Panasonic 7~14mm or Olympus 12mm ?

Started Jan 18, 2013 | Discussions thread
jim stirling
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,372Gear list
Like?
Re: Thanks for all the replies and suggestions
In reply to Anders W, Jan 19, 2013

Anders W wrote:

jim stirling wrote:


Anders W wrote:

wazu wrote:

Coincides with my reasoning also. The Panasonic 7-14 is an

exotic

What do you mean and is that positive or negative?

Hi Anders,UWA lenses are exotic in the sense that they make up a tiny percentage of all images taken .To use an UWA lens more than other focal lengths you would need to be working in an ironically narrow niche.

Sure. But the comparison here was with the 9-18.

heavy

Could you please provide an example of a lighter UWA zoom that goes as wide?

expen$ive

It is the second most expensive lens in the system only out priced by the 35-100

Quite a few others come to mind, going by the prices at B&H: 12-35, 75/1.8, 17.5/0.95 and 25/0.95. Lenses with strong specs cost money.

I believe neither of us lives in America  nor does the OP or wazu for that matter .so I based prices on where I am located as other than illegal imports the USA prices are not available to us as the tax man will  cometh. I didntt even count the voightlanders as they are so rare and in fact the 25mm is cheaper than the 7-14 and the 17mm within 5% 0f the price of the 7-14

http://www.camerapricebuster.com/cat_Panasonic_G_System.html

Could you please provide an example of a significantly cheaper UWA zoom that is as wide, fast, and performs as well.

That does not change the fact that it is expensive , there are few who would not consider an £850 lens expensive. For most people I suspect expensive is an absolute term , specifically related to a the actual price. As opposed to a comparative term when compared to other lenses in or out of the system.

See above.

See above

prone to purple flare

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50693802

I am not so sure your particular scenario would be particularly prone to flare as the sources of light in it are tiny in the image and would thus be very easy to correct in post. Whereas the original images that seemed to start the discussion would be a far more difficult to stop flare

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50690595

clump that won't take filters easily

The point here is that they might be expected to cause problematic flare but didn't. I didn't correct this picture for flare in PP.

I don't think that an image with such tiny lights would be adversely prone to CA

What filters would you want to use with it?

While the field of view is to wide to use polarisers due to the uneven effect across the image . I have a number of filters I use on my 14-24 including various ND filters which are actually very useful for my interest of landscape photography.

See my response to wazu above.

Because there are other more convoluted ways to achieve the effect of an ND filter does not change the value of their use  and how does your method work for video ?

. It doen't work well with Olympus.

Exactly what doesn't work as well with Olympus?

Is this lens effected by CA which is obviously corrected on a Panasonic body while not being corrected on an Olympus body.

See my response to wazu above.

So it is a very real problem to JPEG shooters then

Now, for declarations sake i do not own the E-M5 or the 7-14 and I am thus merely playing devils advocate

I realize that.

Sorry its a quiet Saturday afternoon , my  boredom threshold got the better of me

Jim

 jim stirling's gear list:jim stirling's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Sony Alpha 7R Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Nikon D810 +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow