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.