Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 22, 2010, 4:46 PM   #1
Member
 
jacobt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 92
Default Which wide lens?

I was itching for another new Zuiko lens these days. I found myself in need of a wider lens, the widest one I have now is the 12-60mm. So I can really use a wider one.

I was debating between either the 9-18mm or 11-22mm. The 7-14mm would be really nice but it's kind of out of the price range. Any suggestions on which one I should get? Pros and cons? Thanks.
jacobt is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 22, 2010, 4:49 PM   #2
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

I dont think the 11-22 is going to give you much over your 12-60.

so i would get the 9-18 if the 7-14 is out of your price range.
__________________
MyFlickr
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2010, 5:06 PM   #3
Member
 
jacobt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 92
Default

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm seriously considering the 9-18mm now. I believe several members here own 9-18mm but I was wondering if the 7-14mm is really that much better since it costs 3x than the 9-18mm
jacobt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2010, 8:58 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: south west pennsylvania
Posts: 415
Default

Jacob, I own both the 12-60mm, & the 9-18mm, when you get this wide every millimeter is a significant change in field of view. while the 9-18mm is a optical wonder because of its small size, it is no match for the 12-60mm/50-200mm type image quality. if I had it to do again I would have gone with the 11-22mm. At 9mm you would not believe how close you actually have to be to get the subject to have any size in the frame. if your shooting portraits, you can get a normal person sitting in a chair filling the frame full body shot about 10 inches from their face with the lens, this is very uncomfortable for most subjects. if your shooting landscapes you are going to need something very interesting in the foreground because mid range & background are rendered extremely small. If you are shooting buildings on cramped city streets or are doing interior shots (although there is vertical distortion) this is where this lens excels & comes into its own. 9mm is a lot less useful than I thought it would be when I bought the lens. just my observations from my own personal use, hope it helps.
Charles
cshanaberger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2010, 9:18 PM   #5
Member
 
jacobt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 92
Default

Thanks Charles, this is the kind of advice I was looking for. Sounds like the 9-18mm lens won't do anything better than the lenses I have already. I'm happy with the IQ for both 12-60 and 50-200mm so may be the 12mm is wide enough for me.

How about the 11-22mm lens? Does that 1mm wider range make any magic in the final field of view?
jacobt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2010, 9:34 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jacobt View Post
Thanks Charles, this is the kind of advice I was looking for. Sounds like the 9-18mm lens won't do anything better than the lenses I have already. I'm happy with the IQ for both 12-60 and 50-200mm so may be the 12mm is wide enough for me.

How about the 11-22mm lens? Does that 1mm wider range make any magic in the final field of view?
What you get with the 11-22 at 11mm is virtually no distortion. The lens is pretty much perfect optically. You know the 12mm setting of the 12-60 is very good and images are nice & sharp, but the distortion can be a little weird at 12mm.

I have the 9-18. Use it with the 12-60 and 50-200 SWD's and utilize it pretty much as a 9mm superwide prime, and the 9mm setting is quite a bit wider than 12mm..

12mm with the 12-60..



9mm with the 9-18..

Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2010, 9:37 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: south west pennsylvania
Posts: 415
Default

As I do not own the 11-22mm I can not say for sure. Because some latitude is given in the industry for specifying the actual field of view 11mm might be closer to the 12mm end of the 12-60mm due to manufacture variances. On the 9-18 mm set at 11 mm the difference is significant to me compared to the 12-60 set at 12mm. most of the time when I'm using the lens, it is in the 10-14mm range, I have got some good "landscape distortion" type shots at 9mm but usually the background is less than 15-20 feet away to make an appealing image.
Charles
cshanaberger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2010, 9:45 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jacobt View Post
Thanks for the suggestion. I'm seriously considering the 9-18mm now. I believe several members here own 9-18mm but I was wondering if the 7-14mm is really that much better since it costs 3x than the 9-18mm
I have not shot the 9-18, so I cannot compare. I do have the 11-22 and it is a good lens, but I never used it enough. I do have the 7-14 and it is a very good lens. It shows more contrast, less CA, and excellent resolution.

The lens is, well, different. It is quirky. Sometimes the corners are very good, sometimes they are a smudge and straight lines bend with the focus.

I like using the lens, but it scares me too. That massive front element cannot be protected and because you need to be close too a subject and a stick covers such a small angle in the viewfinder, you can run it right into the front element as your looking through the viewfinder.

I like the 7-14. I should use it more. It is a different experience and many things you think would be great with the lens turn out to bee too small to be impressive. Be prepared to get VERY close to the subject.

__________________
Greg

https://dogsportphoto.smugmug.com/
fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2010, 10:16 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: south west pennsylvania
Posts: 415
Default

on another note, Greg (fldspringer) touched on this, these lenses can be somewhat dangerous if your viewing through the viewfinder with the other eye closed. I have come close to slipping off ledges because I was to interested in what was in the viewfinder, I could also see how it would be easy to step out into the street in front of traffic with the the camera up to your eye. moral of the story be aware of your surroundings when using very wide angle lenses.
Charles
cshanaberger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23, 2010, 12:13 PM   #10
Member
 
jacobt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 92
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Chappell View Post
What you get with the 11-22 at 11mm is virtually no distortion. The lens is pretty much perfect optically. You know the 12mm setting of the 12-60 is very good and images are nice & sharp, but the distortion can be a little weird at 12mm.

I have the 9-18. Use it with the 12-60 and 50-200 SWD's and utilize it pretty much as a 9mm superwide prime, and the 9mm setting is quite a bit wider than 12mm..
Greg, thanks for the comparison between the 2 lenses. The 9mm view is definitely much wider than the 12mm. But I'm a little concern about the edge distortion and the image quality of the 9-18mm.

Decisions, decisions...
jacobt is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:36 PM.