POLL: Panasonic 7-14 or Olympus 9-18 Wide Angle for architectural indoor and 360 degree photos ?

[dlhomesolutions]

Looking to get a nice wide angle lens. I have the robinson fisheye. I tried the Olympus 7-14 pro but I felt it was overpriced for what it delivered. Looking at these two options now.

Cast your votes!

 

[wjiang]

If you're indoor on a tripod f/4 isn't a problem - the Panasonic is optically not far behind the Olympus Pro it seems.

For 360 though, a good fisheye is preferable - rectilinear UWA isn't of much use as you're going to be distorting everything anyway.

 

[scotttnz]

Two more options:
4) Wait for the reviews of the PL8-18
5) I'm a real cheapskate, wait for the 8-18, then get a P7-14 cheap from someone who is upgrading

Personally I plan to do 5. I want an UWA, but don't think it would get enough use to justify the new price of either of the 7-14s, or the likely price of the 8-18, and the 9-18 isn't wide enough for my taste. I'm already seeing more 7-14 come up second hand than usual, but I'm happy to wait a bit longer as I think second hand values will drop when the new lens is available.

 

[barry]

Hi, does your architectural photography include normal-sized residences, and is this for real-estate work?
7mm isn't really wide enough for a 10x12' bedroom, let alone most bathrooms... You might need a fisheye too.

 

[Deleted member 20897]

Of the 2 options, the 9-18 is probably the cheapest when going used. I found it fine...but I admit up front that I do not do a lot of architecture photography.

 

[dlhomesolutions]

Hi, does your architectural photography include normal-sized residences, and is this for real-estate work?
7mm isn't really wide enough for a 10x12' bedroom, let alone most bathrooms... You might need a fisheye too.

I won't give up the fisheye that I have. It does include residential. But agents do not want a distorted view of a room.

 

[Clint]

Hi, does your architectural photography include normal-sized residences, and is this for real-estate work?
7mm isn't really wide enough for a 10x12' bedroom, let alone most bathrooms... You might need a fisheye too.

How about the head on a yacht? Quite a bit smaller than your typical bathroom. 7mm worked well.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[barry]

I won't give up the fisheye that I have. It does include residential. But agents do not want a distorted view of a room.

I've De-fished bathroom shots and they're usually acceptable, if you shoot level and about 4' from the floor.

 

[BigTam]

For those times when 9mm isn't wide enough, take 2 (or 3) portrait shots and stitch them. Indoors, you're probably on a tripod anyway, so aperture isn't a problem. You don't want razor-thin DOF anyway, do you?
The 9-18 has the advantage that it's size is more m43 than FF .

 

[davidzvi]

For those times when 9mm isn't wide enough, take 2 (or 3) portrait shots and stitch them. Indoors, you're probably on a tripod anyway, so aperture isn't a problem. You don't want razor-thin DOF anyway, do you?
The 9-18 has the advantage that it's size is more m43 than FF .

Considering this myself. I have the GX85 and 12-32 so with Dual IS I'm seriously considering.

 

[BigTam]

Considering this myself. I have the GX85 and 12-32 so with Dual IS I'm seriously considering.

I've done this with the 12-32. I use Microsoft's ICE, it's free and I'm a cheapskate ☺.

 

[deacon]

I voted 7-14. A little bit different use case: I'm an architect and builder, and many of my shots are for documentation. They're for my use and the intent to get as much in frame at once as possible. Used the Rok 7.5 for a long time for this purpose, but defishing wasn't perfect for my workflow.

I'm going to pick up a Ricoh Theta S soon, that should be fun.

 

[BigTam]

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Palazzo Ducale in Mantua.
Can't remember whether this was with the 12-32 or the P14-140, and I'm not at my PC, so can't check. But ICE did an OK job, I think. I'm not a pixelpeeper .

 

[davidzvi]

I've done this with the 12-32. I use Microsoft's ICE, it's free and I'm a cheapskate ☺.

Better than just using the in camera pano feature?

 

[Mike Wingate]

I used my P12-32 and took a panaramic, I have bought the P7-14. This is good, no messing about now. Landscapes, exteriors and interiors. Great for ceilings of churches and town halls and theatres. Small, like my Lumix GX80.

 

[BigTam]

Better than just using the in camera pano feature?

I do both, take what's better

 

[NCV]

I use everything from the 7-14 to my 100-300 for architecture, depending on the effect I want.

7mm can be a bit too wide at times as it has just that little to much perspective exaggeration.

 

[Carbonman]

7mm can be a bit too wide at times as it has just that little to much perspective exaggeration.

I find some highly structured scenes really show the 7mm rectilinear distortion at the edges of the frame. Other scenes work great with the extreme AOV.

 

[dlhomesolutions]

So me and a friend built an L bracket for the Samyang Fisheye for about 8 dollars worth of parts from the hardware store. Was able to get the Nodal point spot on. Mounted the Fisheye in portrait mode and stitched the pics together using Hugin for free.

I took this shot immediately after building that is why it is in this Garage.

Check it out at the link below. The blue one that says March 22 at 9:55pm


March 22 at 9:55pm

 

[RAH]

I used my P12-32 and took a panaramic, I have bought the P7-14. This is good, no messing about now. Landscapes, exteriors and interiors. Great for ceilings of churches and town halls and theatres. Small, like my Lumix GX80.

Maybe it's just me, but I find interior panoramas very difficult (as opposed to landscape panoramas, which are pretty easy). I guess it's because I haven't been finding the nodal point, but isn't this kind of hard? (in my experience, you don't need to bother with this for most landscape photos).