Panasonic 7~14mm or Olympus 12mm ?

Started Jan 18, 2013 | Discussions
slimandy
Forum ProPosts: 14,366Gear list
Like?
Re: Thanks for all the replies and suggestions
In reply to Anders W, Jan 22, 2013

Anders W wrote:

slimandy wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Yes, they test under lab conditions, just as Photozone.


To be honest I'm not a fan of Photozone either but I quoted them because I can't find reviews from professional photographers they way I can with Nikon gear. At least some of their samples are real world pictures and not just test charts and studio still lifes.

I have no trouble making sense of test charts, studio still lifes, or MTF values. Just a matter of learning how one set of observations translates into another. The same is true with respect to DxO figures about sensor performance. I have no trouble making sense of those either since I have spent the time required to see how they translate into aspects of image quality that my eyes can see.

I have no problem at all understanding and interpreting the charts so I do look at the lab results, but they are not what I will shoot in real life so they only tell part of the story.

The trouble with looking at "real world pictures" is that those will never allow you to directly compare two lenses to one another unless they happen to be taken under identical conditions such as those in Amin Sabet's test of the 7-14 versus the 9-18 that Optical1 linked to here.

For obvious reasons, the lens test sites would have difficulties accomplishing directly comparable sample shots outside the studio inasmuch as this would imply that they would have to shoot new "real world pictures" of all lenses already tested for every new lens they test.

If a highly skilled photographer whose reviews I trust were to use a lens extensively and write his review on it that is the most useful info I could get. I do not need to pixel peep with identical shots side by side in order to form an opinion.

-- hide signature --

www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

 slimandy's gear list:slimandy's gear list
Sony RX100 II Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Fujifilm X-E1 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
slimandy
Forum ProPosts: 14,366Gear list
Like?
Re: Thanks for all the replies and suggestions
In reply to idiotekniQues, Jan 22, 2013

idiotekniQues wrote:

the images here will be pretty self-explanatory as to why i had to sell it:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50649838

Yes I saw those. I don't shoot interiors, at least not as my main subject, but it is obviously not the best choice for you.

-- hide signature --

www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

 slimandy's gear list:slimandy's gear list
Sony RX100 II Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Fujifilm X-E1 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 17,344Gear list
Like?
Re: Thanks for all the replies and suggestions
In reply to slimandy, Jan 22, 2013

slimandy wrote:

Anders W wrote:

slimandy wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Yes, they test under lab conditions, just as Photozone.


To be honest I'm not a fan of Photozone either but I quoted them because I can't find reviews from professional photographers they way I can with Nikon gear. At least some of their samples are real world pictures and not just test charts and studio still lifes.

I have no trouble making sense of test charts, studio still lifes, or MTF values. Just a matter of learning how one set of observations translates into another. The same is true with respect to DxO figures about sensor performance. I have no trouble making sense of those either since I have spent the time required to see how they translate into aspects of image quality that my eyes can see.

I have no problem at all understanding and interpreting the charts so I do look at the lab results, but they are not what I will shoot in real life so they only tell part of the story.

Could you please elaborate? What part of the story are you missing?

The trouble with looking at "real world pictures" is that those will never allow you to directly compare two lenses to one another unless they happen to be taken under identical conditions such as those in Amin Sabet's test of the 7-14 versus the 9-18 that Optical1 linked to here.

For obvious reasons, the lens test sites would have difficulties accomplishing directly comparable sample shots outside the studio inasmuch as this would imply that they would have to shoot new "real world pictures" of all lenses already tested for every new lens they test.

If a highly skilled photographer whose reviews I trust were to use a lens extensively and write his review on it that is the most useful info I could get. I do not need to pixel peep with identical shots side by side in order to form an opinion.

Your call of course. But in order to form an informed opinion about the relative performance of two competing lenses, I'd like to see them shot/tested side by side under identical circumstances. I'd also rather see for myself than go by someone else's opinion, even if it's a person whose judgment I trust. Furthermore, I don't think that being an outstanding photographer is either a necessary or a sufficient condition for being a good lens tester or lens designer. Some people may have great optical skills without being great photographer and some great photographers don't know a whole lot about optics.

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
slimandy
Forum ProPosts: 14,366Gear list
Like?
Re: Panasonic 7~14mm or Olympus 12mm ?
In reply to Alumna Gorp, Jan 22, 2013

I was aware of that but thanks for the heads-up anyway. I also noticed the price drop on Amazon, which must have happened in the last few days.

I will get the kit but I also know that there are other lenses I will definately want so I'll get those too. The 45mm would be on my list anyway and as you point out I will get it free. I will also get the 60 macro and the 20mm pancake. The one area I was undecided on was WA, hence this thread, but I think I have decided to try the Olympus 9~18. I will still look out for a fast-ish wide prime at some point but perhaps a bit wider than the 12mm. The 9~18 seems to suit my short-term needs.

