A wider 9-18mm?

Hi all, I've been doing research on the possible UWA options for hiking. So far the only native choices are Pana 7-14, Kowa 8.5, Oly 9-18 and the upcoming Oly 7-14. Since I hope to use filters the two 7-14 are temporarily not on my list. Kowa 8.5 looks pretty good and I almost made up my mind to go for it, but the size and weight makes me hesitant. That leaves me the Oly 9-18. I know that IQ-wise Oly 9-18 might not compare to the others and is the slowest of all, but since I don't do pixel peeing and don't do astrophotography or indoor shooting, these "shortcomings" should be fine with me. And considering its compactness it's really a no brainer. The only thing I'm worried about is that it might not be wide enough for my use.

And then I came across this:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3799506

According to what's mentioned in the linked thread, the Canon EF-M 11-22mm can go wider by playing with the collapsible mechanism. That leaves me wonder if the Oly 9-18, having the collapsible design, too, can do this trick as well. Has anyone given it a try?

I got to play a bit with the Oly 7-14 today. Pretty nice lens.

I'd try it on mine but I sent it in to Oly for service... Had something weird on the inside of the front element. I tend to take a shot with my Bower 7.5mm for defishing when I think I want something a little wider than what my 9-18 can manage. Just one of the ways in which I find them rather complementary...

What sort of filters do you want to use on an ultra-wide? The only one that is practical is an ND, you will be in all sorts of grief if you try and use a polarising filter. If you plan to use graduated filters, then you may as well get an adapter that will work on say a 7-14mm and decent Lee or similar filters. Many have been doing this for years with such lenses.

I just got the Olympus 9-18mm yesterday and I also have the Samyang 7.5mm fisheye. Here are my thoughts.

If the purpose of your hiking and treks is landscape photography then get the Panasonic 7-14. The Panasonic 7-14 is a brilliant lens but it requires a commitment: it is heavier and larger than the Olympus as well as required far more care in handling and storage due to that large front element. If your trekking is photo-centric - you pack all the photo gear you deem necessary to get the shots you envision, you trek to locations for the express or significant purpose of photography, etc etc - then the extra commitment and weight of the 7-14 is minor to the overall equation of fulfilling your goals. The 7-14mm focal length is equivalent to 14-28mm - ultra wide to wide, strictly a dedicated lens, pretty much for the purpose of those landscapes.

The Olympus 9-18 is a bit more of an 'all-rounder'; the 9-18mm is equivalent to 18-36, from extreme wide to short-standard. The Olympus 9-18mm is far more compact and easier to pack and handle versus the Panasonic, its lack of a bulbous front element allows the lens to be handled with no more concern than any quality general lens. The zoom's focal length means it can be used on anything from landscapes to people shots with good results; the Panasonic's longest focal length of 28mm isn't as well suited. I am thinking that my 9-18mm might end up being my most-often grabbed outdoor lens for walking, hiking and exploration, it just seems extremely versatile. Leave it on and don't feel guilty about possibly missing something.



If your goal for hiking is the enjoyment of the outdoor hike, with photography as the second interest, IMHO go with the Olympus 9-18. Two different lenses, two different attitudes and two different reasons for being.

I used to own the 4/3s 11-22mm lens and sold it when I got my 4/3s 7-14mm. I sometimes regret doing this, as the 11-22mm was such an outstanding lens with just the right FL throughout. Yes, I do have the 11mm available, but I also miss being able to use an ND filter. Though if I had access to a machine shop that does finely crafted work, I could easily fix the filter issue.

UWA lenses really require a different mindset in use, they need a dominant focal point in many cases, else everything in view simply blends together into one amorphous mass. They're great for architecture, interiors and the like, but a demon to control when it comes to landscapes.

BTW, the guy in the above photo appears to have worn a top to match the ceiling architecture.

--
Thoughts, Musings, Ideas and Images from South Gippsland
http://australianimage.com.au/wordpress/

--

The Olympus 9-18 should really be an F/5.6 constant aperture lens because everything below F/5.6 is practically useless! Whatever you call pixel peeping, I don't believe such a term exists and its just some crazy adage that people bring up because they can't comprehend how a camera or lens should work, I digress, this isn't a cheap Harlem peep show or something where if we stare closely enough through the tiny peephole we'll see naked ladies.

The edge softness and distortion at F/4 makes the lens practically useless for shooting in daylight conditions. No apologies aside here and it's not the matter of being able to understand how to use a lens it's a matter of fact appraisal. I own the lens and I don't mind it, but it can't replace my 12/2 and it doesn't even rate a mention next to the Panasonic 7-14 on a Panasonic body. If you really want something wider than 24mm that's actually sharp, corner to corner, aim for the Panasonic 7-14 or perhaps one of the manual focus primes.

If you plan to stop down to F/5.6 or so it's OK and quite practical, however its with the discretion if you want a lens with more light gathering ability than that I would look elsewhere. The only time I've found that you can really get away with using F/4 regularly is indoors and at night where you can't see the edges of the frame.

On the plus side the lens give an 18-36mm range to shoot in, this is quite a practical range for walking around during the day as it gives you an ultra wide angle to normal lens. If you don't mind the rather deep depth of field, equivalent to F/11, stop it down a bit to F/5.6 and it's sharp enough that you can walk around taking photos of whatever it is you feel like. It becomes a joy to use in conditions where you can do this.

Where I need more light I find myself using my 20mm F/1.7 which is on the longer end my 9-18mm doesn't cover and on the shorter end I use my 12/2 which is superb even wide open and it compares favorably to the Canon 24mm F/1.4 in terms of lens sharpness if not in terms of image resolution where you would have to stitch in order to get the same overall image resolution as the Canon lens on a full frame DSLR particularly considering that you have to stop the Canon lens down to F/5.6 to get closest to the Olympus 12mm.

http://www.lenstip.com/245.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_24_mm_f_1.4L_II_USM_Image_resolution.html

http://www.lenstip.com/310.4-Lens_r..._Digital_12_mm_f_2.0_ED_Image_resolution.html

You can look at the more expensive Olympus or Panasonic 12-35 and 12-40 also respectively, but these lenses as with the 12mm I mentioned above may not be wide enough for your needs. I would be looking at the Panasonic 7-14 if I had a Panasonic body or waiting for the Olympus 7-14 F/2.8 if I had an Olympus body.

The reason you may need f/5.6 even at the wide end is not so much that the lens isn't sharp enough near the edges but that the image tends to be out of focus there at f/4. That is caused by the focal plane not being flat but curved. In the m43 system the camera automatically corrects for barrel distortion caused by most wide-angle lenses, but by masking the distortion it may give you the illusion that the lens is not only rectilinear but that the focal plane will also be flat. It isn't. To add insult to injury the distortion correction is also bound to lose resolution in the corners because it needs to "stretch" the image there.

Here is an example picture taken at 9mm f/4. Taken at f/4 because I needed all the light I could get. For me this image quality is more than acceptable. You will notice that the trumpet player on the far right isn't perfectly sharp but that is caused by: 1) the trumpet player in reality being further away than you think after seeing the rectilinear projection, 2) the trumpet player therefore being out of focus at f/4 and 3) the distortion correction stretching the image thereby losing resolution.

This is actually one of my favorite pictures of the whole event. Most images were shot with the 20mm f/1.7 and while they may be a bit sharper they fail to show the nice overview this picture does.


Olympus 9-18 at 9mm f/4 to illustrate image quality to be expected at f/4.

--
Slowly learning to use the Olympus OM-D E-M5.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/.

I agree your field of interest is well situated away from the point of distortion. F/4 also borders on not having enough depth of field at times, although it shouldn't being close enough to something like F/8 on full frame, not taking into account any of the more scientific understandings of why it's not exactly F/8, for all intents and purposes it is.

I agree, I would and have used F/4 indoors where I need more light, but I prefer not to use this lens there. I would rather default to my 12/2 if I have enough room, which at most cases with a 24mm frame you do have.

I'm just saying there are sharper options out there should you choose them and in retrospect I probably would have, but the 7-14 F/4 is more expensive and it doesn't really work as it should on Olympus bodies and the other options available thus far are only manual focus.

I do like my 9-18, but I am abundantly aware of its limitations.

I too would be very satisfied with this picture .

When you say m4/3 allows for distortion correction in camera, is that also valid if you put on an old 4/3 9-18 with adapter ?

I do not have any older lenses. I do not know whether these lenses supply the table of distortion and CA values that help the camera eliminate distortion (on all m43 cameras) and possibly CA (not yet on the E-M5).

So there is no magic in distortion correction and also not in CA correction: the lens comes with data about what the distortion and CA are supposed to be at each focal length and the camera (or other software) just uses that table of values.

yellowek said:

The only thing I'm worried about is that it might not be wide enough for my use.

And then I came across this:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3799506

According to what's mentioned in the linked thread, the Canon EF-M 11-22mm can go wider by playing with the collapsible mechanism. That leaves me wonder if the Oly 9-18, having the collapsible design, too, can do this trick as well. Has anyone given it a try?

Click to expand...

I just tried it with 9-18, it gives just a tiny bit more width. The FL is still recorded as 9mm. But it's really touchy, I don't think that the gain is worth the bother.

Vlad

I use the old Olympus 9-18 made for the 4:3 mount with the adapter. I've been happy with that lens.

If you already have a 4:3 > m4:3 adapter, it's worth looking into. I know of no complaints with this lens except some CA which can be corrected in Lightroom or other RAW converters. It will be slightly heavier unfortunately.

Edwaste said:

I use the old Olympus 9-18 made for the 4:3 mount with the adapter. I've been happy with that lens.

If you already have a 4:3 > m4:3 adapter, it's worth looking into. I know of no complaints with this lens except some CA which can be corrected in Lightroom or other RAW converters. It will be slightly heavier unfortunately.

Click to expand...

FWIW, the Four Thirds (not m43) version of the 9-18 is quite often available here for $399

As is the m43 version, just not quite as often from what I've seen, but it's been up there a couple times this year for the same price.

I can confirm that the EM1 fully corrects old FT lenses with the MMF3 adapter.

Even works for vignetting on the Sigma 30mm 1.4 HSM lens that had an FT fitting put on what was an APSC lens.

It plays nice with the 9-18, 50, 14-54 mk I, 12-60SWD and 50-200SWD. Olympus Viewer 3 can apply any corrections to the RAWs that the EM1 JPEG engine can apply, including keystoning.

AF is pretty good on the EM1, proving there are some edges for the PDAF sensors to see.

Andrew

--

Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin

Impulses said:

As is the m43 version, just not quite as often from what I've seen, but it's been up there a couple times this year for the same price.

Click to expand...

I know about the Four Thirds since I inadvertently ordered one. With the cost of Oly adapter and the return policy, I sent it back. I found the 60mm Macro this week at B&H for the same $399 so snagged that instead.

But your post encourages me to keep looking!

I think you'd be better off taking 2 exposures and stitching.

Vlad S said:

yellowek said:

The only thing I'm worried about is that it might not be wide enough for my use.

And then I came across this:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3799506

According to what's mentioned in the linked thread, the Canon EF-M 11-22mm can go wider by playing with the collapsible mechanism. That leaves me wonder if the Oly 9-18, having the collapsible design, too, can do this trick as well. Has anyone given it a try?

Click to expand...

I just tried it with 9-18, it gives just a tiny bit more width. The FL is still recorded as 9mm. But it's really touchy, I don't think that the gain is worth the bother.

Vlad

Click to expand...

Thanks for the experiment! I should have guessed so since no info about this trick with 9-8 can be found. I think I'll wait for the announcement of 7-14 pro first and see if it's affordable to me lol or if the prices of all other UWA options will drop a bit with the release.