Going wider with the 9-18mm, or having the extra speed of the 11-22mm? I would be using the lens more for landscape photography than indoor photography, so I am leaning toward the 9-18. By the looks of some of the posts...I wouldn't be upset with either choice!
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Which is more important to you in a wide angle lens?
- Thread starter Nate8833
- Start date
kwa_photo
Senior Member
9mm over the speed if that is the choice. Usually, for me, WA shots are more landscapes slower paced. I can compensate for the speed (to a degree) but you cannot compensate for the angle of view. However, overall, I would probably take the 11-22 as it is a proven performer, built to a higher quality level and weather sealed to match my E-3/E-1.
--
Ken
--
Chris_in_Osaka
Senior Member
If you've got the 12-60 or 14-54, then you've already got a lens with speed so go for the 9-18mm.
If you haven't got the 12-60 and need f2.8 speed, then consider this lens. It comes pretty close to the 11-22 at the wide end and is in my opinion a far more useful lens. If I had to get rid of all my lenses, it's the one I'd keep.
--
Olympus E-3 and E-420
Zuiko 7-14mm, 25mm pancake, 50mm, 14-42mm, 12-60mm, 50-200mm, and 8mm fisheye. FL-36R and FL-50R Flashes. HLD-4 Grip.
Canon PowerShot TX1
Ricoh GR-D
Sony DSC-V3
If you haven't got the 12-60 and need f2.8 speed, then consider this lens. It comes pretty close to the 11-22 at the wide end and is in my opinion a far more useful lens. If I had to get rid of all my lenses, it's the one I'd keep.
--
Olympus E-3 and E-420
Zuiko 7-14mm, 25mm pancake, 50mm, 14-42mm, 12-60mm, 50-200mm, and 8mm fisheye. FL-36R and FL-50R Flashes. HLD-4 Grip.
Canon PowerShot TX1
Ricoh GR-D
Sony DSC-V3
Andr the giant
Well-known member
... a couple of days ago. I'm not trying to point out that it's been dealt with before (because almost all topics have, and there would be no new threads if one were only allowed to post unique topics) but I think you can find a couple of helpful answers there too:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1022&thread=30089069
----
André (dpreview got rid of my é – my name is not Andr (however, i'm not exactly a giant either))
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1022&thread=30089069
----
André (dpreview got rid of my é – my name is not Andr (however, i'm not exactly a giant either))
JimRockfordII
Senior Member
gotta be the wide angle.... the extra bit of speed is not going to make much difference in a landscape on a tripod whereas the extra 2mm will give a more distinctive viewpoint. Im faced with the same dilemma actually, there is a 11-22 locally for the same price as a 9-18 but i really love wide angle and I think the extra 2mm will make a difference from the 11-22 especially when compared to my 14-54. good luck
--
Ladies, leave your clothes here and spend the afternoon having a good time.
-- Rome laundry
http://www.rockford-photography.co.uk
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leica-torquay/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rockford-photography/
--
Ladies, leave your clothes here and spend the afternoon having a good time.
-- Rome laundry
http://www.rockford-photography.co.uk
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leica-torquay/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rockford-photography/
Well, it is often said that few people wish they had gotten a "smaller"
flat screen tv, could it be that few people wish they
had gotten a less wide angle lens? I decided to go for the 9-18mm recently,
and besides having the widest angle I can afford, I am happy to have the chance to not wonder if I should have gone wider.
Bill the Beerman
E510, 14-54- 9-18
flat screen tv, could it be that few people wish they
had gotten a less wide angle lens? I decided to go for the 9-18mm recently,
and besides having the widest angle I can afford, I am happy to have the chance to not wonder if I should have gone wider.
Bill the Beerman
E510, 14-54- 9-18
In wide lenses speed isn't that important so if that's your only measurements I'm sure width is more paramount. However comparing the 9-18 and 11-22 for me personally I find the over all FL of the 11-22 much more useful. That combined with the superior IQ and control of barrel distortion makes me very happy with my choice of the 11-22. That said I do have an Peleng 8mm fish eye arriving soon on the mail 
--
Cheers,
Mick
--- --- ---
--
Cheers,
Mick
--- --- ---
- Equipment in profile
there's speed and speed..........
at 12mm 2.8 over 4 will make a little difference if you want to be artistic with very close subjects but by the time you get to 7 - 9 mm you would want F2 relative to F4 to make a noticable difference in capability (perspective wise).
any additional light gathering capability is welcome on any lens (AF and viewfinder brightness) this can make a difference very early and late in the day with framing, and in caves........)
if you have to compromise sharpness at all - forget it!
if you have to compromise distortion - forget it!
you don't awant to have to handle CA in every image pp.....
yes you can use multi frame but wider really is the key option that's hard to better or duplicate/workround
generally the times I wish the 7-14 was faster than F4 are in relation to framing in poor light - with IS I can hand hold it in just about any light conditions I can see in.
--
at 12mm 2.8 over 4 will make a little difference if you want to be artistic with very close subjects but by the time you get to 7 - 9 mm you would want F2 relative to F4 to make a noticable difference in capability (perspective wise).
any additional light gathering capability is welcome on any lens (AF and viewfinder brightness) this can make a difference very early and late in the day with framing, and in caves........)
if you have to compromise sharpness at all - forget it!
if you have to compromise distortion - forget it!
you don't awant to have to handle CA in every image pp.....
yes you can use multi frame but wider really is the key option that's hard to better or duplicate/workround
generally the times I wish the 7-14 was faster than F4 are in relation to framing in poor light - with IS I can hand hold it in just about any light conditions I can see in.
--
- enjoy your camera equipment -
For purely landscape images you can easily create panoramas with any FOV between 0 and 360 but if there isn't enough light you've lost the shot.
--
http://www.efrench.members.winisp.net/
--
http://www.efrench.members.winisp.net/
Skeeterbytes
Forum Pro
From a practical standpoint, the 11-22 is weather proofed, which is appealing outdoors. The 9-18's wider angle allows the photographer to force the perspective more, which in my view is a powerful creative tool.
The 11-22 is a wonderful lens, as I'm sure the 9-18 is (I don't own the latter). One point of consideration is that with a polarizer--which drops you by a stop--the 11-22's faster speed might make it a better choice in some circumstances. At the long end, the 11-22 also functions well as a "normal" lens, which can be a consideration if you're only taking one lens.
I got the 7-14 but am keeping the the 11-22, as they both have their uses. Ultimately, the 7-14 is my prefered landscape lens but it too has its limitations.
--Rick
The 11-22 is a wonderful lens, as I'm sure the 9-18 is (I don't own the latter). One point of consideration is that with a polarizer--which drops you by a stop--the 11-22's faster speed might make it a better choice in some circumstances. At the long end, the 11-22 also functions well as a "normal" lens, which can be a consideration if you're only taking one lens.
I got the 7-14 but am keeping the the 11-22, as they both have their uses. Ultimately, the 7-14 is my prefered landscape lens but it too has its limitations.
--Rick
I recently debated this same topic. I was in the market for a wide angle lens when the 9-18 was announced. I waited and waited for the 9-18, but the opportunity came for a purchase and I went with the 11-22 and couldn't be happier. Having only the two kit lenses that came with my E410, I was after some more speed as well as wider than the 14-42 could offer. After seeing the results of the 9-18 I was disappointed at first, but I soon realized that shooting WA is more difficult than I thought and the added FOV of the 9-18 would only complicate things even more. Maybe after I master the 11-22 I would reconsider the 9-18, but the build quality and the IQ of the 11-22 is not really matched by anything short of the 7-14, which is way out of my price range.
I'll probably be getting the 14-54 to compliment my 11-22 very soon...
bfunk
--
http://photobybfunk.blogspot.com/
I'll probably be getting the 14-54 to compliment my 11-22 very soon...
bfunk
--
http://photobybfunk.blogspot.com/
Godfrey
Forum Pro
I find I only rarely want to use a field of view greater than the 11-22 provides (about 90 degrees diagonally). I generally don't shoot landscapes with ultra-wide lenses either (... and when I do, I need a very sturdy tripod because mushy wide angle landscape views are awful; this makes speed considerations secondary).
In the past I had lenses that gave me 105 and 112 degrees. I used them so rarely I sold them and went with the more conservative 90 degree lenses. That's my sweet spot in UWA...
Godfrey
In the past I had lenses that gave me 105 and 112 degrees. I used them so rarely I sold them and went with the more conservative 90 degree lenses. That's my sweet spot in UWA...
Godfrey
...is to go wide. Go for the 9-18. You can work around the lost stop between these two lenses, but there is no work around for the loss of wide angle perspective. You generally don't need a bright lens for wide angle anyway as it's easier to avoid camera shake and you're less likely to be shooting fast moving subjects, allowing you to use slower shutter speeds. The only reason to get the 11-22 is if you need weather sealing.
As for image quality, all the reviews I've seen say the IQ of the 9-18 is very close to the 7-14 (and in some cases, slightly better).
dgrogers
http://www.pbase.com/drog
As for image quality, all the reviews I've seen say the IQ of the 9-18 is very close to the 7-14 (and in some cases, slightly better).
--
dgrogers
http://www.pbase.com/drog
JonathanJK
Forum Enthusiast
How do you work that out when Canon do a 16-35 f2.8 AND a 24mm f1.4?
I myself am trying to bag myself the 24mm because of its high f stop.
http://jonathanjk.wordpress.com/
http://swanseacastlesquare.wordpress.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/crackedbutter/
I myself am trying to bag myself the 24mm because of its high f stop.
--In wide lenses speed isn't that important so if that's your only
measurements I'm sure width is more paramount. However comparing the
9-18 and 11-22 for me personally I find the over all FL of the 11-22
much more useful. That combined with the superior IQ and control of
barrel distortion makes me very happy with my choice of the 11-22.
That said I do have an Peleng 8mm fish eye arriving soon on the mail
--
Cheers,
Mick
--- --- ---
http://mickfinn.smugmug.com/
- Equipment in profile
http://jonathanjk.wordpress.com/
http://swanseacastlesquare.wordpress.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/crackedbutter/
I'd go with the 9-18 mm because it goes wider and has less overlap with my 14-42mm kit lens. But I'd also pick it because of its small size. The 9-18, 14-42, and 40-150 are all compact and lightweight, making them more suitable for travel than bulkier, heavier lenses.
TrapperJohn
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 16,488
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 12,288
I debated long and hard over the 11-22 or 7-14. Even with the significant cost difference, I went for the 7-14.
The 11-22 is remarkably sharp, and is an intermediate wide angle. It can be a walkaround lens, capable of a variety of shots. But, it doesn't go that wide, and ultimately, my time with it showed that it only hinted at what one can do with an ultrawide lens.
The 7-14 is a specialized lens. Somewhat large (though not that big), with that exposed bulging element, but oh, what it will do... capture amazing perspectives. Takes some time to learn an entirely new composition style, but once you get the hang of it, tough shots become almost effortless. I call mine the Electrolux - it sucks in everything.
So if you're shooting indoors, you need as wide as you can go. You can always make up for the higher F stop, by providing more light, or using a tripod and slower shutter speeds. You can't make up for 'not wide enough', especially when you're indoors and can't back up any further.
The 11-22 is remarkably sharp, and is an intermediate wide angle. It can be a walkaround lens, capable of a variety of shots. But, it doesn't go that wide, and ultimately, my time with it showed that it only hinted at what one can do with an ultrawide lens.
The 7-14 is a specialized lens. Somewhat large (though not that big), with that exposed bulging element, but oh, what it will do... capture amazing perspectives. Takes some time to learn an entirely new composition style, but once you get the hang of it, tough shots become almost effortless. I call mine the Electrolux - it sucks in everything.
So if you're shooting indoors, you need as wide as you can go. You can always make up for the higher F stop, by providing more light, or using a tripod and slower shutter speeds. You can't make up for 'not wide enough', especially when you're indoors and can't back up any further.
Well, the mere fact that Oly makes a f4.0 wide angle super pro lens ought to prove that they feel the same (whilst the teles are f2.0/2.8). Speed isn't as paramount in wide angles, as it is in teles.
That's all I was saying. Not that speed wasn't important. Of course there are many situations where speed might be crucial. And whether you prefer to potentially use a tripod or rather stitch panoramas - well it's up to personal preferences.
Cheers,
Mick
--- --- ---
That's all I was saying. Not that speed wasn't important. Of course there are many situations where speed might be crucial. And whether you prefer to potentially use a tripod or rather stitch panoramas - well it's up to personal preferences.
--I myself am trying to bag myself the 24mm because of its high f stop.
In wide lenses speed isn't that important so if that's your only
measurements I'm sure width is more paramount. However comparing the
9-18 and 11-22 for me personally I find the over all FL of the 11-22
much more useful. That combined with the superior IQ and control of
barrel distortion makes me very happy with my choice of the 11-22.
That said I do have an Peleng 8mm fish eye arriving soon on the mail
Cheers,
Mick
--- --- ---
- Equipment in profile
JohnMcL7
Senior Member
I don't find speed too much of an issue with the 7-14mm lens as it's easy to handhold at low shutters and I'm very rarely taking pictures of non-static scenes.
John
John
Art_P
Forum Pro
to pick up an 11-22 for street shooting, where speed might take priority over wider
For landscape I think the 9-18 would give a more useful range
If you are worried about the speed, consider a monopod, which can double as a walking stick, and should negate the speed difference between the 11-22 and 9-18... just a thought
then again, I don't own either, but owning the 12-60, I would opt for the wider lens, as the 11-22 would be largely redundant for me
But if I had to choose between the two for just -one- lens I was taking (no 14-42 or 12-60), the 11-22 would be it.
--
Art P
Select images may be seen here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8131242@N04/
For landscape I think the 9-18 would give a more useful range
If you are worried about the speed, consider a monopod, which can double as a walking stick, and should negate the speed difference between the 11-22 and 9-18... just a thought
then again, I don't own either, but owning the 12-60, I would opt for the wider lens, as the 11-22 would be largely redundant for me
But if I had to choose between the two for just -one- lens I was taking (no 14-42 or 12-60), the 11-22 would be it.
--
Art P
Select images may be seen here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8131242@N04/
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum