If you could have only 1 UWA

Agree with other posters - save up for the 8-18. It's the same weight as the 7-14/4, a stop brighter at the wide end, more useful on the long end, and if you're looking pre-owned, you may be able to find one for less than $200 more. It's also insanely sharp and as far as I'm aware, has no issues on Olympus cameras, unlike the 7-14/4 (if you ever plan on shooting Oly).

Great Bustard wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

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 ?

I most likely misspoke -- I don't know it can AF with the adapter. It's an AF lens, so I suppose it should, right? Anyway, given that it does AF, that would definitely strengthen my recommendation!

Either way, FF UWA on MFT (to me) seems counter intuitive.  I’ll  happily  put my long EF lenses on my MFT for that extra reach, but at the other end of the focal length scale not so much. Native  MFT makes more sense to me

Peter

Olympus 9-18 instead, because it is versatile which is necessary for architecture (as long as the rooms are not to small),  at the wide end it is f3.5 (some would say barely enough for astro but its useable depending on your technique) ,  its wonderfully light and small and I nearly always have it with me.

... As opposed to the Olympus 7-14 f2.8 pro which is big and heavy and I nearly always leave at home.

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

Actually, it has three settings with the widest rendering at 5.5mm rectilinear. Of course this is different and not as wide as a 8mm fisheye rendering which is 180 degrees FOV. It does this in the camera through the magic of mirrorless since you set it and see the change in your EVF/LCD to compose. It gives a jpg of the result, or a defished raw file that works in Olympus Workspace software.

+1

Go for the 8mm 1,8 fisheye, t's objectively the superior lens, much better than the 7-14:

- it's wider

- even defished it's still wider than the 7-14

- the multiple inbody defishing options can be used as a zoom function

- it opens wider at 1,8 compared to 2,8

- it opens you the realm of night time astrophotography, and nigh landscape and city scape

- it's smaller, lighter and more portable

- it's a prime, more durable than a zoom and less moving parts, and better weather sealing

Funny Valentine wrote:

Go for the 8mm 1,8 fisheye, t's objectively the superior lens, much better than the 7-14:

- it's wider

- even defished it's still wider than the 7-14

- the multiple inbody defishing options can be used as a zoom function

- it opens wider at 1,8 compared to 2,8

- it opens you the realm of night time astrophotography, and nigh landscape and city scape

- it's smaller, lighter and more portable

- it's a prime, more durable than a zoom and less moving parts, and better weather sealing

the defishing only works for JPG's right? I'm also considering the same thing as the OP, and I'm considering a few options. Not being able to work with RAWs with defishing would be a no-go for me

llondru wrote:

Funny Valentine wrote:

Go for the 8mm 1,8 fisheye, t's objectively the superior lens, much better than the 7-14:

- it's wider

- even defished it's still wider than the 7-14

- the multiple inbody defishing options can be used as a zoom function

- it opens wider at 1,8 compared to 2,8

- it opens you the realm of night time astrophotography, and nigh landscape and city scape

- it's smaller, lighter and more portable

- it's a prime, more durable than a zoom and less moving parts, and better weather sealing

the defishing only works for JPG's right? I'm also considering the same thing as the OP, and I'm considering a few options. Not being able to work with RAWs with defishing would be a no-go for me

My understanding is it does create a defished raw file but that raw file must be opened in Olympus Workspace software.

Albert Valentino wrote:

llondru wrote:

Funny Valentine wrote:

Go for the 8mm 1,8 fisheye, t's objectively the superior lens, much better than the 7-14:

- it's wider

- even defished it's still wider than the 7-14

- the multiple inbody defishing options can be used as a zoom function

- it opens wider at 1,8 compared to 2,8

- it opens you the realm of night time astrophotography, and nigh landscape and city scape

- it's smaller, lighter and more portable

- it's a prime, more durable than a zoom and less moving parts, and better weather sealing

the defishing only works for JPG's right? I'm also considering the same thing as the OP, and I'm considering a few options. Not being able to work with RAWs with defishing would be a no-go for me

My understanding is it does create a defished raw file but that raw file must be opened in Olympus Workspace software.

guess you could export the defished version as a DNG then?

I work with Lightroom usually

Olympus usually only do major FW updates that add features to cameras that have the current image processor, which is now the TruPic8.  The E-M5.2 has the TruPic7  processor.

Dave