Panasonic 7~14mm or Olympus 12mm ?

I am going to buy an Olympus OMD next week and I have been deciding what lenses to get with it. I use a Nikon D700 with some very nice glass but I want a good quality alternative that will allow me to carry lots of kit without the weight and bulk of an FF SLR.

So, I have been looking at the Olympus 12mm as my wide angle prime but I am a bit concearned that 24mm equivalent is not that wide. I use a Nikon 17~35 on my D700.

How does the Panasonic 7~14mm compare for IQ (to the Olympus 12mm)? I will have a 12~50 kit lens for snap shots so I am only asking about how it compares when I want the best IQ. If anyone has used both I would love to hear from you. How big is the Panasonic?

I realise it is more expensive.

--
www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

The 7-14 has a constant F4 compared to the Olympus 9-18. Olympus has filter threads the Panny does not, it has a built in hood.  The difference wider than 12 mm and wider than 9 mm on the Panny is a noticeable difference for focal length comparison.

If you are set on the OMD and are ok using Panasonic lenses I would do this differently.

Buy the OMD body only.  Get the 7-14 and 12-35 Panasonic lenses.

Since you are used to FF with the 17-35 you really need to get the 7-14 accounting for the 2x conversion factor for MFT's.  its a 14-28 mm equivalent.

You can consider selling all the Nikon gear to allow a nice MFT's set up if you want to.

They're both well-regarded lenses, although I suspect you'd find that the 12mm had an ultimate edge in quality.

Aesthetically, the 12mm is the sexiest lens you can mount on am OM-D (silver body).  It is very compact.

The 7-14 is a good bit larger.  Not problematic, but definitely hefty.



Someone did a comparison a few months back and I believe that the 7-14 and 12mm were very very close.  Of course there is a HUGE difference between 7mm and 12mm, so the lenses have very different capabilities.  The 7-14mm is bigger and can't take filters without modification.  Depends on your priorities.

Thanks for that. It is more the fixed 12mm Olympus lens I had in mind.

To be honest I could sell less that half of my Nikon gear and buy whatever i need with the proceeds. Money is not a problem.

--
www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

Thanks for the comparison. Size is a consideration as my intention is to put together a portable kit. I was thinking how useful the 7mm would be but this comparison is swinging me back to the 12mm. Thanks.

--
www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

I had both. The 7-14 was little different in sharpness from the 12mm but much more versatile.

I found that I hardly ever used the 12mm, a lovely lens mainly due to its feel and handling. It is liberating to have so wide an angle as 7mm available, however.

I now have the 7-14 and and 12-35, the 12-35 being as sharp as the 12mm Olympus in my personal experience.

I also have the 35-100 zoom but the difference is that I would never sell my 45mm Olympus. That is special in a way the 12mm is not.

--
David
www.dthorpe.net

I have both.  I think the IQ is around the same, which is impressive for the 7-14 zoom, not so for the 12mm prime.  The advantage of the 12 is it takes filters, the 7-14 that (obviously) it goes wider.  If money is not a problem, get one now and the other later.  I'd start with the 12mm. It feels "right" on the OM-D.  But the 7-14 has its uses.  If someone told me I had to give one back, I'd think very hard.  And then punch him.
12mm and 7-14 shots:




--
www.flickr.com/photos/acam http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com

I just mentioned in another reply the small size of the Oly was a big consideration. The filter thread is too. I like to use grads for landscape and will probably use a Lee kit. All in all I think I'll have to skip the 7mm end.

Excellent forum! Thanks for the quick replies.

--
www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

Hmmm, I'm now wondering to wait and see what crops up down the line. I think, having seen the comparisons above, the 7~14 kind of defeats my intentions in getting smaller kit, but the 12 is relatively expensive (compared to the 20mm or 45mm for example) so if it is not stellar I might put up with using the 12~50mm kit until something better suited comes along. (N.B. not as my only kit. I'm getting the 20mm pancake, 45mm and 60mm macro).

I'm travelling to California in May but it's a family holiday rather than a photo trip so I want nice kit but not big and bulky kit (hence not my Nikon DSLR - the 17~35 alone is a beast!).

--
www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

Why not rent for your big trip and decide on your purchase later?

I have the 7-14mm but not the 12mm. The 7-14mm is my least used lens, but when I need it it is a great lens. I never considered the much wider lenses like the 12mm. BTW, my next lens in length is the 25mm PanLeica. I go all the way up to the 50-200mm Oly 4/3  lens (another great lens). Here is an example of where only the 7-14mm will do.



--
Reid Shay
www.sawatchpub.com

Or the optically excellent Rokinon Fisheye.

Thats a good call t.b.h. but I'd rather buy and try. I don't mind chopping and changing a bit but it's cheaper to get it right straight off! I can borrow a 7~14 but I can't borrow a 12 to compare it to. I'm already thinking the 7~14 is bigger than I want and it doesn't take filters, but if the 12 is not significantly better than the kit lens I'll skip it and see what crops up down the line.

--
www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

As a compromise - an alternative "kit" lens - the 9-18 - not brilliant but a reasonable review here:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/olympus_m_9-18_4-5p6_o20

While not quite as sharp as the other two, the Olympus 9-18mm is far more portable than the 7-14 and can take filters as well.

Both the 12 and the 9-18 can always find place in a corner of a bag or a pocket. The 7-14 is more like a... real lens in size.

I have all three: my intention was to sell 1 or 2 of them, but I can't make up my mind and each has its use.

I have both. When it comes to IQ, they are both very good and have roughly the same performance at the same f-stop. So it's a matter of priorities. The 7-14 is the one I got first and is more important to me if I have to choose. I don't need an f/2 WA all that often (though it's nice to have one) and the 7-14 is wider and offers continuous choice of FL. The 7-14 is almost always in my bag whereas the 12 is there only if I foresee very low light or low light with moving subjects.

Here's a recent capture with the 12 wide open at 0.4 s handheld, illustrating a case where the 12 came in handy. I could have gotten this with the 7-14 too, but would have had to crank up the ISO quite a bit (this is at 200). Probably the shadows, which I have pushed a bit here to let the buildings in the background (those without floodlighting) show, would have been considerably less clean.

Tübingen Neckarfront

Sure,  the 7-14mm is a bit biggeer and a bit more expensive than the 12mm f2, but it's incredibly versatile, can produce amazing images and really is a lot of fun to use. I use it for my design work and for shooting architecture, landscape and even for street shooting.

While the Oly 12mm is an excellent lens,  for low light wide shooting I opted for an SLR Magic Hyperprime 12mm T1.6 (f1.4). At 24mm equivalent using manual focus isn't a big deal and the images it produces have more character than the Oly 12mm, which i find to be rather clinical. At $549, it's also considerably less than he Oly 12mm.

So, yeah, go for the 71-4mm!

So what you are saying is essentially that the Hyperprime has more optical aberrations ("character") whereas the Oly is pretty much free from them (thus "clinical") and that you prefer the former on that ground?

Yeah, pretty much.

The Oly output just strikes me as cold. I also prefer having a real aperture ring. The Hyperprime's is a stepless aperture ring, which felt a bit odd at first, but I've grown to like it.

Oops: 7-14mm.