There are now thirty two lenses available for the micro four thirds system, with more on the way in time for Photokina next month. Plus there are hundreds of other lenses that you can use in conjunction with an adapter. That’s a lot of lenses, enough for anyone to create a collection that matches their needs, wallet and camera bag volume. Contrary to she who must be obeyed’s assertions, I don’t own the full set, and deciding which lenses to choose for my collection has been an interesting process (for me).
At the wide end of the range, there is the least choice. Wide angle lenses, as the name suggests, give you a wide view of the scene in front of you. They are good for shooting room interiors:
Outdoor scenes where you want to bring in the surrounding scenery:
Creating sky vistas:
Getting close and creating distorted effects (surely the stomach on the right is not that big?):
The problem with wide lenses is that you often don’t know what you are going to get until you look through the viewfinder. It’s hard to equate the human eye to a camera lens, but the general consensus is that our area of perception falls around 50mm focal length, so we feel comfortable shooting at that length (which is a 25mm lens on an M43 camera). Longer focal lengths are also easy, we know what we want to see, we just want it closer. But once you start going wide you need some experience and creative vision to imagine how you might utilise a wide lens; and I have as much creative vision as the guy who designed the Olympics closing ceremony. So I just stare through the viewfinder and see what is on offer, and sometimes it comes up with shots like this, which bears little relation to reality but looks pretty cool:
So, a wide angle lens might be a useful thing to have in your bag, what are the choices? These four:
From left to right: The Panasonic 14mm F2.5. except the lens in the photo clearly is not it. I don’t have access to the 14mm, but it is a pancake lens similar to the 20mm in the photo, although slightly smaller in height.
The Olympus 12mm F2.0
The Olympus 9-18mm F4-F5.6
The Panasonic 7-14mm F4
Let’s eliminate the 14mm first of all, and not just because I don’t have one to play with. 14mm (28mm on a full frame) is not really that wide. At 14mm there are a range of kit zooms from both Panasonic and Olympus that start at 14mm (e.g. the very good Panasonic 14-45mm). The only reason it is on the list is because if you were looking for a small cheap range of lenses to take on a trip where space was at a premium, then you could do worse than the 14mm and 20mm pancakes from Panasonic, and the 45mm Olympus F1.8. But as a real wide angle contender, not wide enough.
That leaves three.
The Olympus 12mm is the only prime lens on offer. This means it should offer the best IQ, and at F2 it is offers the most light of the three. It also a beautiful construct of metal and glass. On top of all that, there is a “focus clutch” mechanism. In the standard setting….
…manual focusing of the lens is triggered electronically as you turn the focus wheel, just as with other lenses, and it feels fine.
But pull down the barrel….
…. to expose the distance ranges to aid zone focusing, and the lens switches to a more precise mechanical focusing.
All very neat; but it is a flawed implementation. With the ring in this position you can’t zoom in to assist focus; which is just stupid. Have tried this on a number of Olympus and Panasonic bodies and it just doesn’t work; you are only allowed to use zone focusing, or guesswork on an un-zoomed image. Minus many points for that.
The Olympus 9-18mm has a plastic body which extends, but only after it has been opened by moving a fiddly switch. It’s light but feels a little fragile.
The Panasonic 7-14mm is also plastic; but it feels much more substantial than the 9-18mm. It has a built-in hood, necessary to protect the protruding bulbous lens on which it is impossible to fit a filter.
This makes it look larger than the other lenses, so here they all are with hoods attached; apart from the 9-18mm which doesn’t have one, so I have extended the lens instead (and yes, the ridiculously expensive 12mm optional hood has not been put on straight):
To make a comparison, I set both the zoom lenses to approximately 12mm and all lens to F7.1; and took some shots. Here they are, with 100% crops, all straight out of the camera with no processing:
Olympus 12mm:
Olympus 9-18mm:
Panasonic 7-14mm:
And the loser is… The Olympus 9-18mm. Just does not have the pop of the other two, and I know this not so much from this single photo, but from having lived with it for a couple of years. When I bought it, there was no 12mm available, so it was the 9-18mm or the Panny 7-14mm. The Panasonic was more expensive, bigger, and would not take a filter; a key point when the lens was to be shared with my wife who thinks a handbag is an adequate place to stick a lens when not being used.
But I have never really enjoyed it, and when she isn’t looking, it is going on eBay.
Of the remaining two, I can’t see much difference between the prime and the zoom and both would look really good after a bit of post-processing.
If the 7-14mm is not going to lose on IQ, then it wins points by having the advantage of going really wide; here it is at 7mm from the same shooting position:
Not the best use of 7mm, but very often, when you want to go wide, you want to go as wide as possible; and why limit yourself to 12mm (effective 24mm) when you could have 7mm (effective 14mm).
Ah yes Spike; but what about those F stops, F2 vs F4? Good question dear reader, which I will now attempt to answer.
If you are using longer lenses you often want to use the F stop to limit the depth of field to isolate the subject and blur the background, like this:
*Panasonic GX1 with Olympus 75mm lens at F1.8, ISO 1600 *
But when you are shooting wide, the whole frame is usually your subject and you don’t particularly want to isolate anything; which is just as well because wide lenses already have a greater depth of field than long lenses. Still, there are times when you might want to get up close with a wide angle lens and blur the background, and here is what happens with the two subject lenses:
*Olympus 12mm at F2 *
*Panasonic 7-14mm F4 *
The Olympus is the clear winner here; and of course it would also win if you needed to shoot in low light.
Conclusions:
The Olympus 12mm is small, light and beautiful with great IQ and F2, a significant advantage if you intend shooting in low light regularly or need to maximise subject isolation.
The Panasonic 7-14mm is bigger, wins no beauty competitions and has an exposed lens surface which will need special care. It also has less light available being only F4. But the IQ is great and you have the versatility to go a little bit longer and a lot wider.
