1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Olympus m.ZD 7-14/2.8 Pro review at Photozone

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by dhazeghi, Nov 4, 2015.

  1. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    Klaus at Photozone has reviewed the Olympus 7-14/2.8. Doesn't quite seem to be up to the standard of their other pro lenses (12-40, 40-150).
     
  2. Speedliner

    Speedliner Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 2, 2015
    Southern NJ, USA
    Rob
    That's funny. Other review sites rated it the best of the Pro lenses. I wish more stores had try before you buy programs.
     
  3. bikerhiker

    bikerhiker Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 24, 2013
    Canada
    David
    With a f/2.8 design, there will always be "MORE" field curvature because it needs a bigger front element than an f/4 design and it is covering a smaller cropped sensor due to its 7mm design. The only other lens that performed better is the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 which has to only cover 14mm. The big mistake we usually make is to try to use the equivalency theory to compare lenses with different focal lengths. And that we mistaken focal length as equal to field of view. It's not. And focal length does not effect depth of field. Only field of view. So comparing focal length vs field of view is a pointless exercise by Klaus when he attempted to compare other full frame UWA lenses. Compare with the same focal length of a 7mm full frame lens and you'll see similar issues. Having said that, this is why full frame bodies excels in UWA applications because it is easier to achieve UWA without going into extreme 7mm focal length to get a 14mm field of view. Which is why some of us own a full frame complementary body. Having said that, the 7-14mm PRO is an excellent lens for what it is and the compromise you have to accept and work with and with a full stop faster aperture allows less noise and more dynamic range with your low light handheld shots. You can't have it all!
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. kwalsh

    kwalsh Mu-43 Top Veteran

    775
    Mar 3, 2012
    Baltimore, MD
    No, that's wrong. Field curvature has absolutely nothing to do with the size of the front element. Nor the shape of the front element for that matter.

    Try applying this scaling logic to a 1/2.3" sensor and see how it comes out. Hmmm....

    I can't follow any of this, you seem to be contradicting yourself but maybe its just the difficulty of writing about technical topics concisely. (EDIT: I should add difficulty of reading is an equally likely problem - i.e. maybe your writing is just fine and I'm lacking the comprehension).

    Your suggestion of comparing a 7 mm full frame lens is ridiculous, just do the math on the rectilinear projection for that and enjoy the utter non-sense of the proposition.

    There is nothing "extreme" about a 7mm focal length. The FZ cameras have a zoom lens starting at 4.8mm. The LX3 has a 5.1mm lens. Believe or not the equivalency theory you are lambasting actually does work. There isn't anything magic about FF sizes, it isn't any sort of "sweet spot" for optical design. And it doesn't do UWA any better than any other format, just look at all the FF UWA lenses that perform *worse* than the m43 options. The point with FF is that it has a lot of choices, some of which are targeted at very high end markets.

    And taking your theory the other direction then 8x10 and 4x5 cameras should just be miraculously good at UWA with none of these issues. In practice they aren't really any better.

    Agree!
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2015
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. kwalsh

    kwalsh Mu-43 Top Veteran

    775
    Mar 3, 2012
    Baltimore, MD
    I think it probably isn't fair to compare an UWA to those lenses. You are almost certain to be let down. There are very few UWA in any system or format that don't have similar "flaws" as the 7-14. Despite that, I too was sort of hoping for a "miracle" from the 7-14/2.8 given how excellent the other two are. It appears in the end to be an excellent UWA that would be the envy of a number of other systems even if we can find examples that do better.

    In my case nothing seems to show it is an improvement over the smaller Panasonic 7-14/4 for landscape shooting. That's sort of a relief as now I can continue to carry around that smaller lens without regret ;)

    One thing to be aware of with photozone and UWA lenses. These designs tend to have very different aberrations and performance at near and far focus distances. Thus much of the numeric test data from these "test chart" sites - particularly for the edges and corners - is pretty much irrelevant to landscape or architecture photographers. The lens likely will act quite differently at infinity focus. In this case it does sound like the field curvature issue does still exist at infinity, but again the degree and exact behavior at infinity likely differs from the numeric imatest results shown in the review that were shot at much closer range.
     
  6. bikerhiker

    bikerhiker Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 24, 2013
    Canada
    David
    Kwlash, look at this Nikon 6mm f/2.8 Ais fisheye.


    And you don't think that lens is big and curvy for a full frame?

    Definition of focal length is a measurement of the subject distance to its imaging nodal point @ Infinity and only infinity.
    Definition of field of view is the angle of view in regards of subject distance that is NOT @ infinity.

    Therefore, focal length has absolutely no relevance to Depth Of Field. What focal length is is the image magnification factor.

    When we are comparing lenses, we should be comparing based on their same focal lengths. The lens is constructed in such a way to reflect the nodal point @ Infinity, so therefore a 6mm lens is constructed DIFFERENTLY than a 12mm lens. It has to be. But some people confuse focal length being equal to field of view in terms of lens design and this is where the birth of the equivalency theory came to be. And that a 6mm lens, which gives the same field of view as a 12mm lens should be compared to a 12mm full frame lens just like comparing a Ferrari against a Honda Civic just because they both have 4 wheels.

    If you read Klaus' review, he loosely inter-mixed focal lengths with field of view as though they are directly and linearly related. They should not. I'm sure he assumed we understood both that focal length and field of view are not the same, but he was fair in saying that this lens is underdesigned for costs, size and weight concerns. Take a look again at that Nikon 6mm Ais lens. Do you really want Olympus to create a boat anchor for max performance? For what it is, it is a fair well designed optics. If you want closer to flat field focus, then the Panasonic is your lens. If you want speed and excellent center focus performance, then the Olympus is the lens to have.

    And smaller sensors often require "shorter" focal length to achieve a given angle of view (that's important) and this factor is known as the "crop factor". So in a way, a small sensor with a 4.5mm lens does not have an extreme angle of view; meaning super ultra-wide application say compared to a larger sized sensor. The most ultra wide field of view small sensors using in cell phones and point and shoots would even achieve is around 21-24mm eq FOV of a full frame sensor. I haven't seen a 11mm or 14mm eq FOV full frame on tiny cell-phone sensors or even on the compact super zooms yet that gives just as good of a performance as the Olympus 7-14 2.8.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2015
  7. Speedliner

    Speedliner Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 2, 2015
    Southern NJ, USA
    Rob
    If your considering this lens, give this review a look. He used the Pany 7-14 as well.

     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. barry13

    barry13 Super Moderator; Photon Wrangler

    Mar 7, 2014
    Southern California
    Barry
    Has anyone compared this lens to the ZD 7-14/4?

    Barry
     
  9. MichaelSewell

    MichaelSewell Mu-43 Top Veteran

    511
    Sep 1, 2015
    Burnley, UK
    Michael A. Sewell
    On balance, I would say this particular review is of more relevance and use to me. He's used it in similar areas I would, and has shown plenty of examples where I would have expected flare and fringing, although little was evident.
    Whilst the Photozone review kinda panned the distortion, the shown example images and video in Darren's review is far more informative, and as such, I'm going to be adding the 7-14mm to my arsenal at some point.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2015
    • Like Like x 1
  10. bikerhiker

    bikerhiker Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 24, 2013
    Canada
    David
    While I personally don't use the 7mm (or 14mm FOV) all too often, I love to do outdoor architectural photography and my most used lens is the Bower 14mm f/2.8, which is the same as the Samyang 14mm. According to Photozone.de, this is a really spectacular lens with spectacular sharpness. I've managed to agree with that finding with my own Bower with a focal reducer. The results are simply jaw dropping. Due to the focal reducer issues, I was not able to obtain the flat field focus consistency with my E-P5, so clearly this 7-14 Pro lens is the only solution if one needs a better consistent solution for interior architectural work. I would love to own one, but in my case, maybe a Sony A7 with a Nikon-Nex adapter would be a better choice just to get 14mm because I already own the full frame version.

    Best advice is to always look for people who review lenses based on your needs which can then reflect the true nature of the lens. With any lenses, there are always certain compromises and you need to understand those in order to utilize the asset of this lens. Photozone.de reviews are very technical and while it gives a clear picture (me) of what the lens can do as long as you understood those figures and apply them appropriately to the task at hand, this Photozone.de review will create more cries than help. Darren Miles video is much better to convey the lens in layman's terms.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. kwalsh

    kwalsh Mu-43 Top Veteran

    775
    Mar 3, 2012
    Baltimore, MD
    @bikerhiker@bikerhiker I still fail to get what you are driving at. What is the relevance of a FF 6mm fisheye? You understand I hope that distortion is also a Seidel aberration and that it is intricately linked with the other Seidel aberrations when designing a lens. This is precisely why most excellent UWA lenses have residual distortion, they have to in order to achieve sharp corners. A fisheye lens of course gets to practically throw control of distortion out the window.

    Again, like I said before, please tell me about a *rectilinear* FF optic that is 7mm, and do the math on the projection for that.

    You still haven't addressed your original erroneous claim - that field curvature is related to the diameter of the front optic.

    As to this you appear to be one very confused soul on optics. You can write the equations a number of ways holding various things constant or not and get *some* of the relations you mention. Your second sentence is non-sense or a typo on your part. See here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_view

    Anyway, I won't continue the conversation further, you seem to have invented your own photography vernacular that differs from everyone else and every optics designer around. We'll just agree the 7-14/2.8 is a nice lens and there are some other nice UWA lenses around as well...
     
  12. bikerhiker

    bikerhiker Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 24, 2013
    Canada
    David
    My information came from the Nikon USA website, but I thought I made myself clear that focal length and field of view (angle of view) are 2 separate things. Nikon website even has examples of their 3 Nikon zoom lenses, the 70-200VR II, VR I and 70-300 VR all full frame and all shot @ 200mm at a close distance and give 3 different angle of view so I'm not sure what are you trying to get at by showing me the link the Wiki?

    Also, I showed you a 6mm f/2.8 Ais full frame lens and while it is a fisheye, it is pretty big and curvy. Are you telling me that a 6mm f/2.8 Ais full frame lens that is a non-fisheye will have a much smaller and less curvy front element? And have you actually seen the corners on that fisheye lens? I had and is not pretty! As I said above and always; it's only fair to compare focal length of one lens against the same focal length of another.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2015
  13. kwalsh

    kwalsh Mu-43 Top Veteran

    775
    Mar 3, 2012
    Baltimore, MD
    Ah, OK, on the field of view point we don't disagree with what you state here. The FoV can, and often does, change with focus distance. However, the FoV for lenses is usually defined at infinity (see wiki article linked earlier) so your statement "Definition of field of view is the angle of view in regards of subject distance that is NOT @ infinity" is at the very least confusing since the typical definition of FoV is in fact at infinity.

    That aside I'm not sure I see the relevance of FoV at all to a discussion of field curvature which was the actual topic being discussed. The two are not related at all in even the slightest way. And to once again return to the original point, your assertion that front element diameter relates to field curvature is completely erroneous as is the claim that somehow larger formats can realize lower field curvatures in an UWA design. That said, as an aside, formats that do not require mirror boxes or can otherwise place glass very close to the film/sensor plane do in fact enjoy an advantage in UWA design in general.
     
  14. bikerhiker

    bikerhiker Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 24, 2013
    Canada
    David
    The reason I said that was because this lens is under-designed compromising for size and cost. Klaus mentioned it and I agree. You are absolute correct that when designed properly, the front element size has no relevance as demonstrated with larger formats. However, this is not a large format sensor. This is a small crop sensor and that's what I've been trying to say. Olympus can design it better but at what cost and size?!? As it looks now, it's a nice lens for what it does. :)
     
  15. kwalsh

    kwalsh Mu-43 Top Veteran

    775
    Mar 3, 2012
    Baltimore, MD
    Well on this we are in 100% agreement! Thanks for persevering with me through it all, and sorry for the long argumentative digression :)

    For me as well once something gets too big then I lose interest in it for m43. Everyone of course has their own threshold for "too big". What attracts me to m43 is that for their size the lenses perform amazingly well. I have no interest in carrying around an Otus glass grenade to eek out the last smidge of performance when things like the 15/1.7 and 45/1.8 exist.

    Cheers!
     
  16. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    Well in one sense the Oly lens is much better than the Pany - it is free of purple flare. I was (trying) to use my Pany recently to photograph some ornate ceilings in Italy but the image was completely ruined by purple "mist" leaking in from the side due to bright sky just off the image.
     
  17. kwalsh

    kwalsh Mu-43 Top Veteran

    775
    Mar 3, 2012
    Baltimore, MD
    Yes, this is definitely true if you shoot an Olympus body. I had a shot in a narrow canyon similarly gummed up by a bad purple flare shot on the E-M5 a few years ago. It was an HDR stack and when pushing the shadows the purple flare became nearly overwhelming in the darker parts of the image - wasn't obvious to me in live view at the time. It rarely was an issue in my landscape photos on the E-M5 but that was one case where it showed up. And I completely understand the instances of it being a problem are way more frequent for architecture!

    I was shooting GM1 for landscape for a little bit and no purple problems on the Panasonic body. Now I'm shooting with the E-M5II so I've got the parts to install the filter fix for the purple problem. Your post reminds me I should get around to installing that soon! Don't want another surprise in the future!
     
  18. mauro

    mauro Mu-43 Regular

    145
    Jun 26, 2012
    near Venice, Italy
    I tested the Oly 7-14 last Saturday, build quality is excellent and CA are very well corrected but... corners are quite bad for me compared to my Panasonic 7-14. I shot mostly at 7mm and I had to stop down at least to f5.6 to have a bit better corners sharpness but they aren't at the same level as the Panasonic.
    Center sharpness is very good even at f2.8 but again I prefer the Panny that it is way more uniform accross all the frame.
    Another flaw I found is the huge distortion at 7mm of uncorrected raw.
    I had a lot of expectations on this lens but it left me with a bitter taste, f2.8 is a nice feature for me for astrophotography but for me for the rest the Panasonic is a better option.
     
  19. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    That's sort of the long and the short of it to me. It's certainly an interesting design, and for certain use-cases, f/2.8 is nice. But for landscapes, it doesn't look like a meaningful step up from the Panasonic, and the field curvature would be quite inconvenient.