Panasonic 7-14 F4 vs Olympus 7-14 Pro F2.8

I have the former lens (the Panasonic), and it's a very good performer on my 2 Olympus bodies (EM1 & EM5 II), however as has been very well documented, it does suffer from the ugly purple flare spots, when ever there's a bright light source in the image. I try to negate as much as possible by re-composing but sometimes its just unavoidable.

Like a number of people, I'm therefore considering swapping for the new Olympus 7-14 F2.8 Pro version. I can part exchange the Panny (along with a couple of other bits and pieces) and get the Olympus version for just £100 ($150) trade up.

Question is to those who have had this lens, is it worth the trade up, will it be as sharp (or sharper) as my copy of the Panny 7-14, and does the Olympus resist flare much better than the Panny, and when it does occur, does it appear like normal lens flare (i.e. are the horrible purple blobs gone).

This would also complete my Olympus Trinity of 7-14 F2.8, 12-40 F2.8 & 40-150 F2.8 Pro lenses (which would be nice - but not the ultimate consideration really).

I'm also trying to figure the best way to go on an ultrawide zoom for use with Oly EM1 bodies.  I have ordered the Pana 7-14 after noting the size and weight of the new Oly is just too much for someone who travels as much as I do.  I had the Oly 9-18 which was stolen and I loved the small size but it too had a substantial problem with CA even on my Oly bodies and the two mm less on the wide side actually matters for indoor tight shots and dramatic intentional distortion shots; I found myself using a cheap fisheye too often.

For me the Pana 7-14 seemed like the great compromise for size and quality despite occasional blobs.  I'm expecting to receive it today.  The prices have recently been dropping, it's almost half what it used to be.

Good luck in your search.

The price difference here (the Netherlands) is larger even comparing new to new.

The 7-14 f/2.8 is not immune to flare as the image below shows.

9mm, flare coming from top right (where the sun was).

But... not having the Panasonic 7-14 but having the 20mm f/1.7 I can easily predict that with an image like the one below I would get purple fringing on the edges with a Panasonic lens whereas there is none with the Olympus.

7mm, no PF

Here's another one. No PF where edges meet sky. No software filter to eliminate PF used in these images either!

9mm, no PF

I do love the Panny, small light and super sharp, but this is the sort of purple blobs it can get even without trying (notice the area just below the upper windows in the church shot below).Sometimes it's not that noticeable on screen until you review the image afterwards.

Andrew Ellis wrote:

I do love the Panny, small light and super sharp, but this is the sort of purple blobs it can get even without trying (notice the area just below the upper windows in the church shot below).Sometimes it's not that noticeable on screen until you review the image afterwards.

I case you haven't seen it, this lovely hack by Anders W eliminates the purple blobs:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51390321

Thanks for this.  But...wouldn't cheap plastic packaging material reduce the resolution or even provide a bit of distortion from not being perfectly in plane on the lens?

Not to seem negative, love the tinkering spirit.  gp

I have found the flare of the mZuiko 7-14 Pro to be very well controlled, creating small spots that are easy to remove unobtrusively in many cases, when the shot is one that calls for spot removal.  It seems to handle flare better than the original Zuiko 7-14 from my limited experience with that older beast.

It's not perfect, and I doubt any UWA lens will be, but I have been very impressed at the limited flaring.  I had to go through a bunch of my recent photos to even find examples.  It definitely flares less than my 12-40 and my Rokinon Fisheys lenses.

The absolute worst example I could find

In fact, looking back I should've processed this one better.  But ignoring that, the flare happens to be over shadows, so I basically brightened it up to make it more visible.  I'd like to see any lens avoid flare in this instance anyway.

More typical example

I found lots of pictures like this in my collection, where the sun was either in the frame or just outside.  If this was a photo I was wanting to really polish up, I could remove the spots pretty darn easily without anyone being able to readily notice.

Obviously there are other reasons to choose the Panny or the Olympus, and again, I've never shot with the Panny.  But based on everything I've observed in this forum and elsewhere, if I were shooting an Oly body and wanted to minnimize flare issues, I'd go with the oly lens.

gary payne wrote:

I'm also trying to figure the best way to go on an ultrawide zoom for use with Oly EM1 bodies. I have ordered the Pana 7-14 after noting the size and weight of the new Oly is just too much for someone who travels as much as I do.

Ironically, I am in a very similar decision - awaiting delivery - after, for much the same reason- finally making a decision perpendicular(?) to yours. I bought the Olympus 7-14 Pro to replace an otherwise superb FT 7-14 because while it is hardly small, it is nevertheless significantly smaller and lighter than the FT 7-14. The f2.8, close focusing, better AF and MF clutch were also factors.