What to choose? Whatever works for you. My neighbour Nik chose the 12mm. It looks very sexy attached to his EM-5 and he likes how small it is. But the stupid focus clutch fail annoys him as much as it annoyed me when I tried to use it.
Me? After abandoning the very average 9-18mm, I am very happy with the Panasonic 7-14mm. I find use 7mm more than 50% of the time, and I think the resulting images look great. I don’t plan to shoot indoors (other than for interior shots on a tripod) or in low light, so the F4 is not a concern for me. It is of course the most expensive lens in the test, but you get what you pay for. And you don’t have to pay extra for the hood.
Comments 🔗
2012-08-21| Spanky saysPoint of contention. The 14mm is 2.5 not 2.8. It is a wide lens and struggles with anything closeup. Your flower shot with the 12mm Olympus just isn’t possible on the Panasonic 14mm. I have used it to shoot cars and have stood a meter to a meter and half out and I can get the entire length of the car. It’s also good if you are doing scenic shots of buildings or streets.
The price of a 14mm 2.5 is running $199 on Ebay as they were sold as kit lenses on some cameras and are easily come by. If I had to pick between the 20mm and the 14mm based on price and near enough performance I would take the 14mm because its $100 cheaper.
If you have more money and need a true wide angle shot, like you said the 7-14 does rule them all. Its fantastic for architecture pictures. I plan on taking it to a Porsche show next weekend to capture them in their glory while standing close.
Good post!
2012-08-21| Robin Parmar saysA good overview. The 12mm prime is a thing of beauty but the Achilles heel you pointed out, plus the price, makes it a no-go. I have to say, however, that if you consider the 12mm a wide angle there is no reason not to consider the 14mm likewise. There is little real difference in field use. And my 14mm came in at 100 pounds sterling, which is the bargain of a lifetime.
It is true that one needs to go to the zooms to get real wide angle. I had not heard such negative things about the Olympus 9-18mm and had it flagged as the likely choice. First, because it’s half the price of the Panasonic 7-14mm and second because it’s half the weight. These are two factors that deserve mentioning, since I use an MFT system for its portability. Otherwise, the smart thing to do is step up to a larger sensor for wider images.
I also think the Samyang 7.5mm Fisheye should at least be mentioned, since it is the least expensive way to get the widest image. Since it’s a near-stereographic projection, it “defishes” better than other lenses might.
2012-08-22| Captain Pedantic (aka Clive) saysA nice piece of analysis - and I am inclined to agree with your conclusions. Interesting to see how you fare with the zoom lens offerings given your love of primes…
Just a couple of teensie points of pedantry, to give you that mid-week boost to help keep you going to the weekend…
First, there appears to be a discrepancy between a lens count of 32, as espoused by the linked Micro-Four-Thirds web site, and the 33 lenses suggested over at http://www.dpreview.com/
I do appreciate that it’s dashed inconsiderate of these two publications to disagree on a topic so dear to our hearts. What shall we suggest? Telephotos at dawn?
No, I can’t be arsed to work out what the discrepancy is…
Second [and potentially of more concern to myself and your other reader] is the concept of a choice being needed between one of two lenses… Surely the whole point of my owning an MFT camera is to support it’s desire to be as promiscuous in the optics sense as it can possibly be? None of this stuck-up prudishness of the celibate all-in-ones, right? Not sure how my GX1 would take to opto-monogamy [or even low ratio opto-polygamy]… And what about Nic and his Phalusonic???
I think I need to rush out and by that Panasonic 100-300mm, just to calm my nerves…
;o)
2012-08-23| Spike saysThanks, fixed.
Apart from the focal length, I would suggest that there is large gap between the 14mm and 20mm in terms of performance (not that I have ever used the 14mm). The 20mm is F1.7, is one of the sharpest lenses for M43 and generally regarded as a a classic. The 14mm isn’t.
2012-08-23| Spike saysYou’re right of course, I just couldn’t be arsed straying into 14mm territory; so many damn lenses available at that length.
Stepping up to a larger sensor seems quite a radical and expensive solution; and would you do better than 14mm effective? The 7-14 is on the large size for M43; but still tiny compared to other formats. Didn’t realise you could “de-fish” the Samyang, but does that effectively change the focal length? The first shot of this post was taken at 7mm with the 7-14mm, I find the lack of distortion pretty impressive.
2012-08-23| Spike saysI can’t be arsed either. Yes, of course you should go out and buy as many lenses as possible; god knows I am trying.
2012-08-23| Spanky saysI said near enough. :) The 14 is fun to goof with and for $200 I could not pass it by with free shipping. In thickness your Canon 300mm lens cap is about the same thickness as the lens. So if you want light and cheap its decent enough.
I will admit that the 20 far out performs the 14 but I think it also got knocked because it was sold as a kit lens. The 14 is good for someone that doesn’t have the money for the 20 which I was wrong in saying they are going between $339 and $399 on ebay. If I just laid out for a body and got the crap 14-42 kit lens and needed a prime to get me through, I would snag the 14.
2012-08-23| Spanky saysYou use the Sigma 8mm 3.5 lens profile in Lightroom to de-fisheye it.
Here’s the link http://www.mu-43.com/f92/quick-lightroom-de-fishing-tip-samyang-rokinon-7-5mm-fisheye-users-31417/
This guy also wrote a piece about it but he’s technical as hell with photography and I’m not sure what software he used to do the process. http://m43photo.blogspot.com/2012/03/defishing-fisheye-images.html
2012-08-23| Spike saysCouldn’t be bothered with all that.
2012-08-23| Spanky saysShort answer, select the Sigma 8mm 3.5 to defisheye the Rokinon 7.5. ADHD answer!