarily have the ability to find the right fearing with a prime, so a zoom is a huge advantage