Olympus 7-14mm F2.8 Pro and 8mm F1.8 Fisheye Pro real-world galleries posted

Can someone tell me why a FF shooter would waste so much time telling m43 shooters that their lenses are crap? Just curious what's in it for them.

May 13, 2015permalink

I suppose it makes them feel good about their decision to go large and bulky when they see a few large mirrorless lenses. They of course conveniently forget there are plenty more mirrorless lenses that are far smaller and lighter than any FF equivalent lens.

May 13, 2015permalink

King Penguin

Facts are facts, this fisheye is LARGER and HEAVIER than my to my equivalent (in a practical user sense) than my Nikkor FF fisheye.

That's all I'm saying......and it seems that the M43 fanboys can't accept this without getting upset!

M43 is all about being small and light and this lens 'ain't!

May 13, 2015permalink

I suppose if one has a single lens kit with only a fisheye in it and they ignore body weight, then you've got a good point.

May 13, 2015permalink

King Penguin - Your fisheye is NOT equivalent. Its an old age optical design meant for film cameras. The Olympus is also 1.3 EV faster which itself shows that its not equivalent.

And no m43 is NOT about being small light. It CAN be small and light and if want large and heavy you can get that too.

My friend uses two bodies. A Panasonic GM1 with 12-35mm and 20mm f1.7 lens when he wishes to travel light and an EM1 with 12-40mm when he needs better performance.

The EM1 with 12-40mm is still much lighter than say a D810 with 24-70mm lens.

Now I am not a great m43 fan. I use FF myself (have A7 & A7 II with DSLR lenses via adapter) but when I struggling with a 9 kg backpack when travelling I wonder if all this bulk is worth it.

May 13, 2015permalink

King Penguin

Honestly you M43 guys are so sensitive.

The Nikkor 16mm is on a practical day to day amateur user level the equivalent of this fisheye, ie, if you are a Nikon FF shooter you have this to play with, if you are a M43 user you have the new Olly to play with or the much smaller Panny f3.5 to play with (which I used to own). If you shoot Nikon DX you've got a 10.5mm to play with and I'm sure Canon shooters have their fisheyes as well.

The Nikkor may have been designed years ago but it is still relevant on digital and it's one of the best out there.

All I'm saying is it is lighter and smaller than this offering and people are having a go at me and suggesting I'm dissing the entire M43 system because I highlighted a single fact......which I am not!

Shame on you guys, man up and grow thicker skins!

May 13, 2015permalink

^^ I don't have a single m43 piece of equipment. :P

After using FF I don't find any smaller sensor worth it anymore.

May 13, 2015permalink

cdembrey

Why no 7mm rectilinear prime? A 7mm and the 12mm would cover all my wide-angle needs.

BTW when will the 300mm f/4 PRO lens arrive??

May 12, 2015permalink

AlexisH

"Why no 7mm rectilinear prime? A 7mm and the 12mm would cover all my wide-angle needs."

Because the 7-14mm zoom already covers 7mm and 12mm.

I know, I like primes too, but only if they give me some significant performance over a zoom. I looked at the 12mm and then at the 12-40mm zoom and then I purchased the latter - it may be one stop slower, but it's as sharp @12mm and gives me a lot more flexibility with its extra focal range. This 7-14mm zoom looks great too.

May 15, 2015permalink

vscd

I don't know. Does anyone else doubt in the 7mm focal length (14mm equiv)? If I compare it with my Samyang 14mm @fullframe I could swear the FOV is a lot wider. Hmm.

May 12, 2015permalink

micksh6

It's because 3:2 aspect ratio frame is wider than 4:3 frame with the same diagonal FOV.
There should be no reason to doubt in focal length.

May 12, 2015permalink

Cheng Bao

From spec, view angle
olympus 7-14@7mm, 114°
samyang 14mm, 115.7°
so, samyang is indeed a little wider.

May 12, 2015permalink

cdembrey

Try cropping your 3:2 image to 4:3. I think you'll find them to be identical. Better yet, crop your 3:2 to 1:1 for narrower field of view :-)

May 12, 2015permalink

Then the 14mm is slightly wider than 14. True 14mm would be 114.2 degrees diagonal (as would 7mm on m4/3)

115.7 works out to what a 13.6mm lens should be.

May 13, 2015permalink

vscd

Anyhow, the Samyang always surprises me with it's sharpness and awesome Viewing angle ;)

May 13, 2015permalink

Yeah, samyang has some real treats in their lineup. I suspect most m4/3 users will keep using their 7.5mm fisheye over this new Olympus 8mm.

May 13, 2015permalink

kodos

I am very much looking forward to getting a 7-14 at some point. When the budget allows. Gorgeous.

May 12, 2015permalink

spatz

From the waterfall and aircraft museum shots, edge sharpness on the 7-14 appears very good (at least stepped down to f/5), and I couldn't detect any chromatic aberrations. It would be great to get some shots at f/2.8. While these scenes probably called for more DOF, if we are to evaluate the lens, some shots wide open would be appreciated. Also, flare is important.

The 7-14 could become my second "pro" lens. If the 40-150 price evolution is an example, street prices should be 1/4 to 1/3 below MSRP in about six months. I am sure the 8mm will find it's fans, but it is just not for me.

May 12, 2015permalink

Jeff Keller

There are now a couple of F2.8 shots at the top of the gallery.

May 13, 2015permalink

srados

Great corner to corner sharpens.

May 12, 2015permalink

anselsmyhero

So at 7 mm the zoom lens has 114° angle of coverage, And the 8 mm has 180° angle of coverage. Can anybody explain to me why the angles of coverage and the focal lengths are not proportional?

May 12, 2015permalink

photominion

It depends on the front element and what you do with all the light passing through.

the focal length determines at what distance of a glass element the light is bundled.
(made more sense in german, lol)

May 12, 2015permalink

David Rosser

The 8mm fisheye angle of view is 180 deg across the diagonal (corner to corner) The zoom angle of view is measured across the width.

May 12, 2015permalink

anselsmyhero

Good point. So out of curiosity, I just printed out a protractor, arranged 4 candles on my dining room table, and measured. At the wide end of the zoom, my old Oly 7-14 is 120° corner to corner. So focal length is really not related to coverage angle at short focal lengths. Hmmm.

May 12, 2015permalink

cdembrey

"So focal length is really not related to coverage angle at short focal lengths. Hmmm."

Sorry, but you've got it wrong! There is a BIG difference between a Fisheye lens and a Rectilinear lens, and none of it has to do with focal length. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisheye_lens

May 12, 2015permalink

slothlovechunk

Because you can't compare focal lengths between rectilinear lenses and fisheyes. A rectilinear lens has to have 0mm focal length to get a 180 degree field of view, a fisheye is not similarly constrained.

You can compare rectilinear lenses to each other, but you have to also take into account the image projection size (sensor size).

May 13, 2015permalink

bmwzimmer

I always preferred Samyang's stereographic/equiangular projection Fisheyes over traditional equidistant projection fisheyes. Samyang owns the Patent for it i believe. If they decided to make it, it would be a 6mm Fisheye for Micro 4/3.
Samyang/Rokinon's newer 8mm f/2.8 version ii for APSC sensors or 12mm f/2.8 for Full frame have a wonderful wide projection that doesnt bulge so much in the middle and extremes don't bend quite as much. It's WAY easier to defish if you choose to do so

May 12, 2015permalink

srados

Good for you, but do you have anything to say about these two amazing lenses?

May 12, 2015permalink

bmwzimmer

Yea, at 314g, it's a beast. Too bad they don't make it f/3.5 and keep it under 80 grams like Samsung's 10mm f/3.5 fisheye for larger APS-C sensors

May 12, 2015permalink

OrdinarilyInordinate

I LOVED my stereographic fish eye for mirrorless (the 8mm f/2.8 version). After moving to m43, it is the lens I miss the most. The 7.5 f/3.5 version that Samyang made for m43 is a great lens, but it's missing that wonderful stereographic projection and is not as bright. I do really wish they would make a stereographic fish eye for m43--after all a near-stereographic fish eye is available to DSLRs and mirrorless cameras from them--m43 should be next!

May 13, 2015permalink

cgarrard

Not sure why people dig the fisheye look of uwal's- I get dizzy everytime I look at one.

May 12, 2015permalink

They work well for some shots and where they don't work you can straighten them out well in software so they act like a crazy wide regular lens. It works out to something like a 5mm lens when you "de-fish" it.

May 13, 2015permalink

cgarrard

Yeah I'm aware of that, they just don't do it for me and never really have. Anything at 19mm (FF equivalent) and up is my cup of tea.

May 13, 2015*permalink

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/lenses/olympus-m-zuiko-digital-ed-7-14mm-1-2-8-pro-review/3

I like having it in the kit, which is why a Samyang is a handy solution. I don't use it often enough to spend $1000 on an AF one, but a $200 Samyang and I can add it to the bag for special occasions. It works better for people pictures than regular UWA because it doesn't stretch them (unless they get way too close)

May 13, 2015permalink

4PiVR

Also, how much focusing do you really need to do with a fisheye? The DOF is enormous if you are stopped down just a little. I love my Rokinon (Samyang) 7.5mm fisheye. So tiny and optically gorgeous. Still, the lust for the Oly fisheye is strong!

May 24, 2015permalink

Miki Nemeth

I love Olympus lenses. I was on the point of buying a OM-D E-M1 or PEN E-P5 in Dec 2013, when suddenly Sony announced A7 for the same price. Having a full-frame camera was too tempting. Later I bought a number of Olympus OM lenses for my A7. Now I have an A5100, and my favorite lenses on it are the PEN-F 38mm/f1.8 and 150mm/f4.
Why I am writing it here? I love (old) Olympus lenses, they work superbly not only on M43 cameras but on Sony E as well as Fuji X cameras, too.

May 12, 2015*permalink

HowaboutRAW

The A7 sure has a loud mechanical shutter in comparison to the EM-1.

Right, the EM-1 doesn't have the high ISO performance of the A7, and the A7 is a better video camera.

But the Olympus has better out of camera jpegs and uncompressed raws.

May 12, 2015permalink

Eric Hensel

"The A7 sure has a loud mechanical shutter in comparison to the EM-1."
Keeping both in the bag is quieter still.

May 12, 2015permalink

HowaboutRAW

EH:

I think you mean blimp. Not bag.

May 12, 2015permalink

Eric Hensel

Not what I meant, HaW --as I'm sure you know :)

May 13, 2015permalink

HowaboutRAW

EH,

So you claim. And the "silent" electronic shutter of the A7S creates lots of noise.

May 13, 2015permalink

Michael J Davis

I have the Oly 7-14mm. I would have appreciated some shots at f/2.8 with this one.

May 12, 2015permalink

Bruce Clarke

Indeed, those of us who still have the old f4 7-14mm beastie would like to see what we are missing. Half the weight is certainly appealing. I presume they've done it using more electronic distortion correction.

May 12, 2015permalink

Michael J Davis

Whoops! Correction - I have the PANNY 7-14 that's why I'd like to see what I'm missing!

May 12, 2015permalink

Weia

Distortion of the 7-14 seems to be better corrected than in my old Oly 7-14. Would like to read more about distortion of this beast.

May 12, 2015permalink

Pixnat2

Don't forget that m4/3 lenses rely heavily on software correction. We should wait for Photozone or Lenstip review before making a judgement.

May 12, 2015permalink

bluevellet

No need to wait for Photozone:

May 12, 2015permalink

deep7

Based on those few pictures, the 7-14 could be truly excellent. I have come to expect that from the more expensive Olympus glass but ultra-wide zooms seem to be fickle things to make well.

May 12, 2015permalink

whumber

Really? I thought the shots at 7mm are quite disappointing.

May 12, 2015permalink

Really? All 5 of them?

This gallery helps to demonstrate how some of us really don't want to go that wide so often. Or even use a wide aperture for WA shots.

I agree with others here - it would have been nice to see a few shots between f/2.8 and f/4 or so.

May 12, 2015permalink

jhinkey

Really? The sun didn't come out once while you had either of these lenses? As a Seattle-ite we had some pretty good stretch of weather that you could have pointed these at the sun to see what kind of ghosting/flare resistance they have.
No night shots either? These would have really shown how good the ghosts/flare and aperture spikes would look like stopped down.

I can only suspect you had just a short amount of time with these before Oly took them back.

May 12, 2015permalink

Barney Britton

We've only had shootable samples for a couple of days, correct. And we'll be adding to these galleries over the next few.

May 12, 2015permalink

Cue equivalence police in 3 ,2 , 1.....

May 12, 2015permalink

Abaregi

You counting hours?

May 12, 2015permalink

Athonline

The 7-14mm looks quite sharp throughout.

Only criticism are the colors in some shots, which look a bit desaturated. Then again, I got used to using Oly's JPEG engine, which tends to produce quite vibrant colors and apply a warm-ish color temp. I guess the editors didn't do any "major" adjustments in the post-process of the RAWs.

May 12, 2015permalink

SFXR

They probably used Lightroom 6 (yawn).

May 12, 2015*permalink

It's not just their JPEG engine - Olympus' glass itself tends to deliver these nicer colors. You can see this characteristic going back to the days of film - even in basic cameras like the XA.

You can probably blame Adobe with their color profiles and overall design, making it a bit of work just to get a photo to what should have been the starting point. Their competition doesn't all follow their pattern.

It's almost as if Adobe is trying to 'level the playing field,' or something silly like that. It's probably due to a lack of effort, rather than a conspiracy, but they end up dulling the images coming from glass that actually captures more color and is often superior (e.g. Pentax, Olympus, perhaps Fuji). And then the way they treated the X-Trans sensor - I don't think they try hard enough here.

May 12, 2015*permalink

Ribbit74

Lightroom does make the images look a bit flat, but that's by design. The Adobe standard profile is supposed to "baseline" all the cameras.
I just have a default preset that applies the Olympus "Camera Natural" profile on import anyway - that really helps. From there the images don't usually need much tweaking, and the NR is far better than the JPG's out of the camera.

May 12, 2015permalink

Yes, I understand that's how most people handle it (with a preset), and it seems to work well enough for them.

But I suppose most people would rather have their camera output optimized, not neutralized! Especially when the camera manufacturer went to so much effort to make it good.

"By design" may be open to debate. Perhaps it's by lack of design? Phase One creates very good profiles for other manufacturer's cameras. One of their techs has told me that creating a good profile is *not* an easy or trivial task.

May 12, 2015permalink

Athonline

DStudio: As someone who is doing a PhD in AI and did research in image processing -we consider image processing and computer vision a subbranch of AI in academia- I can double their tech's claim. Image manipulation is a trivial job normally, but getting the "right" amount of each colour on each pixel, with the right luminance, isn't.
One of the reasons I don't like Canon: Their cameras' output feels too flat for me; thus I may end-up spending more time in post-processing, which is what I am trying to reduce through automation and usage of camera built-in JPEG engine and processing. Thus my kudos to Olympus for their JPGs.
For your conspiracy thoughts: In my books I don't like Adobe. Ever since the scandal about the agreement for a mutual non-hiring from each other with other silicon valley's companies. Then it is their price model, etc etc. I wouldn't be surprised if they simply try to boost a few companies' interests. They could had done a much better job with the X-Trans.

May 13, 2015permalink

Athonline

@Ribbit74: Will give that a shot. At the moment I am using the JPEGs and minor edits in Phase One, using LR only as management or quick workflow if we are talking about a paid event -where I don't really have to produce 100% pixel-perfect results.

May 13, 2015permalink