Hey guys and girls! I purchased the Olympus 9mm f8 body cap lens on Sunday and so far it's great! Only downer is the f8 part. Now to counterpart this, how good is the 9-18mm Olympus lens? I know its around £300 more, and i'll be benefitting from f4 maximum aperture and 9-18 focal length, but is it worth the extra? Also, I can't seem to find out anywhere if the Oly 9-18 i classed as a fisheye lens or not? Does it have the same kind of effect as the 9mm body cap lens? While i'm at it, if anybody has or has shot with something like the Samyang 7.5mm, is that any better? Any input is appreciated!
It's not a fisheye, it is a wide angle. The Samyang optics are good, but they are not AF, so you miss out on that.
The 9-18 is not a fisheye. It's a decent UWA zoom and IMHO, worth the money. There are endless battles between fans of the 9-18 and the Pany 7-14. I've had both, both are excellent for what they do. I kept the 9-18. The Samyang is superb (but it IS a fisheye).
ahh see i do like the fisheye effect. And in regards to the pang 7-14 its way out of my price range and for what i actually want.
If you want fisheye, sell the BCL and buy the Samyang. You can't go wrong - optics are great and the price is nice too - esp used :smile:
Before you can know if it's worth it, you need to determine what picture it will enable you to make that you can't today.
You can use software to simulate a fisheye effect. But if you like Ultra Wide Angle (UWA) the 9-18mm is worthy lens.
I had been contemplating purchasing the 9-18 for quite some time now, but I just did not wish to pay the $699.00 for it, or buying a new body that I did not need in order to get it for $499.00. I was able to pick one up in mint condition for $400.00 and I am glad that I did. The lens is rather nice, since I mainly do a lot of landscape shooting and it works quite well with my 24-40. They are supposed to be coming out with a new wide angle 2.8 lens but I am sure that it will not be in the same price range of the 9-18 or cheaper and I do not need a 2.8 lens for shooting landscapes.
I bought one several years ago, and it's the most expensive lens I own. I think I've only used it three or four times, and never felt it produced the right look for me. With my poor eyesight, I'm much happier with the results I get in the macro and telephoto range of lenses as wide angle just fails to provide anything interesting I can actually see.
About half of my shots are with the 9-18. I prefer shooting a UWA because of the perspective especially when including near objects while keeping DOF. I considered the 7-14 for a wider angle and somewhat better IQ rating. But the IQ of the 9-18 is very good and it is smaller, takes filters, and the 18mm end makes it a better walking around lens for me.
The 9-18 is the only zoom I use. I have the 14-45 and 45-175 but almost never use them. I love the 9-18 and use it a lot when I am hiking. If they had some good ultra-wide angle primes I might replace it but the size and versatility can't be beat. And as the bodies improve with better high ISO noise the limited aperture is becoming less of an issue. I would buy the 7-14 in a heartbeat IF they ever give me extremely low ISO or built in ND filters in the cameras
I LOVE the 9-18mm. Look for it on Olympus Outlet. The lens is really an amazing wide angle. A few from the last two days: {} {} The 9mm bodycap lens is a fun toy that gives me all the fisheye effect I need, but it is not in the same league as the 9-18mm. From the 9mm BCL. {} You need to spend a few days learning how to shoot that wide when you get the 9-18mm. I bought it once and sold it after a week, Now it is one of my most used lenses. -Joe
Light, sharp, small, wide - really the only things to critisize are the maximum aperture and (maybe) the price. Outdoors is no problem, indoors IBIS helps in some situations. But I think I would prefer a 8, 9 or 10mm prime ... A lot of my favourite shots have been taken with the 9-18. I actually bought it before my E-M5 was delivered!
One other option people might want to consider is picking up the 4/3 version which can sometimes be found on sale for $500 or second-hand for $300. The 4/3 version is reputed to have better consistency of sharpness across the whole field (while the µ4/3 version is sharper in the centre but weaker toward the edges). The 4/3 version also handles CA a bit better I believe.
I wouldn't bother with the 43 version personally, first off you need to buy a $100 adapter (if you don't already have one) to use it, secondly its much bigger and heavier, and if you're willing to go used, you can find the m43 9-18mm for $400-450 or so on ebay.
I sold my 9-18 zoom in order to get additional funds to get the 12-40 Pro zoom. I've missed it much more than I thought I would. So much more that I just purchased another. I think the 9-18 zoom will always be on my camera when outdoors and the 12-40 will be reserved for indoor/low light images. Maybe one day in the not to distant future I'll be able to get another camera body and have both mounted 90% of the time.
I have both the 9-18 and the 7-14. The 7-14 gets the nod for significantly wider FOV and image quality. But sometimes I use the 9-18 as well... for example, I happened to have the 9-18 during a recent trip and it gave me this 9mm image which I'm presently having printed at 42" {}
There is no question about the Pannys FOV or IQ. The 9-18 is much more affordable and compact. Both have good points I'm glad that we still have a choice. I just wonder if Olympus releases their 7-14 Pro zoom will they still sell the 9-18 zoom?
I can't see any reason why Olympus would stop production of the 9-18 once their 7-14 comes out... totally different animals. What I really want is a rectilinear 7mm prime lens.. and don't care if it's an f/4... nor whether it's a Pany or an Oly... just make it a great lens! I use my Pany 7-14 as a 7mm prime and my Oly 9-18 is typically shot at 9mm.
