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

Olympus 7-14mm f4

Discussion in 'Hot Deals - Find a Great Deal? Share It Here.' started by OzRay, Apr 17, 2014.

  1. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    • Like Like x 1
  2. dougjgreen

    dougjgreen Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 5, 2013
    San Diego
    Doug Green
    It still weighs twice as much as the Panasonic 7-14mm f4, and costs $400 more than that lens.
     
  3. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    But it is still an absolutely outstanding lens in all respects. If size and weight is not an issue, but image quality is, then you can't go wrong with this lens, especially at that price.
     
  4. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    Of all the lenses I've owned at one point or another, the Olympus 7-14/4 probably had the best build of them all. That lens oozed quality. But in terms of output, I've yet to see a single comparison in which it is noticeably ahead of the Panasonic. UWA is one place where I think incorporating software-correction really makes a great deal of sense.
     
  5. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    I don't know what software correction is needed with the Panasonic 7-14mm, how it's applied and whether it's to JPG or RAW, but I've never needed to do anything out of the ordinary with my 7-14mm. And if software correction is needed for the Panasonic 7-14mm, then that clearly becomes a problem for anyone with an Olympus camera, which won't be able to apply that correction.
     
  6. RDM

    RDM Mu-43 All-Pro

    Umm, why?
    Did Olympus & Panasonic stop embedding their lens correction data in their lenses?
     
  7. dougjgreen

    dougjgreen Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 5, 2013
    San Diego
    Doug Green
    Actually, all Micro 4/3 cameras apply distortion correction profiles to all Micro 4/3 lenses. It's only correction for CA that is not applied across brands. I use the Panasonic 7-14mm lens on my Oly E-PL5, and distortion is corrected in camera.
     
  8. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
  9. MAubrey

    MAubrey Photographer

    Jul 9, 2012
    Bellingham, WA
    Mike Aubrey
    Distortion correction is done for both Olympus and Panasonic bodies. All Olympus cameras apply distortion correction for Panasonic lenses. They just don't do CA correct (with the exception of the E-M1). But until you open the RAW file in an unsupported converted (e.g. DCRAW), you'll never see the uncorrected image.
     
  10. dougjgreen

    dougjgreen Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 5, 2013
    San Diego
    Doug Green
    The two main reasons I could come up with are, carrying around a bigger, heavier lens helps build muscles, and I had nearly $500 excess dollars (beyond the cost of the Panasonic 7-14mm) that I needed to get rid of in a hurry.
     
  11. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    I've seen 5' nothing girls carrying around two Canon bodies and large zooms all day, and not breaking a sweat, are m4/3 owners vying for Mr Puniverse awards? ;)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. dougjgreen

    dougjgreen Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 5, 2013
    San Diego
    Doug Green
    Once those 5' girls gain some of the wisdom of life, they'll downsize their gear. Apparently OzRay has developed the erroneous belief that the size of his lens is a proxy for the size of his package, but It's actually an inverse relationship between the size of one's brain and the size of one's lens.
     
  13. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    Not at all, I'm smart enough not to throw out an excellent set of lenses simply because they don't happen to be featherweights, and smart enough to recommend same to others if they come up at reasonable prices. Also, at 58 years of age, it's important to remain healthy (it's important to remain healthy at any age) and I'm glad that I can haul around a bunch of 4/3 lenses all day, and not feel like I'm 90 and in need of a walking frame. I guess in time, the next generation will look upon m4/3 and wonder how on earth anyone could have carried around one of those, let alone with extra lenses. Reminds me of the animated movie Wall-E and the generation space ship. ;)
     
  14. dougjgreen

    dougjgreen Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 5, 2013
    San Diego
    Doug Green
    If I didn't care about the weight of my gear, I'd still be using DSLRs. It seems pretty silly to downsize your kit and then get a lens that weighs nearly a pound more than an alternate one, and costs $500 more to boot, without it offering any qualitative benefits in the images it takes.
     
  15. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    I didn't downsize. When I lost my E-5 and insurance agreed to cover the replacement, I chose the E-M1, not because of size (I actually increased its size with an RRS grip), but because it was compatible with my 4/3 lenses. I'm glad I did, as the E-M1 works as well, if not better, as the E-5 did with those lenses. I'm sure that there are others with excellent 4/3 lenses, who will choose the E-M1 and possibly future bodies because it's a far cheaper transition than getting rid of those lenses and buying anew. As for qualitative benefits, as pointed out in the review and a similar one on the Olympus 7-14mm, the Olympus lens is superlative when it comes to image quality, it's extremely well constructed and weatherproof to boot.

    For many, it's not a matter of downsizing, it's a matter of staying with Olympus, as there is no other choice anymore other than m4/3s. Even if I didn't have the SHG lenses and had the HG lenses, I would have done the same thing. Only if I'd had just a kit lens or so, would I have considered m4/3 lenses. But then, anyone who was a real enthusiast and used 4/3s gear, would likely have had a few of their very good 4/3 lenses in their kit. Shame to throw away excellent gear just to save a bit of weight and size, which you're probably used to anyway.

    I don't understand why there's so much negativity towards the 4/3s gear, especially as it's an individual choice as to whether the size, weight etc is an issue for them. I'm surprised that the same argument isn't being raised in the Pentax 645 thread.
     
  16. DoofClenas

    DoofClenas Who needs a Mirror!

    937
    Nov 9, 2012
    Traverse City, MI
    Clint
    I loved my 07-14 on my e5, but it didn't seem as much of a marriage on the em1. Then oly announced the new 2.8, so I sold mine. I filled the void with the 7.5 until the new 7-14 will be released in 2015-2016.
     
  17. dougjgreen

    dougjgreen Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 5, 2013
    San Diego
    Doug Green
    I'm not negative to 4/3 gear - I still own an E-1, E-300, and E-520, as well as the excellent 11-22 lens and the earlier, pretty good 40-150mm lens. But the fact is, the newest 4/3 DSLR is 4 years old - with a sensor that is thoroughly outclassed by the current sensors, and there aren't going to be any other 4/3 cameras in the future. It's one thing to continue to use gear you might already have, but it's quite another thing altogether to, at this late date, pay more for stuff from an obsolete system than new stuff that is just as good but weighs half as much and costs 2/3 as much. Now the fact is, I still have those Olympus cameras because I can't sell them for anything, and I use them for stuff around my house that doesn't require transportation, and as digital backs for my old MF film lenses (They all have manual focus screens installed). And I use my E-1 for shooting in inclement weather. But that's it - there is no other use for it relative to modern gear. Nostalgia is nice, but the new stuff has vastly better dynamic range, significantly higher resolution, and it weighs half as much. I'm not being negative, just entirely realistic about 5-10 year old digital gear. The stuff is completely outclassed by current gear that weighs a fraction as much.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    Hang on, I'm not talking about 4/3 bodies, but 4/3 lenses. The 4/3 lenses are far from outdated, good lenses last a lifetime (though electronics in lenses can make that a bit of a hazard), but bodies come and go. It is a complete fallacy to suggest that the HG and SHG lenses from 4/3 era are outclassed by m4/3 lenses.

    And why does this forum have a section on adapted lenses? Surely using non-m4/3 lenses, like crappy Leica MF lenses et al, then falls into the same category of 'pretty silly'. Why would anyone buy a Sony A7, only to have to use large FF lenses?

    I think the connection is: photography.
     
  19. dougjgreen

    dougjgreen Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 5, 2013
    San Diego
    Doug Green
    If a lens is only properly functional on obsolete bodies, then it is obsolete. And those Leica lenses are being used because people believe them to be better than the alternatives AND they continue to function properly on the new bodies. They still focus manually, the same way that they always did. And they are NOT generally much bigger and heavier than modern AF lenses. The fact is with a few exceptions, the 4/3 lenses do not focus anywhere near as well on Micro 4/3 bodies as they did on the obsolete cameras that they were designed to work with, and they are bigger and heavier and ergonomically mismatched to the current Micro 4/3 bodies.

    Look, if you want to overspend on old, mismatched legacy lenses, nobody is stopping you. But don't expect anyone to agree with your advice if you try to encourage other people to do the same.

    And as for why people would buy the Sony A7, I personally wouldn't.
     
  20. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    My 4/3 lenses function as well, if not better, on my E-M1 as they did on my E-1, E-3 or E-5; they are far from obsolete. All of the SWD lenses will focus fast and accurately and even the non-SWD lenses are fine. Also, they are far from ergonomically mismatched to the E-M1, in fact, the handling and balance is much better on the E-M1 than the other bodies, these lenses give you something to hold onto, making the camera and body feel much better. I also have the 4/3 18-180mm lens and wouldn't you know it, it's light and small, and works fine with the E-M1, though not quite as snappy as the other lenses.

    I think that you are drawing a very long bow to suggest that 'no one else' would agree that 4/3 lenses are excellent, that they work fine on the likes of the E-M1 and that they are not old and mismatched legacy lenses. And personal choice is what we are talking about here.