Olympus 9-18mm MFT vs Four Thirds version

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by FlyPenFly, Mar 9, 2014.

  1. FlyPenFly

    FlyPenFly Mu-43 Veteran

    Feb 15, 2011
    I owned the MFT 9-18mm twice and while I liked it and found it the perfect focal length, I wasn't so hot about the build quality and corners. The size was great though.

    I've been thinking about FT 9-18, I'm going to assume here that optically it should be a lot better since there's quite a lot more glass in it. Just curious if anyone has tried both. This will be used on an E-M1 so focus especially with an UWA should be no big deal.

    Here's a shot I took with the MFT version.

    "Every Window has a Story"
    Screenshot 2014-03-09 10.28.48.jpg
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    I doubt that would be the reason, if it is indeed better in the corners.
    I bought the bigger old version for price alone, and being a WIDE the corners are very important, mine seem fine but I have no experience with other WIDE zooms. I use mine at F5.6, I saw some softness fully open so stop down now.

    I'm sure there's a bigger thread with a lot of info somewhere ... anyway found some vaguely appropriate discussions ;

    • Like Like x 1
  3. I don't remember the Zuiko 4/3 version to be much better if any than the M Zuiko. It may have had slightly sharper corners. I do remember the autofocus being very slow although this would be alleviated by the PDAF of the E-M1. As soon as I had the chance to use the M Zuiko version I sold the Zuiko. The difference in size, weight, and autofocus performance was huge.
  4. FlyPenFly

    FlyPenFly Mu-43 Veteran

    Feb 15, 2011
    The DPReview and Lenstip charts on the FT 9-18 look a lot better than the SLRGear chart on the MFT 9-18. Flare resistance also seems to be a bit better.

    DPreview seems to indicate that the FT 9-18 focuses pretty quickly.
  5. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    I guess focus speed is a subjective thing, but I'm happy with focus speed and particularly accurracy on my e-pL1 with Panasonic adapter.
    At shorter distances, say less than ten yards, I get better focus than on my DSLR bodies. I wasn't expecting that.
  6. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    I wouldn't compare tests across sites. They all use different measurements/methodologies.

    DPR has reviews of both the micro and regular 9-18 though. I've only used the regular 9-18 and found it decent, though not spectacular. I think that if you're looking for a big jump in performance, you probably won't find it.
  7. FlyPenFly

    FlyPenFly Mu-43 Veteran

    Feb 15, 2011
    I just look at patterns to determine characteristics,
  8. FlyPenFly

    FlyPenFly Mu-43 Veteran

    Feb 15, 2011
    The FT version does seem to be significantly sharper in the corners according to that graph.
  9. EarthQuake

    EarthQuake Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Sep 30, 2013
    Its bigger because of physics, due to the flange on 43rds, it needs to be a retrofocus design, which means a much larger design. It won't necessarily be any better because it has more glass.
  10. timg

    timg Mu-43 Regular

    Jun 13, 2012
    I swapped the 43 version for the m43 version... I'd definitely say the 43 version had the edge IQ wise but you had to pixel-peep to notice it.

    AF certainly wasn't that fast but considering the sort of shots you'd be taking with such a lens it's not too much to worry about; if I were to choose between the 2 again it would be a price/size decision rather than an IQ decision.
  11. tornado

    tornado Mu-43 Veteran

    Nov 6, 2012
    A couple I shot with MFT 9-18mm yesterday on the E-M1....second is a single frame cropped.


  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.