If you could have only 1 UWA

So I want to fill a gap in my lens selection, but my budget isn't allowing for a plethora of options.  Currently the widest lens I have is the 14-42 kit zoom from my G7.

I want an ultra wide-angle lens.

I want it for landscape
I want it for astro
I want it for interior/real-estate photography
I want it for architectural photography
I am likely to do environmental portraits with it as well

The current two contenders are

A used Panasonic 7-14 mm f/4
A new or used Laowa 7.5 mm f/2

My normal tendency would be to get the zoom, as it will give me a better chance to frame the shot from my position than a prime, and later get the prime if I still want it, but the difference in aperture is significant enough that for astro I don't know if the 7-14 will do the job.

Any one have both? If you could only have one what would be your choice?

The pro UWA zooms are out of the budget, I'm sure a 7-14 mm f/2.8 would probably solve both problems, but this is a fairly limited section of what I shoot, so while that may be true, the price difference places it too far out of reach for just a toy lens for me.

burritosandbeer wrote:

So I want to fill a gap in my lens selection, but my budget isn't allowing for a plethora of options. Currently the widest lens I have is the 14-42 kit zoom from my G7.

I want an ultra wide-angle lens.

I want it for landscape
I want it for astro
I want it for interior/real-estate photography
I want it for architectural photography
I am likely to do environmental portraits with it as well

The current two contenders are

A used Panasonic 7-14 mm f/4
A new or used Laowa 7.5 mm f/2

My normal tendency would be to get the zoom, as it will give me a better chance to frame the shot from my position than a prime, and later get the prime if I still want it, but the difference in aperture is significant enough that for astro I don't know if the 7-14 will do the job.

Any one have both? If you could only have one what would be your choice?

The pro UWA zooms are out of the budget, I'm sure a 7-14 mm f/2.8 would probably solve both problems, but this is a fairly limited section of what I shoot, so while that may be true, the price difference places it too far out of reach for just a toy lens for me.

Perhaps you will find some ideas in this recent thread: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63474954

The Panasonic 7-14/f4.0 is too slow for astrophotography.   This will leave the Loawa 7.7/f2.0 lens.

Then again why did the Panasonic 8-18/f2.8-4.0  notl make your final list.

If you are doing alot with uwa go zoom

if you are not doing a lot with uwa then prime should be ok.

if you need a wide aperture and zoom the 8-18 from panasonic may be a better choice.

for me I bought the f4 8mm from SLR magic, am happy with it due to low usage.

DLBlack wrote:

The Panasonic 7-14/f4.0 is too slow for astrophotography. This will leave the Loawa 7.7/f2.0 lens.

Then again why did the Panasonic 8-18/f2.8-4.0 notl make your final list.

In a word price... from the original post

"The pro UWA zooms are out of the budget, I'm sure a 7-14 mm f/2.8 would probably solve both problems, but this is a fairly limited section of what I shoot, so while that may be true, the price difference places it too far out of reach for just a toy lens for me."

Huge difference between the two. Fast vs slower, prime vs zoom. I’m a zoom man myself and I also want a lens that is filter friendly for shooting things like water at long shutter speeds. So I went with the PL 8-18 and love it. I had to wait a year for the first sale, $200 off. Glad I did. It was a nice upgrade from my Oly 9-18  😃

Albert Valentino wrote:

Huge difference between the two. Fast vs slower, prime vs zoom. I’m a zoom man myself and I also want a lens that is filter friendly for shooting things like water at long shutter speeds. So I went with the PL 8-18 and love it. I had to wait a year for the first sale, $200 off. Glad I did. It was a nice upgrade from my Oly 9-18 😃

Could you expand a bit on why it was a nice upgrade?  I have the DSLR version of the 9-18, but will likely replace it with a native m43s lens.

PL 8-18!

great for a real estate but so far I haven't tried it for astro

Glen Barrington wrote:

Albert Valentino wrote:

Huge difference between the two. Fast vs slower, prime vs zoom. I’m a zoom man myself and I also want a lens that is filter friendly for shooting things like water at long shutter speeds. So I went with the PL 8-18 and love it. I had to wait a year for the first sale, $200 off. Glad I did. It was a nice upgrade from my Oly 9-18 😃

Could you expand a bit on why it was a nice upgrade? I have the DSLR version of the 9-18, but will likely replace it with a native m43s lens.

First, it is wider and as with most ultra wide zooms we tend to use the wide end more. Converse is true with long zooms, they tend to get used more at the long end. Do not think of it as simply 1mm wider, think in terms if FOV and it is 9/8 percent wider which is noticeable. Second, the Oly 9-18 is pretty sharp at the wide end but just okay at the long end. PL is sharp across the range. Third, the Oly is slower and needs to be stopped down to get the edges sharp. So if you want sharp edges at 12mm you need to shoot at f/5.6. Lastly, I love to make sunstars when conditions are right and the Oly 9-18 renders terrible sunstars, not worth even trying. So in summary, the PL is faster, sharper across the range and edges, wider, and renders good sunstars. Laowa 7.5 prime does even better at sunstars.

Here is a thread I posted few weeks ago showing the PL 8-18 in NY city, 10 shots in the first post and a few more added in later posts. Many are at 8mm, and several are stopped way down to render sunstars, which softens a bit but that is the trade off. Judge for yourself, a picture worth a 1,000 words 😃

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4452931

I did go for the 7-14, I rather like it. I was tempted by the Laowa, but I've decided I like autofocus.

For astro, the extra aperture would probably help, and the focus is not so much of an issue. For everything else, I'd go for the 7-14.

Olympus fish eye 8mm f 1.8

If you ever upgrade to the latest Olympus bodies there is in body fish eye correction which lands you 7mm to 10 mm correction. Or just defacto fish eye 8mm which is wider than the 7.5mm

I bought the Loawa 7.5 to compliment my existing 12-40 & 12-100 as I only use it occasionally when I want to go wide but 80% of the time for what I do, 12mm is wide enough.  The Loawa seems good and is so small I don't feel it when carrying it around

Kszchopstix wrote:

Olympus fish eye 8mm f 1.8

If you ever upgrade to the latest Olympus bodies there is in body fish eye correction which lands you 7mm to 10 mm correction. Or just defacto fish eye 8mm which is wider than the 7.5mm

Yup, a good option. The defish is a nice touch, but I am upset with the fact that Olympus does not extend the fish eye correction to older bodies like the E-M5 Mark II. Are they trying to say owners of older bodies won't buy the Fisheye lens?

Great Bustard wrote:

burritosandbeer wrote:

So I want to fill a gap in my lens selection, but my budget isn't allowing for a plethora of options. Currently the widest lens I have is the 14-42 kit zoom from my G7.

I want an ultra wide-angle lens.

I want it for landscape
I want it for astro
I want it for interior/real-estate photography
I want it for architectural photography
I am likely to do environmental portraits with it as well

The current two contenders are

A used Panasonic 7-14 mm f/4
A new or used Laowa 7.5 mm f/2

My normal tendency would be to get the zoom, as it will give me a better chance to frame the shot from my position than a prime, and later get the prime if I still want it, but the difference in aperture is significant enough that for astro I don't know if the 7-14 will do the job.

Any one have both? If you could only have one what would be your choice?

The pro UWA zooms are out of the budget, I'm sure a 7-14 mm f/2.8 would probably solve both problems, but this is a fairly limited section of what I shoot, so while that may be true, the price difference places it too far out of reach for just a toy lens for me.

...what about a Sigma 14 / 1.8A? Use the bare lens (with an adapter) and you get a 14 / 1.8. Use it with a 0.7x FR, and you get a 10 / 1.3. It's a beast of a lens, no AF, and not inexpensive, but it's sharp and fast as hell. It has a lot of distortion on FF, though, but when the bare lens is used, since you're cropping out the middle 25% of the image circle, it should be OK. But when used with the 0.7x FR, that might be an issue. Might correct really well in software, though.

why no AF, doesn’t it work with a Viltrox or Metabones adapter  ?

Peter