ZD 9-18 c.f. MZD 9-18

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by Ricoh, Dec 26, 2013.

  1. Ricoh

    Ricoh Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Nov 2, 2013
    Real Name:
    I've made an honest attempt to discover whether this topic has been discussed before, so I conclude its either deeply hidden or not yet addressed.

    What are the pros and cons of both in term of IQ, build quality etc? I''d imagine speed of focus is considerably faster (much faster?) with the MZD, so I assume thats more or less a given.

    Is it cost that enables one to discriminate?
  2. HarryS

    HarryS Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jun 23, 2012
    Midwest, USA
    Have you read this DPR review from 2010, which compares the M.ED to the Panasonic 7-14 and also the MZD 9-18?

    If you don't have the adapter already, getting that eats into the cost difference between the two Olympus versions. In my case, I already had the adapter, but the smaller size and quick focus made it obvious that the M43 version was what I wanted. After all, this system is called micro 43, so it should be small and fast,

    Just wish it was more affordable. I bought a refurbished MED 9-18 and it's still the most money I've spent or will spend on a lens. It has the build quality of a plastic lens, so it shouldn't be so expensive, in my opinion. For that kind of money, I also expected awesome performance, but it is a wide angle after all and between 9-18 mm, you cannot expect the center sharpness of an Olympus 45mm, or the corner sharpness of the Panasonic 20mm. Once I realized that, I got to liking the MED 9-18 a lot more, especially since it's so small, it can travel anywhere.
  3. Ricoh

    Ricoh Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Nov 2, 2013
    Real Name:
    Thanks HarryS, that's quite a helpful review which previously I had not seen.

    I'm not a fan of plastic lenses and I'm puzzled how Olympus can expect to sell toy-like equipment for top dollar. I would expect appropriate materials for the price, and minimal flex on the barrel in the extended 9mm position. With that in mind I'm going to cross that particular lens off my list of lenses to acquire.
  4. kenez

    kenez Mu-43 Regular

    Apr 18, 2012
    I had the same dilemma as to which version to go for. Since I own an E-5 as well as an EM-1 I decided to get the 4/3 version rather than the m4/3. As a bonus it was cheaper as well. I had read a review (can't remember where off the top of my head) that concluded the original 4/3 version was slightly superior in IQ so that sealed the deal. Even though this lens falls in the standard grade category it still seems well built. So far I am happy with my decision but as someone else mentioned the adapter adds to the cost so that might dissuade you from going the same route as me.
  5. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    I have the 4/3rds version bought second-hand from another forum.
    I've never had the micro version.
    Oddly after testing on a few bodies e-410 e-600 e-P2 e-pL1 e-pM1 I settled on the e-pL1 (with adapter) as it consistenty focused 'better' and produces very nice pictures.
    So my story is : even though I have the DSLR version I've ended up using it on a m4/3rds body. I like it!
    Because it has a wide 'nose' it feels bigger than it's volume would imply. That's the only downside in my opinion.
    Focus on e-pL1 is fast enough, doesn't hunt, hits focus reliably.
  6. jamespetts

    jamespetts Mu-43 Top Veteran

    May 21, 2011
    London, England
    I recently bought a Four Thirds 9-18mm f/4.0-5.6 after also considering the M.ZD version (as well as other lenses), as discussed in this thread.

    I decided on the Four Thirds version because it has significantly better corner/edge sharpness (which is of some importance in an ultra-wide), owing to the fact that the Micro Four Thirds version makes extensive use of electronic distortion correction to enable it to be as small as it is, and because it was cheaper than the Micro Four Thirds version. I already had the MMF-3 for another lens, so the adapter did not need to be factored into the price.

    The lens is a similar size and shape to the Micro Four Thirds 12-40mm f/2.8, but considerably lighter, being constructed largely of plastic rather than clad in metal. It is very slow and noisy to focus on my E-M1 (slower than the Four Thirds 50-200 non-SWD and about as noisy), but fast focussing is generally not a priority with an ultra-wide lens in any event. Overall image quality seems good, especially at the wider end where it is most useful:

    Christmas presents under the tree by James E. Petts, on Flickr
  7. mauro

    mauro Mu-43 Regular

    Jun 26, 2012
    near Venice, Italy