Zuiko 9-18 vs M.Zuiko 9-18

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by nuclearboy, May 13, 2016.

  1. nuclearboy

    nuclearboy Mu-43 Top Veteran

    850
    Jan 28, 2011
    USA
    Looking at a Zuiko 9-18. Does anyone have first hand experience with this lens.

    My question is whether the older 4/3 lens is worthwhile if the price is right or is the newer 9-18mm M.Zuiko superior.

    I understand the old one will focus slower.
     
  2. nstelemark

    nstelemark Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 28, 2013
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    Larry
    The new one is really small and light. So it is worth factoring that in.
     
  3. nuclearboy

    nuclearboy Mu-43 Top Veteran

    850
    Jan 28, 2011
    USA
    I agree, I just have an opportunity to get the old one and wanted to know if I would regret it based on image quality. I would rather pay more for the new one if IQ was noticeably improved.
     
  4. Gary5

    Gary5 Mu-43 Veteran

    310
    Jan 15, 2014
    I think the old one has some slight optical advantages, but huge AF disadvantages.

    ...adding: The optical advantage I noticed was mainly that the old one is sharper at 18mm. There might be a slight advantage in the corners too.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2016
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. nuclearboy

    nuclearboy Mu-43 Top Veteran

    850
    Jan 28, 2011
    USA
    I did get to try the older (larger) 4/3 9-18mm lens for the weekend. It focused fast enough for me (on my EM5-ii) on the landscape shots I was doing. I really did not pay any attention to the speed. I am sure it was slower than a native m43 lens but nothing that got in my way or made me regret that I was using it. Definitely a good lens for landscape stuff.

    The 9mm is nice, of course, but I found that I could live with the 12mm on my 12-35 most of the time. When I took time to swap lenses for the wider 9mm, It added width but it was not as much as I hoped for in some cases. I used the 12mm lens more since I could run out to 35mm quickly for some people shots.

    My next goal is to try the 7-14mm Panasonic. If I am going wide, I may as well try 7mm and it may be the way to go for me.
     
  6. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 10, 2010
    Southport, OzTrailEYa
    pellicle
    the IQ of the old one is excellent ... you'll need an adapter though. This blog post of mine covers a little of that lens as well ... I sold mine as I was eventually satisfied by the 14+GWC-1.

    in my view ...: Panasonic 0.79 wide adaptor on the 14mm (image quality)


    14+9-18adapted.

    On my post there are images showing 100% corner so you can determine that sharpness is quite outstanding.

    Some images taken with my 9-18
    4240751130_01fb1396a3_o.

    4239980349_79dc9a3382_o.

    4240750384_1d38544430_o.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. RAH

    RAH Mu-43 Veteran

    271
    Dec 1, 2013
    New Hampshire
    Rich
    I have had VERY poor results using a 4/3 9-18 on a m4/3 body. I started a thread about it on another forum, here:

    Micro 4/3 using 4/3 9-18 on m4/3 body - Fourthirdsphoto Forum

    (I don't know if it's allowed to link to a different forum; if not, I'll rewrite my findings and repost here, but I'd rather not have to do that).

    I urge anyone who is even considering getting a 4/3 9-18 as a cheap way to get 9mm to take a look there. The results are AWFUL!
     
  8. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    I'm going to guess that you had something else going.
     
  9. Wisertime

    Wisertime Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 6, 2013
    Philly
    Steve
    I had a 43rds version briefly 5 or so years ago and wasn't awed by it, but honestly didn't even take many shots with it before I sold it.
    I got a M43 version a few months back and have a better feeling about it. The small size is a big plus. Worth paying a little extra IMO. I had been considering the P 7-14 to downsize from the 43 7-14 F4, but in the end I felt I can live without the 7-8mm end. Normally 12mm is plenty wide for me, but the 9-18 proved a worthwhile addition. I was patient and managed to find a good deal for ~$100 or less more than the old version. The fact that it took small filters/filter holders 67x85mm & 52mm thread for my 10 stop circular ND was a major deciding factor...same size as the 12-50mm.
     
  10. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    I pondered the decision for a while, but unless you can get it really cheap (say, less than half of what a MZ9-18 would cost) I wouldn't go for the 4/3 version. A decent 4/3 adapter like the MMF-3 isn't that cheap, either. Because of the baked-in RAW corrections, I think I would prefer the image quality of the MZ version, but the main value would be the huge reduction in size.

    I got the 4/3 11-22 instead, mostly because I was able to get it for $200, and the f2.8 aperture was appealing.
     
  11. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    The adapter is $150 so it would be hard to come out ahead adapting the old 9-18
     
  12. RAH

    RAH Mu-43 Veteran

    271
    Dec 1, 2013
    New Hampshire
    Rich
    Like what? As I explained in the thread (in several posts), I tried the 4/3 lens on several m4/3 bodies and got the same poor results. I examined old images taken with my E-520 and the lens and they all looked fine (and I posted several links to examples). I tried more tests with the m4/3 cameras and the lens and got the same consistently terrible results.

    So, what else do I have going? I am not arguing; if you can think of some reason why I got poor results, I'd like tho hear them. Even though I now have the m4/3 9-18 lens (so it doesn't matter all that much), I would like to figure it out why the results with the 4/3 lens were sooooo poor.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2016
  13. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    Unless you already have an adapter that you got for using other 4/3 lenses that are not available in the µ4/3 lens lineup.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    What adapter were you using? Is it possible that the adapter was out-of-plane? If the lens worked (and still works) well on a 4/3 body, the only real difference in the imaging chain is the adapter, so that must likely be the culprit...
     
  15. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    I own multiple 4/3 lenses and have not seen any problems with them and have friends who have 4/3 lenses that I don't have (especially the wider lenses) and they have not experienced any problems like you mention, so I don't think it is because of the wide angle of the lens. I also have a local friend with the 9-18 and they have nothing but praise for the lens, I may have to grab it from them to test out. There are photos in the showcase thread that look perfectly fine and exhibit nothing like what you are talking about.

    The one thing you did not test was the adapter. Testing the lens on other µ4/3 bodies using the same adapter does not point to the lens being the problem, especially if it works fine on a native 4/3 camera. Seems @Turbofrog@Turbofrog posted while I was writing this and said basically what I was getting at.

    Edit - there are way to many examples of beautiful images taken with the 4/3 9-18 on µ4/3 bodies for there not to be something going on with your setup. Most likely the adapter was/is the problem.
     
  16. RAH

    RAH Mu-43 Veteran

    271
    Dec 1, 2013
    New Hampshire
    Rich
    I have a Vello (B&H adapter). All I can say is that it works fine with other 4/3 lenses (e.g. my 14-54 and 35mm macro). I guess it could be "out of plane," but that would show up with all lenses, right? Other than that, I can see no reason that the adapter could be at fault. I mean, it focuses fine - i.e. the camera and lens are communicating OK. The center of all the images are sharp, but the sides (both) are terrible. Unfortunately, I do not have a working 4/3 camera, so i cannot test it. I don't have another adapter either.

    Isn't it possible that the 9-18 lens just doesn't do well on m4/3 bodies? I think you guys are giving the lens itself too much of a pass here.
     
  17. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    Based on all the other photographs I have seen from this lens on µ4/3 bodies, not at all. You are the only person I have ever seen bring up this issue with the 4/3 9-18, so it has to be something specific to your setup or the lens. Something could have happen from the time you last used it on the 4/3 camera and when you used it on your µ4/3 camera. After noticing this you did not have a working 4/3 camera so it does not rule out the lens itself.
     
  18. PakkyT

    PakkyT Mu-43 Top Veteran

    767
    Jun 20, 2015
    New England
    It isn't that the lens is being given a pass, it is just that there are too many variables to simply conclude it is definitely the lens design not working right on m43 bodies.

    First and foremost, as pointed out by others, you moved BOTH the lens and adapter to other bodies so you have only concluded that the PAIR give poor results. You have not ruled out the adapter. You are just making the assumption the adapter can't be at fault.

    Second, why would a m43 camera give different results? m43 and 4/3rds cameras use the same 4/3rds sensors and just the mounts are different. So you are not capturing any difference in the image circle cast by the lens. Both systems use the same sized sensor, both systems use flat sensors (not some crazy curved sensor in one system and not the other), etc. So why would a m43 body capture the image any differently than a 4/3rds body?

    Third, your previous 4/3rds use of that lens with fully FIVE years prior and your old E-520 was not functional for you to try it again now. So all you know is 5 years ago the lens worked fine on a 4/3rds camera and now the images look bad on your latest cameras. What you don't know is if anything about the lens changed since then. Until you can pop it on a 4/3rds camera to re-verify its operation there, you can not make the blanket statement that this lens is no good on m43s bodies but works fine on 4/3rds. You could have a damaged/malfunctioning lens, which wouldn't be representative of what others would see if they bought their own copies.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 3
  19. RAH

    RAH Mu-43 Veteran

    271
    Dec 1, 2013
    New Hampshire
    Rich
    OK, you guys make good points. Maybe I can get my E-520 working again - I used it 2 years ago and it was fine, but when I tried it recently, it wouldn't work (which lends some credence to the idea that things can break while sitting in a drawer.

    I do think it is odd that other lenses work ok with the adapter but the 9-18 wouldn't - I think it points to the lens being at fault, not the adapter. I need to experiment more...
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  20. nuclearboy

    nuclearboy Mu-43 Top Veteran

    850
    Jan 28, 2011
    USA
    I took a bunch of shots with the 9-18mm 4/3 lens. Here are two, nothing special, shots that show some clairity in the corners. After quickly looking through the photos from last week, the 9-18mm looks great and without pixel peeping, I see no difference compared to my native m4/3 lenses.

    In addition, I have used several 4/3 lenses and they have all performed as expected. Focusing on the EM5-Mk2 was decent too. I already had the Olympus adapter so using the lens for the week was an easy choice. For a purchase, I am looking at the 7-14, however. If going wide, I might as well go wider...

    Both of these at 9mm on the 4/3 9-18 (why else have this lens :) ). No IQ issues with the lens on a m4/3 body for me.

    P5140002.JPG P5140027.JPG
     
    • Agree Agree x 1