I've found purple-fringing an absolute killer (from another Panny lens and sometimes from the old Oly FT FE) for the large show prints I occasionally make.

I was very reluctant to pay, especially the Canadian, price.  BUT flare in UWA lenses - and especially the purple fringing - are a real issue'

Also, four decades+ of photography make me really appreciate the optical triumphs that the f2.8 aperture and very close focussing represent. Most especially in the possibilities - and inspirations - that this can give rise to, as Robin Wong's review and pictures demonstrate.

gary payne wrote:

Thanks for this. But...wouldn't cheap plastic packaging material reduce the resolution or even provide a bit of distortion from not being perfectly in plane on the lens?

Not to seem negative, love the tinkering spirit. gp

Anders used a piece of professional-grade gel filter, so there should be no degradation of the image quality.

Hey EricK

On another thread I began about a week ago regarding CA from the Pana 7-14mm on an Oly EM1, a real pro (given his website) assured me that his Pana 7-14mm was his favorite lens and he was able to shoot without CA mostly by using his free hand to block out flare.  I am not sure how that would work since at 7mm the 180 degrees range will suck in anything in front of the camera (wear your best shoes).  But his gallery was very very convincing.

I think he just could not have shot into the sun, but if it was at 90 degrees he could block it and save the trouble of trying to remove CA later.

I think a few flare marks really don't hurt anything, may even add authenticity.  The purple blobs that some have warned about scare me more.  But it's just hard to shoot ultra wide with the lens totally open and get away with it.

My Pana 7-14mm should arrive tomorrow.  I'll learn to live with it...the Oly is just to big and heavy for me, the Oly 9-18mm was CA prone and not quite wide enough.

Good luck in whatever you decide.

gary payne wrote:

Hey EricK

On another thread I began about a week ago regarding CA from the Pana 7-14mm on an Oly EM1, a real pro (given his website) assured me that his Pana 7-14mm was his favorite lens and he was able to shoot without CA mostly by using his free hand to block out flare. I am not sure how that would work since at 7mm the 180 degrees range will suck in anything in front of the camera (wear your best shoes). But his gallery was very very convincing.

First time I hear that CA can be corrected by shading the lens. From what I know CA is an aberration occurring due to the lens design and becoming visible in highly contrasted edges (like branches of trees against a bright sky). Flare occurs with the sun in the frame or very near of the frame. You can shade your lens from the sun, but unless the CA was located in a flare sensitive part of the frame and the two effects were cumulated, I don't think you can improve CA by shading your lens. CA for instance also occurs at the edge of two differently focused zones (aka the foreground is sharp and the background out if focus, or vice versa) : no shading IMO can take care of that.

CA however, unlike flare or the ugly purplish blobs can usually easily be corrected in postprocessing.

I've been going through the same decision process.  I've owned the Panny for a while and been very happy with it - except for flare.  I've probably read all of the reviews and seen the samples from both lenses and I've come to the conclusion that there's a slight improvement with the Oly.  But, the improvement looks like it's slight - both produce blobs when there's a bright light source in the frame.  Some reviewers claim flare is well controlled, while others cite it as a problem on the Oly. I sometimes carry a black card that I position to block light sources that are just outside the frame.  Shooting directly into the sun when it's near the center area of the frame works well on the Panny, but it flares badly when the light is along the edges, or just outside the frame.

Why am I keeping the Panny - because the Oly is humongous by comparison.  I don't care about the f/2.8 vs f/4 difference, but the much smaller size of the Panny is a big benefit when I'm out hiking.

rrr_hhh wrote:

gary payne wrote:

Hey EricK

On another thread I began about a week ago regarding CA from the Pana 7-14mm on an Oly EM1, a real pro (given his website) assured me that his Pana 7-14mm was his favorite lens and he was able to shoot without CA mostly by using his free hand to block out flare. I am not sure how that would work since at 7mm the 180 degrees range will suck in anything in front of the camera (wear your best shoes). But his gallery was very very convincing.

First time I hear that CA can be corrected by shading the lens. From what I know CA is an aberration occurring due to the lens design and becoming visible in highly contrasted edges (like branches of trees against a bright sky). Flare occurs with the sun in the frame or very near of the frame. You can shade your lens from the sun, but unless the CA was located in a flare sensitive part of the frame and the two effects were cumulated, I don't think you can improve CA by shading your lens. CA for instance also occurs at the edge of two differently focused zones (aka the foreground is sharp and the background out if focus, or vice versa) : no shading IMO can take care of that.

CA however, unlike flare or the ugly purplish blobs can usually easily be corrected in postprocessing.

Yes..Most CA can be almost eliminated with the use of your hand.. EASY STUFF.. I've done it.. no problem..