1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

O9-18mm vs P7-14mm vs Canon 17-40mm

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Chrisnmn, Jul 9, 2012.

  1. Chrisnmn

    Chrisnmn Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 26, 2012
    Auckland, New Zealand
    i know this comparison might be done to death, but i cant find good reviews comparing this three lenses head to head, specially considering that at least the Canon 17-40mm is cheaper than the Panasonic 7-14mm.

    i want to see how they compare in terms of AF and IQ? Ive personally tried the 17-40 and love it, but would like to have the "same" lens half the size same IQ for my OMD? :biggrin:
  2. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    I have the Pany 7-14 and the Canon 16-35 ... except for the extra speed of the Canon (2.8 of the Canon is significant but the IBIS of the Oly somewhat compensates), I really find them very similar in IQ. Both are equally a joy to use and both are very sharp.

  3. jeffryscott

    jeffryscott Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jul 2, 2010
    The 7-14 is probably as good a wide zoom as there is in any system. I sold mine a year ago when I was getting back into full frame, and now that I'm back to m43 I sure wish I had it back. Never used the 9-18 but have heard good things about that as well.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. xdayv

    xdayv Color Blind

    Aug 26, 2011
    Tacloban City, Philippines
    I can vouch for the 7-14's performance... it's probably one of the best M43 UWA. :biggrin:
  5. kevwilfoto

    kevwilfoto Mu-43 Veteran

    Sep 23, 2011
    I've owned both the Canon 17-40 and Oly 9-18 in the past, kinda wish I had the both back. ;-) The 17-40 is a bit slow at f/4 wide open, and can be a bit soft until stopped down, but is an excellent landscape lens @ f/11 for half the price of the 16-35. The Oly 9-18 is very very sharp (and small, and light!) but has significant barrel distortion < 12mm and is a slow lens.

    I too would love to see a direct shootout of these three.
  6. Chrisnmn

    Chrisnmn Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 26, 2012
    Auckland, New Zealand
    wow really?!?!?!. I've used the 16-35 here at work, and i find it the sharpest lens ive ever used yet. So you think the P7-14 is up to the C16-35? thats interesting. but ive heard you cannot attach any filters to it right? no chance of ND filters for Long Exposures? or polarizers?

    what do you mean the C17-40mm is a bit slow @ f4? isnt the P7-14 an f4 lens as well? but i think that the OMD and my 5dMKII dont even care shooting at ISO1600 if f4 is the maximum aperture so i dont think its a deal breaker.

    and what about the Oly in terms of color rendition?. Im not liking all the CA from panasonic lenses in Olympus bodies.
  7. I have found CA to be a problem when using Panasonic lenses on Olympus bodies, but the lens correction tools in Lightroom 4 deal with this very well. I can't vouch for the 7-14mm, but the 20mm and the 14-140mm (particularly at wide angles) clean up nicely despite each displaying fairly siginificant CA in certain situations.
  8. usayit

    usayit Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    My copy of the Canon 17-40 was sharp wide open and a nice package. I'd say it was sharper than my 16-35mm f/2.8L but the extra aperture was very nice to have. In the end, I found myself not using either enough and selling them. I've generally gravitated towards prime lenses with the 24 f/1.4L being ideal for me.

    To tell you the truth, from what I have seen most would be happy with any of them. I like the 9-18mm because of its size but I agree there's a bit of distortion at the wide end. I may be incorrect but its worse on a Panasonic body because Olympus corrects in software. I should head to my local shop and ask if I can borrow a 7-14mm to compare.
  9. Chrisnmn

    Chrisnmn Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 26, 2012
    Auckland, New Zealand
    that makes totally sense to me. yet the problem is that here in NZ m43 stuff is limited, and even sectored meaning, if a store carries olympus doesnt sell Pana lenses and vice versa. i havent found a store yet that carries both. but if any of you guys in this forum have some of this lenses to shoot some small comparisons it would be much appreciated!
  10. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    there are probably more threads comparing the 7-14 vs 9-18 than anything else on this forum.
  11. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    I'll do some comparisons between the 16-35 and the 7-14. The 7-14 has a bulbos front element rendering filtering difficult. I do know that some people have modified the plastic lens cap for the 7-14 to be able to accept/fit ... I think a 72mm filter. It doesn't seem all that difficult.

    • Like Like x 1
  12. arentol

    arentol Mu-43 Veteran

    Jun 29, 2012
    If the 16-35 is the sharpest lens you have used you haven't used any sharp lenses. I have it, it is a very nice lens... Very very nice. But there are dozens of other EF mount lenses (half not made by Canon) that are way sharper than it.
  13. DHart

    DHart Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 7, 2010
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    I have both the 9-18 and the 7-14. They are similar in some ways, but different enough that I use them for different purposes. I use the 7-14 mostly as a 7mm prime when I really want to create great UWA... and it is incredible. I use the 9-18 as more of a general-use UWA with more versatility at the long end and when I want to bring something wide but don't want to bring all of my high-end, larger lenses. They each meet different needs in spite of seeming to be directly comparable.

    For serious UWA work, the 7-14 is the pinnacle. In fact, it's arguably THE sharpest native zoom lens in m4/3 world. The extra 2mm at the wide end is a significant increase in FOV over the 9mm.

    For walk around, keeping weight and size to a minimum, the 9-18 does an awesome job creating UWA images and at the 18mm end, can capture some more general-range focal length work as well.

    As for filters, I've never felt the need to put any filters on either one of them. UWA is typically about employing great depth of field, therefore, I usually shoot them stopped down a fair bit - even if that means higher ISO and longer shutter speeds. If filters are important to how you shoot, you can make it work one way or another.

    I have no experience with the 17-40.
    • Like Like x 3
  14. Chrisnmn

    Chrisnmn Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 26, 2012
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Thanks Gary, im really looking forward to see what you come up with!. :2thumbs:
  15. toshiro

    toshiro Mu-43 Regular

    Apr 3, 2012
    I've used a 17-40L for a few years, it is a great lens for daylight landscape photography but you have to stop it down to f8 or f11 to get really sharp images. I've also had the 7-14 and found it pretty sharp already at f4 so I find it more useful for landscape as you can get deeper DOF with less light.

    But I don't think they are comparable because the difference between 14mm and 17mm is bigger in real world use than one would think, those 3mm really make a difference.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  16. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    I have a 17-40L and it was more or less glued to my 300D - the 24-105 replaced it for daily use on the 5DII however. Pretty great lens stopped down for landscapes, and decent corners wide open, but not the best L in my arsenal.

    The 7-14 is, based on my limited experience with it, a truly phenomenal ultrawide - the additional mm on the wide-angle end mean its particularly useful for interior architectural shots and the like and gets more use. It does flare quite easily when the sun's in frame, and I'm hoping DxO releases modules for it and the EM-5 sooner rather than later to get the most out of it. It is the better of the two ultrawides, although the Canon is absurdly good value.
  17. Livnius

    Livnius Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Jul 7, 2011
    Melbourne. Australia
  18. kevwilfoto

    kevwilfoto Mu-43 Veteran

    Sep 23, 2011
    what do you mean the C17-40mm is a bit slow @ f4? isnt the P7-14 an f4 lens as well?

    Yes. What I meant was that neither is considered "fast", especially by the "I only shoot fast glass wide open" crowd. None of these are, really. But the 17-40 is *only a bit* slow on a FF body like the 5D compared to the 9-18 being (IMHO) quite slow on the G3 I used it on.

    I didn't mean it negatively, fast glass isn't much help if you're trying to shoot landscapes with 30+ second shutter speeds.
  19. mraub1

    mraub1 New to Mu-43

    Jul 14, 2012
    It looks like it is on DXO's roadmap for August, so not much of a wait now.

  20. kwalsh

    kwalsh Mu-43 Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    Mar 3, 2012
    Baltimore, MD
    By all accounts the Nikon 14-24 is about the best UWA zoom in existence, and the D800 the best FF body in existence. So, relevant to this thread would be this pretty neat comparison of the D800/14-24 vs the E-M5/7-14 over on DPR. Obviously the D800/14-24 is better. What is interesting is just how well the E-M5/7-14 does in comparison.

    This link:

    Re: Nicely done! Request for those working the RAWs:: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

    Provides 50MP upsampled images from each combination. RAW files from the OP are available in the thread as well.

    FWIW, I've got the 7-14. It is the lens that made me both enter and stick with m43 coming from Canon land. It is one of the better UWA lenses in any system. On Olympus bodies there is residual CA. Shoot RAW, remove CA in LR or ACR and it isn't a problem at all. You can even setup an automatic import preset to do it for you.

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.