1. Reminder: Please user our affiliate links to get to your favorite stores for holiday shopping!

Oly 7-14 PRO, sent back.

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Dave in Wales, Jun 24, 2015.

  1. Dave in Wales

    Dave in Wales Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 5, 2011
    West Wales
    https://www.mu-43.com/threads/77632/

    I have returned the Oly 7-14, very disappointed.

    Why you ask, toooooooo heeeeeeeavy, it felt like a house brick.

    I feel it's making a bit of a mockery of the M4/3 ethos....smaller lighter cameras.

    I've ordered my old favourite the Panny 7-14, always suited me before.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. zensu

    zensu An Old Fool

    Aug 8, 2012
    Southeastern USA
    Bobby
    I also sent back a lens that even though it was a great lens it was just too HEAVY! The Oly. 12-40mm Pro zoom. When you don't take your camera out because your lens makes it too much a burden it's time to get rid of that burden. I also kept bumping 12mm trying to get wider way too often! Now I use the Pan. 7-14mm f4.0 zoom and the P/L 15mm f1.7 for low light. The Oly. 60mm macro is a great very lightweight macro/portrait lens. My bag is light enough to carry now! :2thumbs:
    PS, Is Olympus generally making bigger lenses and Panasonic generally making smaller lenses?
     
  3. b_rubenstein

    b_rubenstein Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 20, 2012
    Melbourne, FL
    This is why I check the physical specs on lenses before buying. I was considering the 40-150/2.8 until I saw that it was very close to size and weight to my Nikon 180/2.8, which I still have. I used my adapter to mount it to my E-M1 and knew there was no way I would carry that thing around in a camera bag all day long just in case. I bought the Panasonic 35-100/2.8 instead.

    FWIW, the 12-40/2.8 on the E-M1, with RRS baseplate, is a really nice combo and not unduly heavy.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  4. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    It's all relative. 7-14mm f2.8 is 530g.
    Nikon 14-24 f2.8 is 1000g.

    And since I worked as a mason laborer I can tell you that neither one weighs close to what a brick does - and I had to carry those by packs of 10 up scaffolding! A standard brick is 5lbs or 2300g.. :cool:
     
    • Agree Agree x 7
    • Funny Funny x 3
    • Like Like x 2
  5. dornblaser

    dornblaser Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 13, 2012
    Chicago-area
    David Dornblaser
    I think if we consider a lens to be large or heavy often comes where our perspective comes from. Those of us coming from the DSLR may consider all of the PRO lenses acceptable in terms of weight and size. Those of us coming primarily from the m4/3's world find the PRO lenses to be much bigger than we are used to.
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
  6. Gary5

    Gary5 Mu-43 Veteran

    310
    Jan 15, 2014
    It weighs the same as my CV 17.5. The 17.5 annoys me because I think making it so heavy is something of a gimmick. But I don't think the 7-14 is heavy for what it is.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. m43happy

    m43happy Mu-43 Veteran

    430
    Feb 18, 2012
    Truth! It's all relative. Don't know why some people are confused by this.
     
  8. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I agree. However you still have to place some point of reference for anything to be relevant. Big and small are relative words. Since the only point of reference we have for an ultra-wide, f2.8 zoom is in the DSLR world, it sounds like it is relatively small for what it is. However, those saying it is one of the larger m4/3 lenses are not wrong, it is just that comparing it to a 14-42 kit zoom isn't that relevant if you need 7mm f2.8.
     
  9. DaveEP

    DaveEP Mu-43 Top Veteran

    683
    Sep 20, 2014
    York, UK
    There's been much discussion lately about whether the Pro lenses are not being true to the promise of M43 by being too big and heavy. Frankly I don't understand the frustration. There are lots of tiny lenses that fulfil the promise, either as fast primes (f1.7, f1.8, f2.0 etc) or as slower zooms (f3.5-f5.6).

    To expect a fast zoom (f2.8 or better) on M43 to be equally small and light is to deny the laws of physics. In any case, I'd still say that they fulfilled their promise of 'smaller and lighter' than 35mm FF DSLR because those things are just huge and heavy by comparison.

    I still have my Canon 70-200 f2.8 and if I'm ever in need of reminding how small and light the M43 system is (even at f2.8)I simply stand it or hold it next to the Lumix 35-100 f2.8 and the smile reappears once again.

    To the OP, I totally understand your position. Frankly, the Lumix 7-14 is a great little lens, though I must admit I'd love to play with the Olympus 7-14 f2.8 as soon as I can.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Like Like x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  10. c0ldc0ne

    c0ldc0ne Mu-43 Regular

    71
    Oct 9, 2012
    This.

    I can't imagine how anyone can purchase a product and then be disappointed by a quality that's been unambiguously documented.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. PacNWMike

    PacNWMike Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Dec 5, 2014
    Salish Sea
    guess?
    I bought into µ4:3 because of the small size/weight relative to other comparable options. I'm not going to hang a big chunk of glass on the front as that would defeat the original purpose. Obviously YMMV
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  12. sdb123

    sdb123 Mu-43 Veteran

    249
    Jul 25, 2014
    Northants, UK
    Steve
    IIRC, you started a thread saying you found the 12-40 too big...with the 7-14 being longer and heavier it's no surprise you didn't gel with it. Did you not check the specs of the lens before buying?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. zensu

    zensu An Old Fool

    Aug 8, 2012
    Southeastern USA
    Bobby
    It is most assuredly relative. Ten years ago I would have been carrying a Nikon D2h with a 70-200 f2.8 Nikkor and been happy. Present day Arthritis has rocked my world but thankfully I can still hold a compact camera/lens combo (GM5 with 7-14mm f4.0) and a couple of small primes (P/L 15mm, Oly 60mm) in a light shoulder bag! Keep the huge Nocticron for special occasions. ;)
     
  14. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I think others are saying the same and pointing out that there are no comparable lenses to the 7-14mm f2.8 that are smaller.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. zensu

    zensu An Old Fool

    Aug 8, 2012
    Southeastern USA
    Bobby
    There might not be a comparable lens to the 7-14mm f2.8 but I can't carry that huge piece of glass. I can however carry the Panasonic 7-14mm f4.0 which cost me a few inches close focusing and an exposure value (1 stop of light). It's a cracker of a lens and one I can continue to use. Remember the best camera/lens is the one you carry with you!
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  16. tyrphoto

    tyrphoto Mu-43 All-Pro

    May 25, 2014
    Seoul | NYC
    ㅇtㅈyㅅr
    For me, I bought into m43 for the weight/size advantage in relation to DSLRs amongst other reasons. With that in mind, an OMD body along with a lens like the 7-14/2.8 is still roughly half the size and weight of my former Canon 5D Mk.II with a 16-35/2.8 and with that in mind, I'd gladly use a 7-14/2.8 or even the 40-150/2.8 if those are lenses that fit my photography needs. I didn't buy into m43 to limit myself to an absolute weight limit for a lens or lens/body combination. It's all relative. That's my personal take on it but I do understand that everyone has their own preferences for what is right for their situation or photographic needs.
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2015
    • Agree Agree x 5
    • Like Like x 2
  17. zensu

    zensu An Old Fool

    Aug 8, 2012
    Southeastern USA
    Bobby
    Agreed. µ43's is a big enough format to appeal to everybody IMHO. If I could carry more weight I'd absolutely love that 7-14mm f2.8 mounted on an Oly EM1! I bet they make a killer combo! :bravo-009:
     
  18. PacNWMike

    PacNWMike Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Dec 5, 2014
    Salish Sea
    guess?
    The 9-18 is an acceptable compromise for me and more versitile for my use. But that's just MHO of course.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. b_rubenstein

    b_rubenstein Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 20, 2012
    Melbourne, FL
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 25, 2015
    • Like Like x 1
  20. bikerhiker

    bikerhiker Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 24, 2013
    Canada
    David
    That is why I own 3 wide angle lenses with the Bower 14mm f/2.8 being the heaviest but also the fastest. My Bower and my focal reducer give me the widest angle in my arsenal -- a 10mm f/2 and it is a very sweet sharp lens in very low light. Yes it's heavy because of all that glass, but I never bet on just 1 lens to do all of its wide angle work either. Which is why I also own a 9mm Fish Eye (the smallest and lightest) if I shoot in daylight or my Panasonic 14mm @f/2.5 if I just need wide. One shouldn't write off a heavy fast lens just because it breaks the m43 ethos due to size and weight.