Reading mode: Light Dark

Olympus 9-18, Good or bad?

Go to last post
I had the 9-18 for over two years. It gave me some very nice shots. Here are just two of them.

It is a very good lens, and a marvel of engineering to make it as small as it is.

But in the end... I gave it up and bought the 7-14 f/2.8. That does not make the 9-18 any less good than it is.

9mm f/5.6

9mm f/5.6

10mm f/6.3

10mm f/6.3



--
Enjoying the Olympus OM-D E-M5.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/.
 
Joshua,

When searching for reviews, make sure you take a look at Jordan Steele's work at AdmiringLight. He takes a real world view of lenses and backs it up with some amazing photos. Buried on his site is a comparison of the O_9-18mm vs the P_7-14mm. He also has a new review of the O_7-14mm.

I have decided to forgo the 7-14mm's and go with just the 9-18mm and 12mm for my landscape hiking. I don't believe that I am giving up much, if anything, in IQ but win on size, weight, and filter ability.

Hookum
 
I apologize if I misread your post. I, and I suspect many other Members, are now no longer able to hold a camera steady. My tripod weighs less than a kilo and is essential; so, If I had to carry a full frame camera with 18-36 and 28-300 lenses and a suitable tripod, my back would give up after five minutes. However, with my Olympus and Manfrotto outfit, I can keep going, on a good day, for about two hours.

Peter Del



E-M5, 14-150
E-M5, 14-150
 
Hey Peter

I went and ran my numbers..

FF
  • D600
  • 18-35mm G
  • 28mm 1.8 ( same approx size and weight as the 20mm or 24mm)
  • Feisol carbon tripod
  • Acratech GPs ball head
  • 6.6lbs
u4/3
  • M10
  • 9-18mm
  • 12mm
  • Sirui T-025x tripod
  • 3.2lbs
My 12"x18" prints tell me that I give up very little, if anything, for half the weight and size. So.. I am with you.

Regards

Hookum
 
Joshuay04 said:
I have been reading reviews and have found it gets 'eh' or average results. However, when looking around on flickr I find some amazing images taken with this lens. It appears there are a lot of talented people out there putting this 'eh' lens to good use. Why does it get such a bad rap?
Click to expand...
 
Joshuay04 said:
I have been reading reviews and have found it gets 'eh' or average results. However, when looking around on flickr I find some amazing images taken with this lens. It appears there are a lot of talented people out there putting this 'eh' lens to good use. Why does it get such a bad rap?
Click to expand...
I think it depends on the type photographer you are. If you take pictures for the pictures-sake, it's a very capable lens. If you take pictures to break down the images at a pixel-level and view corners at 100% or larger, you could be a bit disappointed. There are plenty of both types who post here.

The best size to price super wide lens in this line is the 9-18. The best image quality vs. price superwide is the Panasonic 7-14mm f4. If money is no object and you want the best-built, fastest option, there's the Olympus 7-14mm f2.8.

--
"There's shadows in life, baby.." Jack Horner- Boogie Nights
 
Last edited:
Hookum_Horns said:
Hey Peter

I went and ran my numbers..

FF
  • D600
  • 18-35mm G
  • 28mm 1.8 ( same approx size and weight as the 20mm or 24mm)
  • Feisol carbon tripod
  • Acratech GPs ball head
  • 6.6lbs
u4/3
  • M10
  • 9-18mm
  • 12mm
  • Sirui T-025x tripod
  • 3.2lbs
My 12"x18" prints tell me that I give up very little, if anything, for half the weight and size. So.. I am with you.

Regards

Hookum
Click to expand...
Amazing isn't it. I too ran my figures:

E-M5

9-18

14-150

Manfrotto 785B (unfortunately no longer made)

Total 4 lbs 1810 grams.
 
Joshuay04 said:
I have been reading reviews and have found it gets 'eh' or average results. However, when looking around on flickr I find some amazing images taken with this lens. It appears there are a lot of talented people out there putting this 'eh' lens to good use. Why does it get such a bad rap?
Click to expand...
Technically, the lens does have some shortcomings: it is soft in the corners wide open and there's a fair bit of chromatic aberration (CA), at least with my GH2 and GX7 bodies. On those points, this lens is inferior to some other lenses.

The reason why people can produce great images with this lens is simply because there are ways to work around those issues. To deal with the softness, use a smaller aperture. This can also sometimes help reduce CA. To reduce CA, shoot in raw and use the CA reduction tools in your software. For that matter, you could also save your settings as a preset which you can batch apply to the images you take with this lens.

The reason why people buy this lens are its combination of wide focal lengths, incredibly compact size, ability to mount filters, and reasonable price.
 
Gregm61 said:
I think it depends on the type photographer you are. If you take pictures for the pictures-sake, it's a very capable lens. If you take pictures to break down the images at a pixel-level and view corners at 100% or larger, you could be a bit disappointed. There are plenty of both types who post here.

The best size to price super wide lens in this line is the 9-18. The best image quality vs. price superwide is the Panasonic 7-14mm f4. If money is no object and you want the best-built, fastest option, there's the Olympus 7-14mm f2.8.
Click to expand...
+1. When I moved from point-and-shoot travel zooms to m4/3, I did so mainly for a combination of four interests: ultrawide capabilities, low-light capabilities, good controls, and portability. If I were to have only one lens on my camera, it would be the versatile 9-18. It's always with me when I travel, either in my pocket or on a camera. I have no reservations about using it inside large churches, even wide-open and hand-held. (Of course, it really shines with a tripod and low ISO.) Plus, as I sometimes remind myself, if it's good enough for the pros who use it, it's good enough for me. ;-)

My own lengthy comparisons of reviews and actual images vs. the 7-14mm options leave me with no regrets at all. My copy of the 9-18 (which doesn't get longer in the 14-18mm range) is competitive in the corners, takes filters, and exhibits little flare or problematic CA. If I want to go wider, I have two good options: panorama stitching or my 7.5mm Samyang fisheye (which is so wide defished that I think it complements rather than replaces any UWA rectilinear lens).
 
BarnET wrote:
BarnET said:
BarnET said:
For low light I have a thing called a tripod that gives me razor sharp images with the 9-18as you can see here http://nigelvoak.blogspot.it/2015/03/the-ceramic-cloud.html
Click to expand...
Which enthousiast doesn't have a tripod? Carrying one defeats the benefits of this system though. If i have to take a tripod i can bring a fullframe Dslr too.
Click to expand...
Carrying a tripod doesn't obviate the reason why you don't carry a 135 format DSLR. Tripod or not, the DSLR system will still be heavier and bulkier than the m43 system. In fact, it could be argued that having to carry a tripod is an even bigger reason to go with m43 because you're already carrying the weight of the tripod, so why aggravate yourself further by also choosing the additional weight of a 135 format system?

One of the reasons I love m43 for travelling is because I'm already carrying a bunch of cables, chargers, my phone, a tablet, a laptop, a power adapter, etc. The fact that I can carry all that and still fit my m43 system with its f/2.8 zooms without killing my back is a wonderful thing.

Of course, the other benefit is that my m43 system requires a lighter tripod than my DSLR system.
 
larsbc said:
Joshuay04 said:
I have been reading reviews and have found it gets 'eh' or average results. However, when looking around on flickr I find some amazing images taken with this lens. It appears there are a lot of talented people out there putting this 'eh' lens to good use. Why does it get such a bad rap?
Click to expand...
Technically, the lens does have some shortcomings: it is soft in the corners wide open and there's a fair bit of chromatic aberration (CA), at least with my GH2 and GX7 bodies. On those points, this lens is inferior to some other lenses.
Click to expand...
I haven't noticed CA in extensive professional use of the 9-18 on G6, nor has corner softness been an issue -- maybe it is there a bit but it doesn't matter.

To prevent CA altogether, use a Wratten 2A filter (I haven't bothered).
larsbc said:
The reason why people buy this lens are its combination of wide focal lengths, incredibly compact size, ability to mount filters, and reasonable price.
Click to expand...
PLUS excellent rendering and excellent performance across its zoom range.


18mm


18mm @ 100%


9mm


9mm


9mm

--
Geoffrey Heard
Down and out in Rabaul in the South Pacific
http://rabaulpng.com/we-are-all-traveling-throug/i-waited-51-years-for-tavur.html
 
Last edited:
Josh, I thought about this for a while before I answered. I had the 9x18 DZ and the 7x14 DZ both. I paid 1500.00 for the 7x14 and it was an excellent lens. However at that time I did a lot of hiking and backpacking and that thing weighed 2 lb. I also slipped and fell at a waterfall and nearly smashed the objective lens into the granite I was standing on. I quit taking it with me. Then the 9x18 came out and I loved it. I think it weighs about 12-14 oz. I always had it with me and it gave me some great shots. It wasn't as good or as wide but it was always present. It was good enough. Incidentally I finally sold the rarely used 7x14 for 650.00. Good investment huh!

When I bought the EM-1 I was so taken with the small, fast focusing lenses I decded to part with my DZ and get the m4:3 counterpart. Here's what I've found in my case.

The 9x18's biggest virture is that it is uniquely tiny. It's much smaller than my DZ 9x18 and only weighs about 1/3 as much. It is not as good optically and probably about the same mechanically..both are only "consumer" lenses. Mine is a little soft on the corners at 9 & 18 mm wide open. It isn't bad but can be seen on close examination. Stopping down to f/8 helps. In fact most of the Oly conumer lenses benefit from doing that.

For me this lens, again, is good enough.
 
Maybe not GREAT, but definitely GOOD -- much better than I expected, having read the same reviews and comments that I presume the OP has.

I shoot the 12-35mm (or primes) for the vast majority of my images, but sometimes 12 isn't wide enough. The 9-12 range of my copy of the TINY 9-18 is very good, particularly at f/5.6 (which is how I use it most often). And I like the fact that it takes filters (unlike the Panasonic 7-14mm f/4). So it goes in the bag most days, and I NEVER hesitate to use it.
 
Joshuay04 said:
I have been reading reviews and have found it gets 'eh' or average results. However, when looking around on flickr I find some amazing images taken with this lens. It appears there are a lot of talented people out there putting this 'eh' lens to good use. Why does it get such a bad rap?
Click to expand...
 
at least my copy is. I've owned the Panasonic 7-14mm F4 and the Zuiko 7-14mm F4 and the 9-18mm really doesn't give anything away to either of them apart from the FOV and max aperture differences. All uwa lenses suffer in the corners or edges and have some kind of coma or CA issues, that's the nature of the beast. The 9-18mm does have some CA but it's easy to remove and not a showstopper, of course you can always stop down and minimise it anyway. The only reason to buy the 7-14mm's is for the faster constant aperture or wider fov, that's it, because any performance differences are so small you really aren't going to notice them in real world shooting. I can't speak for everyone's copy but that's certainly how mine performs.
 
I like the 9-18 very much and it's now my most-used lens on my EM10.

Small, light, ideal for travel, and very capable. It's surprisingly good at resolving detail.

Here's a shot where I used it recently, shooting into the sun with no hassles.

The Burj Khalifa in Dubai :



c72f8dc4a3eb45d0b33776f72cd13716.jpg



--
Jacques
apple-and-eve.com
 
Well, once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Therefore, as it is impossible that lens is a good lens (as demonstrated by numerous tests), then it must simply be down to the fact that everyone who owns that lens is an exceptional photographer.

Therefore, to become an exceptional photographer, you must buy a 9-18. :D

Proof!!!
 
...they are not that bad either!



 

Attachments

  • 3274874.jpg
    3274874.jpg
    1.8 MB · Views: 0
Martin.au said:
Therefore, to become an exceptional photographer, you must buy a 9-18. :D
Click to expand...
No, no ,no! It means, it's only the exceptional photographers that recognize the under-appreciated qualities of this lens that need, and do, buy it!

(Like me! :-)

I bought mine just before I took a trip this Summer and it was on my camera, probably, 75% of the time. The 12-40mm ƒ/2.8 was on it the other times except brief interludes with the 17mm ƒ/1.8 & 75mm ƒ/1.8. It has, for me, a perfect zoom ratio (18-36mm FF equivalent) for a "walk-around" lens. I am a self-confessed wide angle guy, though.

049b75474bcb426bb65e892fb2de21ab.jpg

Frank
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
OM 100-400 mark ii
Replies
16
Views
12K
StevenAdler
StevenAdler
Dick Dastardly
Canon M3- bad, but good?
Replies
15
Views
19K
HaroldC3
HaroldC3
bluevellet
  • User review User review
Good performance at a Bargain
Replies
1
Views
11K
DDoram
DDoram
C Sean
Goodwood Revival and Olympus.
Replies
8
Views
2K
C Sean
C Sean
Erin_Pisces
  • Question Question
Lumix G9 + Viltrox EF-M2 II + Sigma Art 18-35mm?
Replies
3
Views
8K
HicHic
HicHic

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top