-- hide signature --

www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

 slimandy's gear list:slimandy's gear list
Sony RX100 II Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Fujifilm X-E1 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
slimandy
Forum ProPosts: 14,366Gear list
Like?
Re: Thanks for all the replies and suggestions
In reply to Anders W, Jan 22, 2013

Anders W wrote:

slimandy wrote:

Anders W wrote:

slimandy wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Yes, they test under lab conditions, just as Photozone.


To be honest I'm not a fan of Photozone either but I quoted them because I can't find reviews from professional photographers they way I can with Nikon gear. At least some of their samples are real world pictures and not just test charts and studio still lifes.

I have no trouble making sense of test charts, studio still lifes, or MTF values. Just a matter of learning how one set of observations translates into another. The same is true with respect to DxO figures about sensor performance. I have no trouble making sense of those either since I have spent the time required to see how they translate into aspects of image quality that my eyes can see.

I have no problem at all understanding and interpreting the charts so I do look at the lab results, but they are not what I will shoot in real life so they only tell part of the story.

Could you please elaborate? What part of the story are you missing?

The bit where you use the lens to do the kind of photography that I will actually do!

The trouble with looking at "real world pictures" is that those will never allow you to directly compare two lenses to one another unless they happen to be taken under identical conditions such as those in Amin Sabet's test of the 7-14 versus the 9-18 that Optical1 linked to here.

For obvious reasons, the lens test sites would have difficulties accomplishing directly comparable sample shots outside the studio inasmuch as this would imply that they would have to shoot new "real world pictures" of all lenses already tested for every new lens they test.

If a highly skilled photographer whose reviews I trust were to use a lens extensively and write his review on it that is the most useful info I could get. I do not need to pixel peep with identical shots side by side in order to form an opinion.

Your call of course. But in order to form an informed opinion about the relative performance of two competing lenses, I'd like to see them shot/tested side by side under identical circumstances. I'd also rather see for myself than go by someone else's opinion, even if it's a person whose judgment I trust.

I will see for myself after I buy the lens. Until then I need to decide which to buy.

Furthermore, I don't think that being an outstanding photographer is either a necessary or a sufficient condition for being a good lens tester or lens designer. Some people may have great optical skills without being great photographer and some great photographers don't know a whole lot about optics.

Hence I like to read reviews from someone I trust. You don't need to know about optics; you need to know how the lens handles and how good the results are. I'm a photographer, I make photographs; I don't make lenses.

-- hide signature --

www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

 slimandy's gear list:slimandy's gear list
Sony RX100 II Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Fujifilm X-E1 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 17,344Gear list
Like?
Re: Thanks for all the replies and suggestions
In reply to slimandy, Jan 22, 2013

slimandy wrote:

Anders W wrote:

slimandy wrote:

Anders W wrote:

slimandy wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Yes, they test under lab conditions, just as Photozone.


To be honest I'm not a fan of Photozone either but I quoted them because I can't find reviews from professional photographers they way I can with Nikon gear. At least some of their samples are real world pictures and not just test charts and studio still lifes.

I have no trouble making sense of test charts, studio still lifes, or MTF values. Just a matter of learning how one set of observations translates into another. The same is true with respect to DxO figures about sensor performance. I have no trouble making sense of those either since I have spent the time required to see how they translate into aspects of image quality that my eyes can see.

I have no problem at all understanding and interpreting the charts so I do look at the lab results, but they are not what I will shoot in real life so they only tell part of the story.

Could you please elaborate? What part of the story are you missing?

The bit where you use the lens to do the kind of photography that I will actually do!

Yes, but what bit, more specifically, is that? You say you have no difficulty understanding the lab results so what more specifically, expressed in terms of optical properties, is it that they don't tell you?

The trouble with looking at "real world pictures" is that those will never allow you to directly compare two lenses to one another unless they happen to be taken under identical conditions such as those in Amin Sabet's test of the 7-14 versus the 9-18 that Optical1 linked to here.

For obvious reasons, the lens test sites would have difficulties accomplishing directly comparable sample shots outside the studio inasmuch as this would imply that they would have to shoot new "real world pictures" of all lenses already tested for every new lens they test.

If a highly skilled photographer whose reviews I trust were to use a lens extensively and write his review on it that is the most useful info I could get. I do not need to pixel peep with identical shots side by side in order to form an opinion.

Your call of course. But in order to form an informed opinion about the relative performance of two competing lenses, I'd like to see them shot/tested side by side under identical circumstances. I'd also rather see for myself than go by someone else's opinion, even if it's a person whose judgment I trust.

I will see for myself after I buy the lens. Until then I need to decide which to buy.

So do I. I was referring to the information I prefer to rely on before I get to that stage. I'd rather not personally evaluate more lenses than I actually have to so I want to make the prior screening as efficient as possible.

Furthermore, I don't think that being an outstanding photographer is either a necessary or a sufficient condition for being a good lens tester or lens designer. Some people may have great optical skills without being great photographer and some great photographers don't know a whole lot about optics.

Hence I like to read reviews from someone I trust. You don't need to know about optics; you need to know how the lens handles and how good the results are. I'm a photographer, I make photographs; I don't make lenses.

If you want to know how good the results will be under a variety of circumstances, you need to know about optical aberrations and their various manifestations. Otherwise, you won't know what to look for.

Here's an example of a review (comparison of the new Oly 17/1.8 with the 20/1.7) by someone I consider a very good photographer. I find his sample images very helpful. Yet, I strongly disagree with some of the conclusions he draws. Can you guess which?

http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/11/17/olympus-zd-17-1_8/

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
slimandy
Forum ProPosts: 14,366Gear list
Like?
Re: Thanks for all the replies and suggestions
In reply to Anders W, Jan 22, 2013

Anders W wrote:

slimandy wrote:

Anders W wrote:

slimandy wrote:

Anders W wrote:

slimandy wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Yes, they test under lab conditions, just as Photozone.


To be honest I'm not a fan of Photozone either but I quoted them because I can't find reviews from professional photographers they way I can with Nikon gear. At least some of their samples are real world pictures and not just test charts and studio still lifes.

I have no trouble making sense of test charts, studio still lifes, or MTF values. Just a matter of learning how one set of observations translates into another. The same is true with respect to DxO figures about sensor performance. I have no trouble making sense of those either since I have spent the time required to see how they translate into aspects of image quality that my eyes can see.

I have no problem at all understanding and interpreting the charts so I do look at the lab results, but they are not what I will shoot in real life so they only tell part of the story.

Could you please elaborate? What part of the story are you missing?

The bit where you use the lens to do the kind of photography that I will actually do!

Yes, but what bit, more specifically, is that? You say you have no difficulty understanding the lab results so what more specifically, expressed in terms of optical properties, is it that they don't tell you?

All of it! I don't shoot in a lab. I want to know about AF speed, bokeh, flare, etc. etc. out in the field where I shoot. I want to know how it does in real-life use rather than still life or test charts. You can evaluate sharpness, contrast, CA etc. in a lab and that's all good, but it's not what I shoot and won't tell me the whole story.

The trouble with looking at "real world pictures" is that those will never allow you to directly compare two lenses to one another unless they happen to be taken under identical conditions such as those in Amin Sabet's test of the 7-14 versus the 9-18 that Optical1 linked to here.

For obvious reasons, the lens test sites would have difficulties accomplishing directly comparable sample shots outside the studio inasmuch as this would imply that they would have to shoot new "real world pictures" of all lenses already tested for every new lens they test.

If a highly skilled photographer whose reviews I trust were to use a lens extensively and write his review on it that is the most useful info I could get. I do not need to pixel peep with identical shots side by side in order to form an opinion.

Your call of course. But in order to form an informed opinion about the relative performance of two competing lenses, I'd like to see them shot/tested side by side under identical circumstances. I'd also rather see for myself than go by someone else's opinion, even if it's a person whose judgment I trust.

I will see for myself after I buy the lens. Until then I need to decide which to buy.

So do I. I was referring to the information I prefer to rely on before I get to that stage. I'd rather not personally evaluate more lenses than I actually have to so I want to make the prior screening as efficient as possible.

Furthermore, I don't think that being an outstanding photographer is either a necessary or a sufficient condition for being a good lens tester or lens designer. Some people may have great optical skills without being great photographer and some great photographers don't know a whole lot about optics.

Hence I like to read reviews from someone I trust. You don't need to know about optics; you need to know how the lens handles and how good the results are. I'm a photographer, I make photographs; I don't make lenses.

If you want to know how good the results will be under a variety of circumstances, you need to know about optical aberrations and their various manifestations. Otherwise, you won't know what to look for.

Here's an example of a review (comparison of the new Oly 17/1.8 with the 20/1.7) by someone I consider a very good photographer. I find his sample images very helpful. Yet, I strongly disagree with some of the conclusions he draws. Can you guess which?

http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/11/17/olympus-zd-17-1_8/

Curiously Ming Thein is a reviewer that I do trust. He does get quite technical but at the end of the day his sample photos are real-world photos and his conclusions are based on things that matter such as AF speed and image quality.

I would like to know where your opinion varies and why. Even when I read the opinion of someone I trust I reserve the right to disagree, and the most important opinion is always my own! I am assuming you prefer the Pany 20mm to the Olympus 17mm f1.8? That's another decision I have to make actually. I was assuming I'd get the 20mm pancake but now wonder if I should get the 17! More than one person has commented on the slow AF of the 20mm lens.

-- hide signature --

www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

 slimandy's gear list:slimandy's gear list
Sony RX100 II Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Fujifilm X-E1 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 17,344Gear list
Like?
Re: Thanks for all the replies and suggestions
In reply to slimandy, Jan 22, 2013

slimandy wrote:

Anders W wrote:

slimandy wrote:

Anders W wrote:

slimandy wrote:

Anders W wrote:

slimandy wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Yes, they test under lab conditions, just as Photozone.


To be honest I'm not a fan of Photozone either but I quoted them because I can't find reviews from professional photographers they way I can with Nikon gear. At least some of their samples are real world pictures and not just test charts and studio still lifes.

I have no trouble making sense of test charts, studio still lifes, or MTF values. Just a matter of learning how one set of observations translates into another. The same is true with respect to DxO figures about sensor performance. I have no trouble making sense of those either since I have spent the time required to see how they translate into aspects of image quality that my eyes can see.

I have no problem at all understanding and interpreting the charts so I do look at the lab results, but they are not what I will shoot in real life so they only tell part of the story.

Could you please elaborate? What part of the story are you missing?

The bit where you use the lens to do the kind of photography that I will actually do!

Yes, but what bit, more specifically, is that? You say you have no difficulty understanding the lab results so what more specifically, expressed in terms of optical properties, is it that they don't tell you?

All of it! I don't shoot in a lab. I want to know about AF speed, bokeh, flare, etc. etc. out in the field where I shoot. I want to know how it does in real-life use rather than still life or test charts. You can evaluate sharpness, contrast, CA etc. in a lab and that's all good, but it's not what I shoot and won't tell me the whole story.

MTF (resolution, contrast), CA, AF speed, and bokeh can be evaluated in the lab, yes, and there's no problem generalizing those results to the field. A partial exception might be flare where there's a prominent light source that we might have difficulties properly simulating in the lab.

One example of a lab that tests all of these things, and for the most part does it pretty well is Lenstip.

The trouble with looking at "real world pictures" is that those will never allow you to directly compare two lenses to one another unless they happen to be taken under identical conditions such as those in Amin Sabet's test of the 7-14 versus the 9-18 that Optical1 linked to here.

For obvious reasons, the lens test sites would have difficulties accomplishing directly comparable sample shots outside the studio inasmuch as this would imply that they would have to shoot new "real world pictures" of all lenses already tested for every new lens they test.

If a highly skilled photographer whose reviews I trust were to use a lens extensively and write his review on it that is the most useful info I could get. I do not need to pixel peep with identical shots side by side in order to form an opinion.

Your call of course. But in order to form an informed opinion about the relative performance of two competing lenses, I'd like to see them shot/tested side by side under identical circumstances. I'd also rather see for myself than go by someone else's opinion, even if it's a person whose judgment I trust.

I will see for myself after I buy the lens. Until then I need to decide which to buy.

So do I. I was referring to the information I prefer to rely on before I get to that stage. I'd rather not personally evaluate more lenses than I actually have to so I want to make the prior screening as efficient as possible.

Furthermore, I don't think that being an outstanding photographer is either a necessary or a sufficient condition for being a good lens tester or lens designer. Some people may have great optical skills without being great photographer and some great photographers don't know a whole lot about optics.

Hence I like to read reviews from someone I trust. You don't need to know about optics; you need to know how the lens handles and how good the results are. I'm a photographer, I make photographs; I don't make lenses.

If you want to know how good the results will be under a variety of circumstances, you need to know about optical aberrations and their various manifestations. Otherwise, you won't know what to look for.

Here's an example of a review (comparison of the new Oly 17/1.8 with the 20/1.7) by someone I consider a very good photographer. I find his sample images very helpful. Yet, I strongly disagree with some of the conclusions he draws. Can you guess which?

http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/11/17/olympus-zd-17-1_8/

Curiously Ming Thein is a reviewer that I do trust. He does get quite technical but at the end of the day his sample photos are real-world photos and his conclusions are based on things that matter such as AF speed and image quality.

I would like to know where your opinion varies and why.

Some examples:

Ming says: "The 20/1.7 has the highest overall scene contrast, but the 17/1.8 wins out in microcontrast and reproduction of fine detail structures – personally, I prefer this as it gives me more latitude for processing before the shadows and highlights block up."

My comment: It's clearly evident from Ming's samples that the 20 does better with respect to global contrast and microcontrast (the contrast between smaller details) alike. When Ming says that he has "more latitude for processing [with the 17] before the shadows and highlights block up" he means that he can apply more sharpening. But the point here is that the 20 simply needs less sharpening by virtue of having more microcontrast in the first place. And not having to sharpen (much) is preferable on all counts. It doesn't increase the noise level and yields a cleaner, more natural look.

Ming says: "What will affect resolution (and perceived acuity) far more is lateral chromatic aberration."

My comment: It will not, at the magnitude shown here, affect resolution or acuity to any measureable degree once corrected. And this particular aberration can be corrected easily/automatically and without any downsides in PP.

Ming says (still talking about lateral CA): "We’re now seeing CA from all three lenses, with the 17/2.8 once again faring the worst. The 17/1.8 is slightly better than the 20/1.7. Interestingly, not much changes even when you stop down."

My comment: Why is it interesting (surprising) that not much changes when stopping down? It is well known that lateral CA (unlike longitudinal CA) never changes as you stop down.

Ming says (about vignetting on the 17/1.8, which he appears not to have measured systematically): Vignetting is also fairly negligible too, even wide open.

My comment: Look at the Lenstip review here which shows the lens to have very significant vignetting until well stopped down (worse than the 20, which hardly excels in this particular area).

Ming says: "The 17/1.8 renders out-of-focus areas with a rounded softness and lack of hard/ bright edges or double images, even against complex background textures."

My comment: A close inspection of the blur discs (in the problematic transition zone) shows them to have properties very similar to that of the 12/2, which (for good reason) came in last in the test/poll of bokeh among MFT WAs reported here. With the 12/2, the poor bokeh doesn't matter much, at least for my usage. With the 17/1.8, it is of somewhat greater concern since I am more likely to end up with at least parts of the frame outside the DoF whether I like it or not (although I'd rarely go for subject isolation by means of background blur with what is effectively a 35/3.6). The 20/1.7 is better in this department (although it is certainly no bokeh king).

Ming says: "I would not buy the 17/2.8 unless size is a critical priority, or you know that you’re going to be shooting only static objects stopped down; otherwise the slow AF speed will drive you crazy. The Panasonic 20/1.7 is in a similar boat; it’s faster to focus than the 17/2.8 and optically better, but nowhere near as fast as the 17/1.8."

My comment: See here.

In spite of the above, I appreciate Ming's review very much because of the evidence he puts at my disposal, which I can judge for myself, without relying on his comments.

Even when I read the opinion of someone I trust I reserve the right to disagree, and the most important opinion is always my own! I am assuming you prefer the Pany 20mm to the Olympus 17mm f1.8?

I have mixed feelings. On an FL basis I have a marginal preference for the 17 (35 mm EFL). However, it is inferior to the 20 (as far as we can tell at this point) when it comes to global contrast, resolution/microcontrast, vignetting, and bokeh. It also has some upsides (less PF, better build, marginally faster AF, less noisy AF, distance scale, less risk of banding with the E-M5 at really high ISOs) but as things stand right now, I am not really tempted to exchange my 20 for the new 17. That's a pity. I had hoped I would be.

That's another decision I have to make actually. I was assuming I'd get the 20mm pancake but now wonder if I should get the 17! More than one person has commented on the slow AF of the 20mm lens.

As to AF, see my comment to that point in Ming's review above.

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
slimandy
Forum ProPosts: 14,366Gear list
Like?
Re: Thanks for all the replies and suggestions
In reply to Anders W, Jan 22, 2013

Anders, thanks for the detailed breakdown. I often find I pick out certain bits of a review and come to a different conclusion based on the same info but as you say, as long as the info is there in the first place it is useful. Where I find it hard to read between the lines with MFT is that I don't yet have any experience to relate it to other than trying to compare it to my full frame SLR lenses. I will buy either the 17or the 20. If you had neither lens and was starting from scratch do you think you'd still get the 20? I'll be using it on an OMD. On my Nikon D700 I use a 35mm f1.4 but a 40mm equivalent would suit me.

-- hide signature --

www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

 slimandy's gear list:slimandy's gear list
Sony RX100 II Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Fujifilm X-E1 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
slimandy
Forum ProPosts: 14,366Gear list
Like?
Re: Thanks for all the replies and suggestions
In reply to Anders W, Jan 22, 2013

Anders W wrote:

Did you see this recent thread about purple flare with the 9-18 on the E-M5?

Thanks for this link. That's not encouraging! I'm still not convinced I want the 7~14 either though.

I'll be taking a more serious look at the Olympus 12mm again. I prefer primes anyway. My main concearn is 12mm = 24mm in 35mm talk and I might like to go wider at some stage. Still, I get a faster aperture - a definate bonus.

-- hide signature --

www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

 slimandy's gear list:slimandy's gear list
Sony RX100 II Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Fujifilm X-E1 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 17,344Gear list
Like?
Re: Thanks for all the replies and suggestions
In reply to slimandy, Jan 22, 2013

slimandy wrote:

Anders, thanks for the detailed breakdown. I often find I pick out certain bits of a review and come to a different conclusion based on the same info but as you say, as long as the info is there in the first place it is useful. Where I find it hard to read between the lines with MFT is that I don't yet have any experience to relate it to other than trying to compare it to my full frame SLR lenses. I will buy either the 17or the 20. If you had neither lens and was starting from scratch do you think you'd still get the 20? I'll be using it on an OMD. On my Nikon D700 I use a 35mm f1.4 but a 40mm equivalent would suit me.

Tough call. What I think I would do, and that would be my practical advice to you as well, is to order them both from some place where you have return rights and then try them out for myself.

When it comes to the AF of the 20, I should mention, on top of what I said in the post I linked to, is that it will surely appear far slower than the 17 if you let it hunt. The point here is that there is no point letting it do that. It isn't more prone to hunting than any other lens (the relative ability of CDAF lenses to lock focus is just a matter of their light intake and microcontrast, and the 20 is a fast and contrasty lens), but it takes a long time to finish when it starts (this is where the weakness of the older AF mechanism really shows up; under more normal circumstances, speed is more a function of the body's processing capacity than the lens AF mechanism). And there is no point waiting for that (hunting often ends in failure to lock). Just let go of the shutter button immediately and find a better target.

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 17,344Gear list
Like?
Re: Thanks for all the replies and suggestions
In reply to slimandy, Jan 22, 2013

slimandy wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Did you see this recent thread about purple flare with the 9-18 on the E-M5?

Thanks for this link. That's not encouraging! I'm still not convinced I want the 7~14 either though.

I'll be taking a more serious look at the Olympus 12mm again. I prefer primes anyway. My main concearn is 12mm = 24mm in 35mm talk and I might like to go wider at some stage. Still, I get a faster aperture - a definate bonus.

I wouldn't be too concerned about the purple flare at this stage. Based on my experience, much of what you see posted are worst-case scenarios that aren't very common in practice. I was out experimenting with my 7-14 together with the Samyang 7.5/3.5 FE today, just to see how they compare for certain purposes (there are interesting defishing options these days), and many of the scenes were such that the purple-flare problem might have appeared. Yet, I haven't seen a trace of it in my first review of what I got.

I think you are on the right track when you assign priority to FL over speed for pretty to very strong WAs like these. The 12/2 is nice but still more of a supplement for special cases in my book. So my advice would be to order the 9-18 and/or 7-14 from a shop where you have return rights and try it/them out with a particular eye to the purple-flare issue.

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tedolf
Forum ProPosts: 16,246Gear list
Like?
Hmmmmm.......
In reply to Anders W, Jan 22, 2013

Anders W wrote:

tedolf wrote:

is not it's field of view.

At 24mm equivalent FF FOV, it's wide enought to be a very good street/candid lens, and a good interior travel lens.

The big deal about this lens is the DOF scale that allows you to set the hyperfocal distance and the ability to zone focus.

Why would you want to use hyperfocal distance?

http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/DOFR.html

interesting article with a good example (and I do like the fact that he used a Leica/Minolta CL, the greatest camera of all time) but all I really learned from it was be conservative when selecting a scene for hyper-focal technique. I still trust it more for outdoor sports than any AF system.

And why would you want to zone focus on a lens capable of fast AF?

Because lenses that you can set the hyper-focal distance on ususally cost about $50.00 or less.

On an expensive lens like the 12mm, zone focusing is much faster than any PDAF system.

Also, it never makes an error-ever.

So, it you want something really wide, that isn't this len's strong suit.

Tedolph

Tedolph

 tedolf's gear list:tedolf's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:2.8 Pancake Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 17,344Gear list
Like?
Re: Hmmmmm.......
In reply to tedolf, Jan 22, 2013

tedolf wrote:

Anders W wrote:

tedolf wrote:

is not it's field of view.

At 24mm equivalent FF FOV, it's wide enought to be a very good street/candid lens, and a good interior travel lens.

The big deal about this lens is the DOF scale that allows you to set the hyperfocal distance and the ability to zone focus.

Why would you want to use hyperfocal distance?

http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/DOFR.html

interesting article with a good example (and I do like the fact that he used a Leica/Minolta CL, the greatest camera of all time) but all I really learned from it was be conservative when selecting a scene for hyper-focal technique. I still trust it more for outdoor sports than any AF system.

I asked why you would want to use hyperfocal distance, not how to set it (which you can do via MF as well as AF). And why would you want to use it for sports?

And why would you want to zone focus on a lens capable of fast AF?

Because lenses that you can set the hyper-focal distance on ususally cost about $50.00 or less.

The question was why you would want to use it if you have AF, not why you should buy MF lenses. You were talking about the 12/2 and what you claimed was its "big deal", remember?

On an expensive lens like the 12mm, zone focusing is much faster than any PDAF system.

Sure. There isn't any PDAF system with which you can use the 12/2. So what?

Also, it never makes an error-ever.

Zone focusing errs pretty much all the time by having focus set slightly off target pretty much all the time.

So, it you want something really wide, that isn't this len's strong suit.

Tedolph

Tedolph

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
aimawayfromface
Regular MemberPosts: 100Gear list
Like?
Not such a big price difference between 9-18 and 7-14 is it?
In reply to Anders W, Jan 22, 2013

700 vs 888USD? Not a huge difference to me as they're both really expensive. That same difference at 500 is another story though (sort of like 20mm vs 25mm).

I opted for the 9-18mm knowing that optically it would be worse than the 7-14mm, but to me the size was the most important factor--and I have to say I was not disappointed! The lens is so tiny I can take it everywhere with me and it makes such a compact package with an E-PL5 pr PM2. After my first shoot with it I was a bit apprehensive to see the results, but upon importing into LR I was astounded immediately by the sharpness and detail that I was able to get.

I guess I would have been even more astounded by the 7-14mm, but in my mind it's a worthy compromise for the size. Out of all my lenses, the feeling that I get in terms of quality-to-size ratio is the greatest with this one (though I admit I don't have the 14/2.5). I can well understand why photozone calls it an engineering feat.

 aimawayfromface's gear list:aimawayfromface's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tedolf
Forum ProPosts: 16,246Gear list
Like?
Let me try again......
In reply to Anders W, Jan 22, 2013

Anders W wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Anders W wrote:

tedolf wrote:

is not it's field of view.

At 24mm equivalent FF FOV, it's wide enought to be a very good street/candid lens, and a good interior travel lens.

The big deal about this lens is the DOF scale that allows you to set the hyperfocal distance and the ability to zone focus.

Why would you want to use hyperfocal distance?

http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/DOFR.html

interesting article with a good example (and I do like the fact that he used a Leica/Minolta CL, the greatest camera of all time) but all I really learned from it was be conservative when selecting a scene for hyper-focal technique. I still trust it more for outdoor sports than any AF system.

I asked why you would want to use hyperfocal distance, not how to set it (which you can do via MF as well as AF). And why would you want to use it for sports?

Because it is falure proof.

It works every time.

It never misfocuses.

It never focuses too slowly.

Etc.

And why would you want to zone focus on a lens capable of fast AF?

Because lenses that you can set the hyper-focal distance on ususally cost about $50.00 or less.

The question was why you would want to use it if you have AF, not why you should buy MF lenses. You were talking about the 12/2 and what you claimed was its "big deal", remember?

Because zone focus and hyper-focus always work.

AF doesn't always work.

E.g. tracking.

On an expensive lens like the 12mm, zone focusing is much faster than any PDAF system.

Sure. There isn't any PDAF system with which you can use the 12/2. So what?

I know, and CDAF is slower than PDAF

Also, it never makes an error-ever.

Zone focusing errs pretty much all the time by having focus set slightly off target pretty much all the time.

Not if you apply it conservatively.

e.g. if you are using an adapted lens from FF, just follow the DOF guides without correction.

So, it you want something really wide, that isn't this len's strong suit.

Tedolph

Tedolph

Tedolph

 tedolf's gear list:tedolf's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:2.8 Pancake Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 17,344Gear list
Like?
Re: Not such a big price difference between 9-18 and 7-14 is it?
In reply to aimawayfromface, Jan 23, 2013

aimawayfromface wrote:

700 vs 888USD? Not a huge difference to me as they're both really expensive. That same difference at 500 is another story though (sort of like 20mm vs 25mm).

I opted for the 9-18mm knowing that optically it would be worse than the 7-14mm, but to me the size was the most important factor--and I have to say I was not disappointed! The lens is so tiny I can take it everywhere with me and it makes such a compact package with an E-PL5 pr PM2. After my first shoot with it I was a bit apprehensive to see the results, but upon importing into LR I was astounded immediately by the sharpness and detail that I was able to get.

I guess I would have been even more astounded by the 7-14mm, but in my mind it's a worthy compromise for the size. Out of all my lenses, the feeling that I get in terms of quality-to-size ratio is the greatest with this one (though I admit I don't have the 14/2.5). I can well understand why photozone calls it an engineering feat.

I think we agree on most of what you say. We just drew slightly different conclusions from the same fact. While the the 7-14 is significantly larger than the 9-18 (83 mm versus 49.5 mm long, but the 7-14 includes a hood) and about twice as heavy (300 g versus 155 g), it is still the smallest UWA zoom that manages to reach 14 mm EFL. And it hardly feels too bulky/heavy in actual size, at least not on the bodies I have experience with (E-M5, G1). The feeling is roughly the same as when I am using my standard zoom (14-45) with hood on.

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Anders W
Forum ProPosts: 17,344Gear list
Like?
Re: Let me try again......
In reply to tedolf, Jan 23, 2013

tedolf wrote:

Anders W wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Anders W wrote:

tedolf wrote:

is not it's field of view.

At 24mm equivalent FF FOV, it's wide enought to be a very good street/candid lens, and a good interior travel lens.

The big deal about this lens is the DOF scale that allows you to set the hyperfocal distance and the ability to zone focus.

Why would you want to use hyperfocal distance?

http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/DOFR.html

interesting article with a good example (and I do like the fact that he used a Leica/Minolta CL, the greatest camera of all time) but all I really learned from it was be conservative when selecting a scene for hyper-focal technique. I still trust it more for outdoor sports than any AF system.

I asked why you would want to use hyperfocal distance, not how to set it (which you can do via MF as well as AF). And why would you want to use it for sports?

Because it is falure proof.

It works every time.

It never misfocuses.

It never focuses too slowly.

Etc.

It misfocuses slightly just about every time. When/if MF is preferable in the first place, I'd rather use the technique I used in the pre-AF days: Prefocus on the spot where the action will take place.

And why would you want to zone focus on a lens capable of fast AF?

Because lenses that you can set the hyper-focal distance on ususally cost about $50.00 or less.

The question was why you would want to use it if you have AF, not why you should buy MF lenses. You were talking about the 12/2 and what you claimed was its "big deal", remember?

Because zone focus and hyper-focus always work.

AF doesn't always work.

E.g. tracking.

Zone focus works so-so all the time. AF works better most of the time.

On an expensive lens like the 12mm, zone focusing is much faster than any PDAF system.

Sure. There isn't any PDAF system with which you can use the 12/2. So what?

I know, and CDAF is slower than PDAF

No, CDAF (on modern MFT cameras) isn't slower than PDAF.

Also, it never makes an error-ever.

Zone focusing errs pretty much all the time by having focus set slightly off target pretty much all the time.

Not if you apply it conservatively.

e.g. if you are using an adapted lens from FF, just follow the DOF guides without correction.

Ha! So you are under the illusion that this is conservative? Nothing could be more wrong.

If you just follow the DoF marks on the lens barrel with an adapted lens (FF/35 mm film), you are fooling yourself into thinking that the DoF is two stops greater than it actually is. In order to get the correct DoF for adapted lenses, you need to use the DoF marks for the f-value that is two stops wider than the one at which you shoot. So if you shoot at f/8, you need to use the DoF-marks for f/4, if you shoot at f/16 (which is usually not a good idea with MFT due to diffraction) you need to use the DoF-marks for f/8, and so on.

So, it you want something really wide, that isn't this len's strong suit.

Tedolph

Tedolph

Tedolph

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Optical1
Senior MemberPosts: 1,025Gear list
Like?
Re: Thanks for all the replies and suggestions
In reply to slimandy, Jan 23, 2013

slimandy wrote:

Optical1 wrote:

If you haven't seen this already, Amin Sabet did a great comparison between the 7-14 and the 9-18. As I mentioned before, the 7-14 has better IQ, but the 9-18 is no slouch. Honestly, I doubt you'll regret the purchase of either lens.

http://www.seriouscompacts.com/f41/olympus-m-zuiko-digital-ed-9-18mm-f-4-0-5-6-lens-review-213/

best of luck deciding,

-Kiel

Thanks, I hadn't seen that comparison. I would say that the Pany 7~14 does look a little better than the Olympus in the corners but that both lenses perform well for UWA.

The comparison also made me think more about the effective focal length of the two lenses, and for me that's another plus point for the Olympus. Ok, the Pany is wider but I rarely use 14mm equivalent. The Olympus extends to 18mm or 36mm equivalent; that is what I currently favour as a standard lens (35mm) whereas the Pany leaves me at 28mm equivalent - still in WA territory. So for my purposes it is a smaller and lighter lens, it takes filters, it has a more useful range and it is cheaper. It is not quite on a par for IQ but is very close and is certainly very good. I will definately give the Olympus 9~18 a try.

Thanks again for the link.

-- hide signature --

www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

Your conclusion after reading mirrors my own.  While I would never argue that the 9-18 is the superior glass, it is the better lens for me personally - primarily due to focal length.  I'll admit that I'm more of a wide angle fan than anything, but I've gone through stints of shooting with only my 9-18 - it suits my style that well.

If you enjoyed your 17-35mm, I'm sure you will enjoy the 9-18.

 Optical1's gear list:Optical1's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Sony RX100 Sony RX1 Ricoh GR Olympus PEN E-PM1 +17 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads