Yes, thanks. I noted and bought through Adorama with the 40-150 2.8. Both at $200 off plus another 5% back using their credit card. Nice savings!
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Deciding between 7-14mm and 8-25mm... what am I missing?
- Thread starter talkin73
- Start date
BruceRH
Senior Member
Good choice on the 8-25 vs 7-14. I had the 7-14 and sold it after getting the 8-25. The 8-25 is a stellar lens, enjoy!
finnan haddie
Leading Member
- Messages
- 666
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 680
Well, on the OM1 body you lose in-camera Focus Stacking, SyncIS (if lens has OIS), and the normal (low) operation mode of Pro Capture. On the P lens you lose support for the f-stop ring (if lens should have it).
Last edited:
Tim Reidy Productions
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 5,302
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 1,941
thanks, I originally though you needed your own advise.
mikero
Senior Member
And the zoom ring rotates in the opposite direction on Panasonic lenses, which I would find irritating.
Mike
Messier Object
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 13,909
- Solutions
- 15
- Reaction score
- 14,947
There have been plenty of times when shooting indoor architecture that I wanted to go wider than my 12-100mm f/4 so either of these two lenses would seem to fill a need
To me the 1mm difference at the wide end is of no consequence, so my decision would be in consideration of the 8-25's versatility vs the 7-14's f/2.8 speed advantage.
I have thought about buying either|both of these lenses but each time I've decided that as much as I'd like to have them I don't really need either given that I have FF options at 16-35mm f/2.8 and 11-24mm f/4.
Peter
To me the 1mm difference at the wide end is of no consequence, so my decision would be in consideration of the 8-25's versatility vs the 7-14's f/2.8 speed advantage.
I have thought about buying either|both of these lenses but each time I've decided that as much as I'd like to have them I don't really need either given that I have FF options at 16-35mm f/2.8 and 11-24mm f/4.
Peter
I recently went out mostly to use my 150-400 but took out the new 8-25 as well. It's so light and easy to hold, particularly paired with the OM-1. I'm so used to FF size and weight, and really finding the M43 appealing. A few walk around pics I grabbed a week or so back. All at ISO 200 so not really stressing it from light perspective. But, I believe 200 is base ISO (?) and these shots certainly have a lot of detail and DR in them which is a testament to the combo of lens and camera. All were unedited raw files that I exported to the desktop from LrC as jpg.
the unloved Oly 9-18mm?
Sure, it's not pro quality, but it's a brilliant travel companion.
Albert Valentino
Forum Pro
I had the Oly 9-18 and it was fine, sharpest at the wide end, corners smarten up one stop down at f/5.6. It’s size captures the essence of m43. That said, I did sell it in favor of the PL 8-18 mostly because I shoot landscape and like to add sunstars when the conditions are right. The Oly 9-18 aperture design renders horrible sunstars, while the PL 8-18 renders pretty good sunstars, not great, but pretty good. The little Laowa 7.5mm renders superb sunstars but lacks the versatility of a zoom, and I prefer zooms.
Since the highly versatile Oly 8-25 is on sale and I always shoot my 8-18 at or around f/5 - f/5.6, I am thinking of getting the 8-25 and selling the PL 8-18. Would appreciate any thoughts from anyone that has swapped the 8-18 to 8-25 lens
Albert, you just reminded me... sunstars! I tried one with the 8-25 and was not impressed... at all. May have just been the angle through the trees and a hurried approach as it was an afterthought when I really needed to be heading home. But, curious if others are able to get nice sunstars with the 8025 and I just need to try again and take my time? Again, being new to M43 don't know the "oh, you can't do that with this kind of lens" or other thing. you don't think to ask about when trying out new gear and then it dawns on you! Fingers crossed it was user error and nice sunstars are achievable with the 8-25???
Albert Valentino
Forum Pro
In addition to needing to stop down between f/11 and f/18 to render a sunstar (best a the widest end, 8mm FOV is good, 25mm is poor) it is critical that the sky be crystal clear. If they are spraying the sky or the sky is whitish the light is diffused and sunstars will reliably be poor.
Below is a shot of me from a mountain hike last month, taken with my PL 8-18 - SOOC jpg transfered to iPad using Olympus OI Share app. The PL 8-18 and Oly 8-25 both have 7 bladed apertures which render 14 point stars. I expect that both lenses should render similar sunstars. Best sunstars are from lenses with straight aperture blades, most modern lenses and zooms use curved blades, supposedly to create smoother bokeh
Shot of me - SOOC jpg with my 8-18 at 8mm f/13 with PL 8-18
--
Truth never fears scrutiny.
Last edited:
Albert Valentino
Forum Pro
Found this sample image from the 8-25 at 8mm f/22 from reviewer, Gordan Lang images. Sunstar looks pretty darn good
Albert, thanks. I'm a bit disappointed to see this kind of sunstar from the 8-18, which is exactly what I got from the 8-25. The lines of light seems to disperse and get wider as they move away from the light source. The points of a star shape typically get narrower as they get further from the light source. So, what I'm seeing the inverse of what I'm used to with other. While no two sunstars usually look exactly the same, I much prefer when the light gets narrower as it gets further from the source, which looks more like a "star" to my eyes. Also, while I appreciate the ease of a sunstar with a perfectly clear and unobstructed sky, I often prefer to create a sunstar against other objects. A few examples below that illustrate both of these visual issues.In addition to needing to stop down between f/11 and f/18 to render a sunstar (best a the widest end, 8mm FOV is good, 25mm is poor) it is critical that the sky be crystal clear. If they are spraying the sky or the sky is whitish the light is diffused and sunstars will reliably be poor.
Below is a shot of me from a mountain hike last month, taken with my PL 8-18 - SOOC jpg transfered to iPad using Olympus OI Share app. The PL 8-18 and Oly 8-25 both have 7 bladed apertures which render 14 point stars. I expect that both lenses should render similar sunstars. Best sunstars are from lenses with straight aperture blades, most modern lenses and zooms use curved blades, supposedly to create smoother bokeh
Shot of me - SOOC jpg with my 8-18 at 8mm f/13 with PL 8-18
Does anyone know if it's possible (or not because of the design of the lens, the sensor, both?) to create sunstars where the light generally gets narrower as it gets further from the source (as in the images below) rather than getting wider as with the example that Albert shared?
mikero
Senior Member
Slightly off topic I know (sorry) but does anyone know of a filter in PS that can simulate a starburst on point light sources? I looked a few years ago and couldn't see one.
Mike
Mike
bluevellet
Senior Member
I haven't really studied the issue, but my rough understanding is that sunstars are harder to achieve on m43 because you have to stop down more, way into diffraction territory. There is some physics issue here, but I can not quite explain it. And if you do achieve sunstars on m43 then they are not as pleasing as on other systems. The general rule of thumb is that fast m43 primes are better at it than the m43 zooms. Last I checked, the f.0.95 Voigtländer primes are the champs on the system.
As to the why of this prime-vs-zoom situation, it looks to me like it is down to aperture blade design
As to the why of this prime-vs-zoom situation, it looks to me like it is down to aperture blade design
Last edited:
finnan haddie
Leading Member
- Messages
- 666
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 680
Oh well.
Your assumptions are totally wrong.
The "sunburst rays" are called diffraction spikes in physics for a reason. You might want to google that.
Someone with even more patience than me might chime in and explain the details.
Oh well.
Last I checked, Voigtländer doesn't make any zooms for the system.
Last edited:
Albert Valentino
Forum Pro
It is all about the aperture design, and the type of sunstar is a signature of this. Much is related to curved vs straight apertures. Number of spikes are directly related to odd or even number of blades. Odd number of aperture blades render 2x the number of spikes. Even number of blades render the same number of spikes. For example the Samyang/Rokinon Fisheye lens, has six blades and renders six stars (which are far uglier than my PL example above). I three fisheye lenses, Samyang and Rokinon for m43 and when I shot Fuji APS format, all rendered the same sunstar despite different sensor size. My Nikon 10.5 fisheye rendered superb sunstars.
Also, when I shot Nikon my old 12-24 zoom was fantastic. Then I sold it when they came put with the wider 10-24 and the sunstars where horrible. I used to own the Nikon screwdriver 35-70 f/2.8 and tested it against my Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 once for streetlight sunstars and the older straight aperture 35-70 blew away the newer curved aperture 17-55, which also rendered ugly sunstars. The Oly 9-18 is often just an ugly blob.
Many Canon lenses do well with sunstars. As I mentioned in an above post, Laowa 7.5 for m43 renders excellent sunstars, as do many Voightlander lenses. i used to own the Voightlander 15mm f/4.5 which rendered gorgeous sunstars.
Also, how much you stop down changes the sunstar. You need less stopping for street lights than the sun, often f/5.6 does the trick for streetlights. So playing around with different smaller apertures with the sun, like from f/11 - f/22 changes lengths of the rays. On a Samyang/Rokinon fisheye the hole is so small you can get a sunstar at f/8
In summary, the aperture design and the aperture setting, (and a clear, non-diffused sun) are the variables. So it is about the hole size (and shape) not the sensor size.
--
Truth never fears scrutiny.
Last edited:
Jan Steinman
Senior Member
Note that designing for smooth, creamy bokeh (rounded aperture blades) and designing for sharp, pointy sunstars (angular aperture blades) appears to be mutually exclusive. Take your pick.
From Wikipedia article on diffraction spikes .
For even more out-of-focus highlight fun, I printed a bunch of masks with a laser printer on overhead transparency film, then cut them apart and mounted them on tag board to fit a Cokin filter holder.
Now I can have my "sunstars" look like hearts (or clubs, or diamonds, or spades) or stars, or meteors, or bombs, or coffee mugs, or tiny cameras, or musical notes, or anything else you can print in black and white. Simple designs work best.
PM me if you'd like a copy of my simple Mac Pages template.
--
Jan Steinman
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum