SLRgear review of Oly 7-14mm

jimbeaux said:

User8954676470 said:

jimbeaux said:

User8954676470 said:

It's a off topic, but I'd like to ask you a thing.

What leads you to feel 12mm isn't so satisfying?

I'm interested in that lens, as I want to have some wide angle prime that can be used for low-light landscape/cityscape. I'm wondering if your experience with this lens doesn't agree for my needs. I need advices from photographers perspective, not the lab test papers as you mentioned.

Click to expand...

I really liked the size of the 12mm, but unfortunately all three lenses were extremely soft towards the edges of the frames. Each lens was unique. 1 and 3 would be soft on one side, yet sharp on the other. Lens 2 was very sharp in the center, but extremely soft on the left and right sides of the frame. This is the short version. Going through the attempted repair process with one of them took over 5 months with no improvement.

Click to expand...

Well, indeed that's not pleasing, especially for its high price tag. When I research online reviews of 12mm I already had read some complaints about quality control issues for this lens. It's hard to understand that one should play a coin flipping game for purchase of this expensive thing. OTOH, other lenses from same manufacturer(Olympus) seems QC-wise not that bad.

Actually this makes me hesitant to buy 12mm. And your experience makes my anxiety worse....

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's a coin toss... But, at least the 12-40, which is exceptional helped fill the void for me.

Click to expand...

Horst Kretzschmar said:

I've had the same question and posted it in a German forum - the admin is the author of a lot of books about Olympus cameras. I've seen many really wonderful shots with this lens, and I also was very asthonished about some test measurements.

The problem with such extreme lenses with highly opening aperture is that a correction into one plain of sharpness is nearly impossible, it is tack sharp at any point, but its sharpness is not located in a plain but it is bulging. So, if you use a brick wall or you test it on a flat test chart for measurements, you will find rather bad results like slrgear. Your only chance is, to include its characterics into your composition. You can test it, if you measure distance of best sharpness with the AF testing it on a brick wall. if you use different sensor points corner/mid, you will find very different distances, not resembling the real distance due to this effect. Closing aperture will reduce this effect of field curvature. Therefore the much cheaper Pana Zoom is very different.

But if you include this strange feature in your composition, you will get stunning pictures.

It is a bit, like you try to photograph a bigger ball with different lenses. If you do it with a well corrected (for a flat field) lens with aperture far open, you will have a sharp small part of the ball with unsharpness more far away. If you do it with this Olympus 7-14 you will be able to get a sharp ball even with aperture rather far open, because now the curvature of the lens can be the same as that of the ball.

Personally I had hoped, Olympus will publish any characterics of this behavior, to allow a "calculation" of it, but until now there is no answer.

Over all it is difficult to make a final conclusion. If you will be able to handle it, you will get a great lens, which can deliver stunning shots. Or you will be frustrated, if ou use it like a normal lens....

Click to expand...

Krusty79 said:

Horst Kretzschmar said:

I've had the same question and posted it in a German forum - the admin is the author of a lot of books about Olympus cameras. I've seen many really wonderful shots with this lens, and I also was very asthonished about some test measurements.

The problem with such extreme lenses with highly opening aperture is that a correction into one plain of sharpness is nearly impossible, it is tack sharp at any point, but its sharpness is not located in a plain but it is bulging. So, if you use a brick wall or you test it on a flat test chart for measurements, you will find rather bad results like slrgear. Your only chance is, to include its characterics into your composition. You can test it, if you measure distance of best sharpness with the AF testing it on a brick wall. if you use different sensor points corner/mid, you will find very different distances, not resembling the real distance due to this effect. Closing aperture will reduce this effect of field curvature. Therefore the much cheaper Pana Zoom is very different.

But if you include this strange feature in your composition, you will get stunning pictures.

It is a bit, like you try to photograph a bigger ball with different lenses. If you do it with a well corrected (for a flat field) lens with aperture far open, you will have a sharp small part of the ball with unsharpness more far away. If you do it with this Olympus 7-14 you will be able to get a sharp ball even with aperture rather far open, because now the curvature of the lens can be the same as that of the ball.

Personally I had hoped, Olympus will publish any characterics of this behavior, to allow a "calculation" of it, but until now there is no answer.

Over all it is difficult to make a final conclusion. If you will be able to handle it, you will get a great lens, which can deliver stunning shots. Or you will be frustrated, if ou use it like a normal lens....

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Martin Ocando said:

Big Ga said:

Martin Ocando said:

That doesn't add up to the factual point that the 14-24mm is of no relevance to a mFT user.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid that last sentence as it stand is wrong.

I am a MFT user. Yet the performance of the 14-24 is very relevant to me and my requirements, because if I feel that it would give me a worthwhile benefit over what I currently have, it might very well make sense for me to get one.

As it stands, this isn't far from the truth. In MFT I have the 7-14 panny. I have a need that requires a faster lens and/or better low light performance for astro work. The 7-14 oly on paper gives a stop extra. But if the edges don't actually perform wide open, then for what I want, its a waste (and going by the graphs, which might of course be wrong! the panny actually looks BETTER at f4) and thus I might have no choice but to get the Nikon and drag a heavier system around to use it (which I don't particularly want to do).

So being able to compare (and discuss) different options over different systems IS of relevance to me and to others.

I am a photographer, not simply a 'MFT user'. I'm sure others fall into this category as well.

Click to expand...

I think is not for a pure mFT user, which I know you and jim are not. But those of us who can't afford to have more than one system, specially expensive as FF can be in the long run, not only in money but in size and weight, the comparison is, as said before, irrelevant. I mean, is relevant if I'm looking into options through multiple systems, but if I just need to find the best for my current system is not.

In that line of thought, we should be comparing medium format cameras and lenses to mFT and FF, because they do may have the edge in image quality. For how much weight, size and

Click to expand...

Martin Ocando said:

weight? Well, that's something else we should consider in the decision making.

Click to expand...

Martin Ocando said:

tokumeino said:

I don't care about FF at all because I cannot afford 2 systems and M43 is a good tradeoff for my own usage. Can FF be better ? I hope so but I just don't care, and FF vs M43 comparisons are pointless IMO,

Nevertheless, when Only sells a PRO lens for $$$, one could expect it us a good lens, on par with what you get within other systems. And to be honest, the graphs below tell another story.

Click to expand...

Well, comparing apples to apples, the Oly 7-18 would be on the same level (price wise) as the Tamron 15-30mm. The Nikon 14-42 is almost double the price of the 7-18, and Canon's 16-35mm is 1.5K, which is also quite a bit over the Oly.

Click to expand...

jim stirling said:

Martin Ocando said:

tokumeino said:

I don't care about FF at all because I cannot afford 2 systems and M43 is a good tradeoff for my own usage. Can FF be better ? I hope so but I just don't care, and FF vs M43 comparisons are pointless IMO,

Nevertheless, when Only sells a PRO lens for $$$, one could expect it us a good lens, on par with what you get within other systems. And to be honest, the graphs below tell another story.

Click to expand...

Well, comparing apples to apples, the Oly 7-18 would be on the same level (price wise) as the Tamron 15-30mm. The Nikon 14-42 is almost double the price of the 7-18, and Canon's 16-35mm is 1.5K, which is also quite a bit over the Oly.

Click to expand...

Here in the UK Martin the Olympus 7-14mm F/2.8 costs around £840 the Nikon 14-24 is around £1299 so roughly 50% more for an optically corrected lens designed for a sensor 4x larger seems not unreasonable

http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-...1558cd1d22223096b858b310d8ae98d&utm_source=aw

http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-...9dc0c650a6edb2736f111398888be53&utm_source=aw

And just in case you are all thinking that the in-camera corrections come without a cost this is the corner of a 7-14mm pro shot with ACR { honours built-in corrections } and from PhotoNinja which has them disabled . You can clearly see the cropped result after being sacrificed to corrections along with the quite obvious pixel stretching that ensues

Click to expand...

Martin Ocando said:

jim stirling said:

Martin Ocando said:

tokumeino said:

I don't care about FF at all because I cannot afford 2 systems and M43 is a good tradeoff for my own usage. Can FF be better ? I hope so but I just don't care, and FF vs M43 comparisons are pointless IMO,

Nevertheless, when Only sells a PRO lens for $$$, one could expect it us a good lens, on par with what you get within other systems. And to be honest, the graphs below tell another story.

Click to expand...

Well, comparing apples to apples, the Oly 7-18 would be on the same level (price wise) as the Tamron 15-30mm. The Nikon 14-42 is almost double the price of the 7-18, and Canon's 16-35mm is 1.5K, which is also quite a bit over the Oly.

Click to expand...

Here in the UK Martin the Olympus 7-14mm F/2.8 costs around £840 the Nikon 14-24 is around £1299 so roughly 50% more for an optically corrected lens designed for a sensor 4x larger seems not unreasonable

http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-...1558cd1d22223096b858b310d8ae98d&utm_source=aw

http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-...9dc0c650a6edb2736f111398888be53&utm_source=aw

And just in case you are all thinking that the in-camera corrections come without a cost this is the corner of a 7-14mm pro shot with ACR { honours built-in corrections } and from PhotoNinja which has them disabled . You can clearly see the cropped result after being sacrificed to corrections along with the quite obvious pixel stretching that ensues

Click to expand...

Indeed. I can see now.

I wonder if an optically corrected lens is technically and optically possible for the m43 format. I understand that lenses for FF sensors are way easier to design, not so for smaller sensors, and that is one of the reasons mFT relies so much on software correction. Am I right, or is a wrong assumption?

--
Martin
"One of the biggest mistakes a photographer can make is to look at the real world and cling to the vain hope that next time his film will somehow bear a closer resemblance to it" - Galen Rowell

Click to expand...

Martin.au said:

Martin Ocando said:

jim stirling said:

Martin Ocando said:

tokumeino said:

I don't care about FF at all because I cannot afford 2 systems and M43 is a good tradeoff for my own usage. Can FF be better ? I hope so but I just don't care, and FF vs M43 comparisons are pointless IMO,

Nevertheless, when Only sells a PRO lens for $$$, one could expect it us a good lens, on par with what you get within other systems. And to be honest, the graphs below tell another story.

Click to expand...

Well, comparing apples to apples, the Oly 7-18 would be on the same level (price wise) as the Tamron 15-30mm. The Nikon 14-42 is almost double the price of the 7-18, and Canon's 16-35mm is 1.5K, which is also quite a bit over the Oly.

Click to expand...

Here in the UK Martin the Olympus 7-14mm F/2.8 costs around £840 the Nikon 14-24 is around £1299 so roughly 50% more for an optically corrected lens designed for a sensor 4x larger seems not unreasonable

http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-...1558cd1d22223096b858b310d8ae98d&utm_source=aw

http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-...9dc0c650a6edb2736f111398888be53&utm_source=aw

And just in case you are all thinking that the in-camera corrections come without a cost this is the corner of a 7-14mm pro shot with ACR { honours built-in corrections } and from PhotoNinja which has them disabled . You can clearly see the cropped result after being sacrificed to corrections along with the quite obvious pixel stretching that ensues

Click to expand...

Indeed. I can see now.

I wonder if an optically corrected lens is technically and optically possible for the m43 format. I understand that lenses for FF sensors are way easier to design, not so for smaller sensors, and that is one of the reasons mFT relies so much on software correction. Am I right, or is a wrong assumption?

--
Martin
"One of the biggest mistakes a photographer can make is to look at the real world and cling to the vain hope that next time his film will somehow bear a closer resemblance to it" - Galen Rowell

Click to expand...

Why would they bother? The effect would be the same with an optically corrected lens.

Click to expand...

Martin Ocando said:

Martin.au said:

Martin Ocando said:

jim stirling said:

Martin Ocando said:

tokumeino said:

I don't care about FF at all because I cannot afford 2 systems and M43 is a good tradeoff for my own usage. Can FF be better ? I hope so but I just don't care, and FF vs M43 comparisons are pointless IMO,

Nevertheless, when Only sells a PRO lens for $$$, one could expect it us a good lens, on par with what you get within other systems. And to be honest, the graphs below tell another story.

Click to expand...

Well, comparing apples to apples, the Oly 7-18 would be on the same level (price wise) as the Tamron 15-30mm. The Nikon 14-42 is almost double the price of the 7-18, and Canon's 16-35mm is 1.5K, which is also quite a bit over the Oly.

Click to expand...

Here in the UK Martin the Olympus 7-14mm F/2.8 costs around £840 the Nikon 14-24 is around £1299 so roughly 50% more for an optically corrected lens designed for a sensor 4x larger seems not unreasonable

http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-...1558cd1d22223096b858b310d8ae98d&utm_source=aw

http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-...9dc0c650a6edb2736f111398888be53&utm_source=aw

And just in case you are all thinking that the in-camera corrections come without a cost this is the corner of a 7-14mm pro shot with ACR { honours built-in corrections } and from PhotoNinja which has them disabled . You can clearly see the cropped result after being sacrificed to corrections along with the quite obvious pixel stretching that ensues

Click to expand...

Indeed. I can see now.

I wonder if an optically corrected lens is technically and optically possible for the m43 format. I understand that lenses for FF sensors are way easier to design, not so for smaller sensors, and that is one of the reasons mFT relies so much on software correction. Am I right, or is a wrong assumption?

--
Martin
"One of the biggest mistakes a photographer can make is to look at the real world and cling to the vain hope that next time his film will somehow bear a closer resemblance to it" - Galen Rowell

Click to expand...

Why would they bother? The effect would be the same with an optically corrected lens.

Click to expand...

But will give us a few pixels lost in correction. Wouldn't it?

Wait a sec. I'm confused. If an image is corrected by software, in theory is equivalent to the lens correction tab in Lightroom, right? When I correct my Samyang 7.5mm images, checking on constrain crop, I end up with a smaller file. Isn't that the same firmware correction does automatically?

--
Martin
"One of the biggest mistakes a photographer can make is to look at the real world and cling to the vain hope that next time his film will somehow bear a closer resemblance to it" - Galen Rowell

Click to expand...

jim stirling said:

And just in case you are all thinking that the in-camera corrections come without a cost this is the corner of a 7-14mm pro shot with ACR { honours built-in corrections } and from PhotoNinja which has them disabled . You can clearly see the cropped result after being sacrificed to corrections along with the quite obvious pixel stretching that ensues

Click to expand...

Haris said:

jim stirling said:

Big Ga said:

Bruce Clarke said:

Thanks Gareth. I tried the new f2.8 7-14 in a quick back to back comparison with my old ZD f4 outside a shop a few months ago. The corners seemed softer on the new one through the range at 7mm on a street scene.

Click to expand...

It would be interesting to find out whether the bad corner results that SLRgear shows are indeed due to it simply needing to be stopped down, or whether its a field curvature issue that gives a problem with their test setup and might not be such an issue in real life scenarios.

Haris said:

I'm sticking with the old beastie for now, despite its size and weight.

Click to expand...

Tricky decision to make isn't it.

I managed to test the old oly 7-14 against the panny MFT version. It can be a very close call optically.

If you can use the panny lens on a panny body, I think the significant decrease in size and weight probably makes it the most sensible MFT option. However if you have an Oly MFT body, the panasonic lens isn't so great. Tough call then what to do.

Click to expand...

Looking at the results from the Nikon 14-24mm at 14mm same effective AOV as the 7-14mm F/2.8 the Olympus looks distinctly average. Especially when you consider that the 14mm wide open has the same DOF as an mFT 7mm at F/1.4. Frankly the "PRO" designation looks a tad questionable

Click to expand...

And why do you drag Nikon in this again? Did someone ask for that kind of input?

Are you having some kind of issues that (apparently) should be dealt with, this is not a right place for that.

Click to expand...

Hen3ry said:

So good at all focal lengths that my dream was for an f4 8-9mm pancake prime but if one appeared tomorrow, I wouldn't buy it.

So I will just sit back and enjoy the blood on the floor here. Sorry about that!

Click to expand...

John King said:

The 14-24 has its own flaws. Flaws ignored completely by the person who posted this comparison. What a surprise ... ;-)

That said, the 14-24 is a fine lens.

Click to expand...

Horst Kretzschmar said:

I've had the same question and posted it in a German forum - the admin is the author of a lot of books about Olympus cameras. I've seen many really wonderful shots with this lens, and I also was very asthonished about some test measurements.

The problem with such extreme lenses with highly opening aperture is that a correction into one plain of sharpness is nearly impossible, it is tack sharp at any point, but its sharpness is not located in a plain but it is bulging. So, if you use a brick wall or you test it on a flat test chart for measurements, you will find rather bad results like slrgear. Your only chance is, to include its characterics into your composition. You can test it, if you measure distance of best sharpness with the AF testing it on a brick wall. if you use different sensor points corner/mid, you will find very different distances, not resembling the real distance due to this effect. Closing aperture will reduce this effect of field curvature. Therefore the much cheaper Pana Zoom is very different.

But if you include this strange feature in your composition, you will get stunning pictures.

It is a bit, like you try to photograph a bigger ball with different lenses. If you do it with a well corrected (for a flat field) lens with aperture far open, you will have a sharp small part of the ball with unsharpness more far away. If you do it with this Olympus 7-14 you will be able to get a sharp ball even with aperture rather far open, because now the curvature of the lens can be the same as that of the ball.

Personally I had hoped, Olympus will publish any characterics of this behavior, to allow a "calculation" of it, but until now there is no answer.

Over all it is difficult to make a final conclusion. If you will be able to handle it, you will get a great lens, which can deliver stunning shots. Or you will be frustrated, if ou use it like a normal lens....

Click to expand...

Yxa said:

Haris said:

jim stirling said:

Big Ga said:

Bruce Clarke said:

Thanks Gareth. I tried the new f2.8 7-14 in a quick back to back comparison with my old ZD f4 outside a shop a few months ago. The corners seemed softer on the new one through the range at 7mm on a street scene.

Click to expand...

It would be interesting to find out whether the bad corner results that SLRgear shows are indeed due to it simply needing to be stopped down, or whether its a field curvature issue that gives a problem with their test setup and might not be such an issue in real life scenarios.

Yxa said:

I'm sticking with the old beastie for now, despite its size and weight.

Click to expand...

Tricky decision to make isn't it.

I managed to test the old oly 7-14 against the panny MFT version. It can be a very close call optically.

If you can use the panny lens on a panny body, I think the significant decrease in size and weight probably makes it the most sensible MFT option. However if you have an Oly MFT body, the panasonic lens isn't so great. Tough call then what to do.

Click to expand...

Looking at the results from the Nikon 14-24mm at 14mm same effective AOV as the 7-14mm F/2.8 the Olympus looks distinctly average. Especially when you consider that the 14mm wide open has the same DOF as an mFT 7mm at F/1.4. Frankly the "PRO" designation looks a tad questionable

Click to expand...

And why do you drag Nikon in this again? Did someone ask for that kind of input?

Are you having some kind of issues that (apparently) should be dealt with, this is not a right place for that.

Click to expand...

Well I have a D800 and some GX1-7s , GM1 etc but I haven't an UWA-zoom and thanks to this thread I won't buy the Oly UWA-zoom , I will buy the 14-24 instead.

For me the inclusion of the of the 14-24 was good.

Nuff said

Click to expand...

John King said:

The 14-24 has its own flaws. Flaws ignored completely by the person who posted this comparison. What a surprise ... ;-)

Click to expand...

jim stirling said:

John King said:

The 14-24 has its own flaws. Flaws ignored completely by the person who posted this comparison. What a surprise ... ;-)

Click to expand...

I never claimed that the 14-24mm was perfect all I said is that it is better than any of the mFT alternatives with or without software cooking. Combine the 14-24mm with any modern Nikon DSLR and it will comfortably outperform any mFT combination.

Click to expand...

jim stirling said:

As you are aware Gareth is also a FF Nikon user and thus for him it is a relevant point.

Click to expand...

jim stirling said:

If you actually compare the mFT options to the 14-24mm equivalently {same DOF, same AOV, same total light} the FF combination is better in every single way.

Click to expand...