panny 7-14mm vs canon 16-35 f4L IS

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by CanonConvert, Oct 21, 2014.

  1. CanonConvert

    CanonConvert Mu-43 Regular

    Nov 22, 2012
    need the help of people who concurrently own both systems and both lens (preferably) - which is the better of the two? Both have received rave reviews in their own camps, but on DXOMark - the canon lens beats the 7-14 hands down, possibly due to the limitations of the m43 system?

    Since my e-pl5 already has IBIS, i was thinking i can downsize my lens collection and also get more DOF, especially with a lot of landscape shot scenarios using the UWAs.

    I'm using a Canon 6D (full frame) for my Canon System by the way.
  2. kwalsh

    kwalsh Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Mar 3, 2012
    Baltimore, MD
    The DxOMark scoress take the resolution of the camera body into account as well as the ISO performance of the camera body and a bunch of other things that have little to do with the lens. Basically DxO lens scores have surprisingly little to do with the lens and mostly with the camera. So yes, all FF lenses - even crappy ones - will score better than m43 on DxO.

    If you look at some of the data and field maps on DxO that tells you a bit more. And that seems to show the 16-35 has better corner performance especially at longer focal lengths than the 7-14.

    I have no direct experience with the Canon 16-35L but I have shot Canon L glass before and I do love the 7-14. That said, from what I've read I would expect the 16-35 on a 6D to of course have higher resolution than the 7-14 on any m43 body. Whether you can tell the difference in the final image has to do with how big you print. Obviously the size difference between the two systems is extreme.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. ArtVandelay

    ArtVandelay Mu-43 Rookie

    Dec 19, 2013
    DxOMark lens ratings are kinda bad to judge a lens by, for various reasons. You can find well written write ups on it via google.

    That being said, according to the numbers; the canon is sharper. IMO this isn't really comparable from the numbers because one lens is designed to over a larger format than the other and this complicates things, so it really isn't as simple as x lens is sharper than y lens because of "this".

    I have experience with a 6D and the 16-35. It is a fantastic lens. Amazingly sharp. No complaints. I don't have experience with the 7-14, but I do own the oly 12-40 2.8. So here is my personal observation after shooting landscapes with both in similar situations and conditions, then editing. The 7-14 is supposed to be just as good if not better than the 12-40 anyway.

    I took both cameras (6D and Em-5), each with 16-35 and 12-40 out, shot a bunch of landscapes while hiking and just my various out and about locations. Got back home, loaded the raws in lightroom and set to editing. First thing: 6D has more resolution obviously, 20mp vs 16. aspect ratio, obviously. Other than these two factors, and without getting long winded: I couldn't tell the difference. Viewing 100% raw files, I often had to check the exif info to see just which lens and camera combo the picture had come from. Seriously. Sometimes I'd be editing and thinking 'wow this 16-35 is amazing!" only to look and notice it was actually the 12-40. and vice versa.

    The 16-35 didn't require quite as much sharpening though.

    Anyway, I'm not keeping the 16-35. It's great, but I wasn't blown away. I can get plenty good results with my EM-5.

    If you check my flickr page, I have pictures up from a 6D and the Em-5. I guarantee you can't tell the difference.
    • Like Like x 2
  4. CanonConvert

    CanonConvert Mu-43 Regular

    Nov 22, 2012
    i regularly view images on my 27" 4K (3840 x 2160) monitor and rarely print them out. When I do print them, I realize prints (up to 8x10") are much more forgiving than my 4K monitor - i can't even tell the difference between a m43 kit lens vs my full frame L lens. The difference is extremely clear on my monitor though.

    would love to seek first hand experience of users who have owned both, since numbers only represent one side of the story.

  5. barry13

    barry13 Super Moderator

    Mar 7, 2014
    Southern California
    Real Name:
    You should also look at the existing ZD 7-14mm 4/3 lens.

    There will be an m43 M.ZD 7-14 f2.8 eventually as well.

  6. kwalsh

    kwalsh Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Mar 3, 2012
    Baltimore, MD
    @ArtVandelay - I've got the 12-40 and the 7-14 and the 12-40 is certainly the superior lens when it comes to resolution and microcontrast especially in the extreme corners for the 12-14 range. But not by a wide margin at all - pixel peeping levels really. Which is not to say the 7-14 isn't a really excellent UWA. In fact the 7-14 is best at the wide end and is weakest in the 12-14 range which makes it a nice pairing with the 12-40 which is so excellent at 12.

    If the up and coming Oly 7-14/2.8 can do as well as the 12-40 then it will be a truly amazing UWA lens and would probably be slightly better than the Pany 7-14/4 - only time will tell!

    Thanks for your comments on the 16-35. That's a lens I might use in a year or so if I ever end up bothering with a FF setup for a future project I hope to do. I'm still on the fence as to whether FF would be worth the hassle...
  7. Edmunds

    Edmunds Mu-43 Regular

    Oct 16, 2012
    DxoMark doesn't really let you judge lenses across different systems. You can only compare 2 lenses on the same camera.

    Of course, the 6D will deliver more resolution than any m4/3 camera, which is why DxOMark rates the 6D + 16-35 combo higher.

    The answer to your question is really general - if you need more resolution and are willing to go with the bigger weight, get the full frame, if weight is important then m4/3 is a really great compromise between weight and image quality.
    • Like Like x 1
  8. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 10, 2010
    Southport, OzTrailEYa
    Real Name:

    let me have a whack at answering this:

    I think that DxO highlights what normal "lens tests" miss, and that is that when doing lens tests one shoots a chart at a standard magnification - which means a distance related to the focal length of lens you're testing. This introduces issues which people often fail to grasp. As such I find the PMpix rating an interesting and beneficial alternative metric.

    Back in 2009 I put this blog post together about the effects of how tests are done. I'll try to summarise that here.

    For instance, here is the section of the image with the Norman Koren lens test chart of my 50mm f1.8

    and here is the one from my 24mm f2.8

    to determin the line pairs / mm you read off the number where you observe (its your call which leads to issues) no longer distinguishable as lines but is a mush.

    As I mention in the blog post the distances are different (to keep the magnification the same) and since this is a 50mm lens, this means that the target is 2550mm (or 2.5 meters) from the lens or 1.2 meters with the 24mm lens.

    Now, just think about this for a moment: How often do you stand that close to the subject when you take a picture with a 50mm lens or 1.2 meters with the 24? Especially with an APS sensor DSLR (not a full frame one) it is just what you'd do for a selfie and not what you'd have in most scenery shots.

    What is more common is using a 24mm a few more meters away in a scene like this:
    and the test chart on the wall now becomes almost entirely mush. (100% crop from the CRW file)

    Now, to make things interesting I used the same testing procedure to test my 1940's folding 6x9 bessa camera. Given that it has a 105mm lens to provide the same field of view as the 24mm does on a 10D (the test is not related to the format, its about the lens) I got essentially the same view when placing the camera at the correct lens test distance.

    ... and interestingly while the absolute score of the lens resolution was higher on the Canon 24mm ... the effect was that that feature of the image was rendered in more detail on the old Bessa:

    Looking at this image one can see that the performance of the smaller format (the APS format) is quite embarassingly poor when one considers what the outright specs of the system are.

    This is of course why specs need to be understood.

    For laughs I threw in a test (while the chart was up there) using my 4x5 camera with a Fujinon 90mm lens (which is actually wider as its more equivalent to 26mm than 35mm in "full frame" 35mm terms

    So you can see that it does better in spec (thank god) than my 1940's camera but considering its much wider field of view:

    it trundles all over it.

    Which is exactly why DxO gives Full Frame much better results than it does smaller formats (such as APS or 4/3).

    There is no substitute for capture acreage (as any multi image stitcher knows).

    So to the OP I say that yes, the Full Frame Canon will give better outright clarity, but at a cost in other areas:
    * money
    * weight
    * size
    * a penalty of needing more light to get the same DoF (should you not want razor thin DoF)
    * often requiring shooting at f5.6 or f8 while the Panny lens will look pretty darn good at f4

    Its the old thing ... the 4/3 can give 2 stops advantage or disadvantage depending what you're seeking.

    Hope this Helps
  9. zulfur666

    zulfur666 Mu-43 Veteran

    Jan 30, 2014
    I have had a 5D Mark III with the 16-35 2.8 II for a while, but can only compare it to the 9-18 Oly lens. And the corner sharpness is better on my Oly lens especially shot at the widest angle. But that might be due to f4 starting at the Oly 9mm. Which in FF terms DOF would be F8. But I shot the Canon at F10 a lot and while it was great, looking now at the images and comparing them the corners of the Canon are soft (almost smeared). I wait until Olympus has the new 7-14 f/2.8 before I switch out my Oly 9-18. Sorry never had the 7-14 Pana lens.
  10. Just Jim

    Just Jim Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Oct 20, 2011
    I've had the 7-14 and the 17-40. Not the newer 16-35 f4. I'd get the lens for the body you use for wide angle the most. I'd also wait to see what Samyang does with their wide angle TS lens.
  11. CanonConvert

    CanonConvert Mu-43 Regular

    Nov 22, 2012
    i've had the 17-40L before too and just like the 16-36 f2.8II - the weakness has always been in the corners. that was fixed with the 16-35 f4L IS, hence the question of comparison to the 7-14. If there's not much IQ difference between the 2, then i'd lean strongly towards the 7-14 for the weight reduction.
  12. DMLarson

    DMLarson Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Aug 19, 2014
    East Idaho
    Real Name:

    I just saw that you are wanting to use the P7-14 on an Olympus epl5. Do you already have the P7-14? It's a wonderful lens, but is prone to lots of purple flaring on Olympus bodies. I've had trouble with this lens on both my E-M10 and E-M1. I finally bought a Panasonic GX7 to pair with it and love the results. But I would caution against selling your Canon 16-35 until you've had a chance to try the P7-14 extensively on your Olympus camera.

    The size of the P7-14 is fantastic. I love that I get twice the DOF with this vs a 6D. And with the IBIS in my cameras I rarely use a tripod any more.
  13. kwalsh

    kwalsh Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Mar 3, 2012
    Baltimore, MD
    Yes, depending on the scene the P7-14 is prone to purple flares on many Olympus bodies. You'll get the same flares on Panasonic bodies but they won't be the distracting purple color and will be a little dimmer. The issue is the Olympus bodies admit more UV light and the 7-14 anti-reflection coatings don't work as well at UV. You can mod the 7-14 to add a rear gelatin filter to avoid this effect on Olympus bodies. The people who notice the problem the most are those shooting around indoor lighting where the lights end up in the image. Bright windows can do the same thing, and of course the sun too.
  14. EarthQuake

    EarthQuake Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Sep 30, 2013
  15. CanonConvert

    CanonConvert Mu-43 Regular

    Nov 22, 2012
    hmm i've read the reviews and to me, the flare is still tolerable.

    DMLarson: I don't have the 7-14 or the 16-35 yet. I used to have the 17-40L but sold it away thereafter, as it was one of my least impressive lenses (couldn't give me a wow effect like my other lenses did). agree that the advantages of the 7-14 and m43 system are a huge draw to me.