LowriderS10
Monkey with a camera.
Hello all,
First off, I'd like to say this is nothing but an unscientific opinion post, not meant to put one product down or talk another up. I'm merely posting it because I know a lot of people are torn between what to get (we have it pretty good, don't we? Unlike systems where they have massive gaping holes in their lens line-ups, we have an embarrassment of riches).
Background: I've always been a huge fan of UWA zooms, and preferred fast lenses. Started with the Sigma 10-20, then Tokina 11-16, then Canon 17-40L and finally the 16-35L II. So, when I moved to Olympus, I wanted a good, fast, wide lens. I was torn between the 7-14 and the 9-18, but in the end settled on the 9-18, because I figured "Hey...the whole reason I left DSLRs is to go as small as possible without compromising quality too much," and the 9-18 fit that philosophy.
However, I did time and again return to the idea of the 7-14. When I was in Taiwan, I was tired when I happened upon a street full of camera stores where - thanks to me converting the currency incorrectly - I thought i had stumbled on the 7-14s at around $600-700. (they weren't, they were right around $1,000). I was feverishly going from store to store, comparing prices and testing them against my lenses.
In the end...even at that price...I walked away. This is why:
- Yes...the 9-18 is a stop slower at the long end. HOWEVER...that's at 18mm. At 14mm, it's maybe half a stop or two-thirds of a stop slower, which isn't so bad, especially with my OM-D's excellent IBIS and respectable high-ISO performance.
- The 7-14 can't take filters...that's a big one.
- The 7-14 is just big. Too big. I wouldn't want to have it attached to my camera as much as I have my 9-18 attached.
- My 7.5mm fisheye + 9-18 combo take up about as much room, weigh about as much (or less) and cost about the same as the 7-14 while being far more versatile, PLUS, I can always choose to have just one or the other with me. And when they're mounted...they're small and don't attract much attention. All of these are qualities I look for, since I use my camera for travel 95% of the time (and I travel by backpack, hike, etc).
So, there you have it...the 7-14 is undoubtedly an excellent lens, and anyone who chooses to go with it is making a wise choice. However...I think the 9-18 + 7.5 FE combo can be a far superior choice at the same price/size/weight.
Just my two cents...enjoy your day, ladies and gentlemen!
First off, I'd like to say this is nothing but an unscientific opinion post, not meant to put one product down or talk another up. I'm merely posting it because I know a lot of people are torn between what to get (we have it pretty good, don't we? Unlike systems where they have massive gaping holes in their lens line-ups, we have an embarrassment of riches).
Background: I've always been a huge fan of UWA zooms, and preferred fast lenses. Started with the Sigma 10-20, then Tokina 11-16, then Canon 17-40L and finally the 16-35L II. So, when I moved to Olympus, I wanted a good, fast, wide lens. I was torn between the 7-14 and the 9-18, but in the end settled on the 9-18, because I figured "Hey...the whole reason I left DSLRs is to go as small as possible without compromising quality too much," and the 9-18 fit that philosophy.
However, I did time and again return to the idea of the 7-14. When I was in Taiwan, I was tired when I happened upon a street full of camera stores where - thanks to me converting the currency incorrectly - I thought i had stumbled on the 7-14s at around $600-700. (they weren't, they were right around $1,000). I was feverishly going from store to store, comparing prices and testing them against my lenses.
In the end...even at that price...I walked away. This is why:
- Yes...the 9-18 is a stop slower at the long end. HOWEVER...that's at 18mm. At 14mm, it's maybe half a stop or two-thirds of a stop slower, which isn't so bad, especially with my OM-D's excellent IBIS and respectable high-ISO performance.
- The 7-14 can't take filters...that's a big one.
- The 7-14 is just big. Too big. I wouldn't want to have it attached to my camera as much as I have my 9-18 attached.
- My 7.5mm fisheye + 9-18 combo take up about as much room, weigh about as much (or less) and cost about the same as the 7-14 while being far more versatile, PLUS, I can always choose to have just one or the other with me. And when they're mounted...they're small and don't attract much attention. All of these are qualities I look for, since I use my camera for travel 95% of the time (and I travel by backpack, hike, etc).
So, there you have it...the 7-14 is undoubtedly an excellent lens, and anyone who chooses to go with it is making a wise choice. However...I think the 9-18 + 7.5 FE combo can be a far superior choice at the same price/size/weight.
Just my two cents...enjoy your day, ladies and gentlemen!
