wide angle: 9-18 vs 11-22

[red]

Purpose: landscape scenery and pasar malam shot.

So i don't know if the extra fast aperture of the 11-22 is of any significance. and if the extra 2mm of the 9-18 should be heavily considered. is it really that big deal?

weatherproof is no use as my camera is not. i want a wide angle that will do justice for a visit to a nice beach or vacation.

people, what do you think?

[shengliang1981]

The extra 2mm is very significant for a UWA lens. I vote for the 9-18mm, the only downside is the build quality.

[mfahrur]

get 9-18mm, f4 is fast enuff.

[CompMac]

9-18mm would suit all your needs.

[blu_by_u]

Simplyrobin was using the 11-22 for 2 days. go ask him.

[red]

how about the IQ between the two?

one good thing about the 11-22 is i can shoot scenes at pasar malam at f2.8.

[mfahrur]

how about the IQ between the two?

one good thing about the 11-22 is i can shoot scenes at pasar malam at f2.8.

IQ? about the same la!

9mm is wide! 11mm is not wide enuff!

get E-620 la to shoot night scenes.

[WONGFK321]

9-18 ...........go for it....disregard the aperture...you will do fine although it is small...:winktongue:

[selamatlzh]

I have tried 7-14, 9-18 and 11-22. My choice is 11-22.

The problem when it is too wide, you will loose on resolution due to our small sensor.
11-22 plus pano stiching will be excellent.

Just my 2 cents :)

[pfjong]

I got my 9-18 4-5.6 for almost two months now. I've used it for night shots at Jonker Street @ ISO800-1000 on my E500, so you can imagine the noise. No problem for me as I find the Luminance noise attractive while I can clean up the chroma noise in lightroom. I set it at 9 as it gives me the result that 'm after (may not for you). Also, the short focal length at 9mm means 1/18s as the rule of thumb before hand-shake kicks in (no problem for me). Of course I would anticipate IS helps.

Also I use it for Sunset, Architecture (interesting distortion which is signature of super wide, and taken me quite some time to get use to the composition with it), landscape and even my baby. Never regreted getting one, in fact very happy about it. At least it works for me. Try it out to see if it suits you. At 72mm, i don't think that is small, though the body looks small. I'm sure 11-22 won't satisfy my need as it is not wide enough for me though I drool over the weather proofing and it is HG lens. In fact, 8mm would be nice, though I don;t feel i need the 7mm.

Not as high resolution as I've anticipated but I never really tried HG or SHG lens either, plus the fact that my camera is only 8 megapixels.

Hope this helps.

[unpro]

i vote for 11-22 because of the extra reach. done weddings with E-1 and 11-22mm and never switched to the 14-54 as the 11-22mm focal range is quite versatile for both wide angle sceneries and some close-up shots. i can do the whole shoot with only one lens. and nothing can substitute a brighter lens. just my dua sen. buy at your own risk.

[red]

thanks for the pointers guys. you see, i'm in a big dilemma as both lenses are in more or less the same focal range and price (11-22 2nd hand la). the extra wide of 9-11 is against the brightness of 11-22. i've heard so many good reviews of the 11-22, some gives the impression that this lens is close to become legendary (with fahrur got it even before getting a dslr) but not many user write up about the 9-18.

yes, i'm still using the E-500 and noise may be an issue but that's not a major problem. the drive for getting a wide angle is because the 14-45 shows some softness at 14mm and that can be frustrating when i'm witnessing a beautiful scene during travels.

so how's the perfomance of both lenses at widest focal length? does the lenses show any pronouce soft spot? how's the color reproduction?

i've tried the 11-22 indoor (LKM's, the master poisoner) and it was very very satisfying with admirable sharpness. but my purchase will mostly driven by outdoor shooting.

[brandoneu]

unpro does have a point. the 11-22 would be good for low light shots. but for me, the wider, the better. hence the 9-18 gets my pick.

[mohd raime]

both lenses are great from olympus. happy shooting.

mine with 11-22 & e500 / e520

http://mychiaroscuro.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2753&d=1251771796

http://mychiaroscuro.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2754&d=1251771796

http://mychiaroscuro.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2755&d=1251771796

http://mychiaroscuro.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2756&d=1251771803

[red]

i've seen some amazing shots from the 11-22 like raime's (i've always admire the periuk kera shot) and have used it briefly in on 2 occassions. but how about the 9-18? i know there are some sample shots on the web but i suspect those photos have been PPed to the point it's difficult to judge the lens' true character. plus, i trust you guys more.

appreciate if owners of both lenses can share their work here as well.

[Urs]

i vote for 11-22 because of the extra reach. done weddings with E-1 and 11-22mm and never switched to the 14-54 as the 11-22mm focal range is quite versatile for both wide angle sceneries and some close-up shots. i can do the whole shoot with only one lens. and nothing can substitute a brighter lens. just my dua sen. buy at your own risk.

I fully agree with the comment of unpro, that the 11-22 is very versatile, if you use it indoor or outdoor. He is absolutely right that nothing can substitute a bright lens. Before I got the Leica 14-50 I used the 11-22 as my standard lens, now I switch between the two. Even outdoor a brighter lens is very useful. If you take the 9-18, then you must have very good reasons like that you really need the 9-10 range because the 11-22 is more a 10-20 as you can see in tests. My choice was and still is 11-22.

[mohd raime]

based on my experience using 11-22mm for almost 2.5 years, it's not just great for lanscape due to its sharpness quality, but also capable for close up. maybe someone can check on minimum focusing distance for both lenses for further info.

another shot of periuk kera using 11-22 and e520. i used +0.3 exposure value to combat backlighting here.

http://mychiaroscuro.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2759&d=1251775949

[pfjong]

Looks like they are really two different lenses. I'll try to post some shots @ 9mm for you to judge if it is the very wide end that you need or the brighter optics (possibly higher resolution?). Give me a couple of days to upload (family man needs to take care of baby :D)

[mfahrur]

Get 9-18mm la...

It's the best bang for the buck...

:willy_nilly:

[red]

Get 9-18mm la...

It's the best bang for the buck...

:willy_nilly:

it's f4-5.6. the 50/f2 kinda spoiled me you know.

[shengliang1981]

it's f4-5.6. the 50/f2 kinda spoiled me you know.

The money that you have saved by buying 9-18mm can used to buy a tripod. F4 no problem! :D

[Urs]

The money that you have saved by buying 9-18mm can used to buy a tripod. F4 no problem! :D

Sorry to disagree with you but as he likes to use it for Pasar Malam as well, then the tripod will be useless there. Certainly to have a tripod is essential, but I think, to have extra brightness with the 11-22 is more important then to have extra wideness.

[mohd raime]

pasar malam - f3.5 and iso 800. i need to test first.

[red]

at widest focal length, that's 2mm and 1 stop difference. wider or brighter. 1 stop worth a lot but so does EFL 4mm at wide angle. i don't think i'll get a tripod and i don't mind the price difference. what's more important is to have the right tool when the right time arrives.

the 9-18 is categorized as an ultra wide angle. is it so much different from 11-22? how about the field of view of these lenses?

i appreciate if 9-18 and 11-22 users can show some pasar malam or bazaar ramadhan photos at near or after dusk.

[Urs]

pasar malam - f3.5 and iso 800. i need to test first.

Why you have to use 800 ISO? Go to the Pasar Malam in the blue hour or better be there latest by 6.30 p.m. take your flash for deep shadow and shoot. It is possible, see my album at my facebook page. These picture were shot with ISO between 100 to max 400, not higher. Most of my pictures are 100 ISO, only dark indoor shots will be 400 ISO, if necessary.

BTW. I have never tested the 9-18, because I feel it is not bright enough for low light conditions. If it would be f2.8 or lower I would consider it.

[Urs]

at widest focal length, that's 2mm and 1 stop difference. wider or brighter. 1 stop worth a lot but so does EFL 4mm at wide angle. i don't think i'll get a tripod and i don't mind the price difference. what's more important is to have the right tool me arrives.

the 9-18 is categorized as an ultra wide angle. is it so much different from 11-22? how about the field of view of these lenses?

i appreciate if 9-18 and 11-22 users can show some pasar malam or bazaar ramadhan photos at near or after dusk.

I'm not sure if you are on facebook, but I guess you are and most probably you already have access to my page as well. Go there and see my Pasar Malam pictures taken with E-3, 11-22 and Leica 14-50 plus Metz 58 AF-1, that should give you an idea. There wide and close-ups.

[shengliang1981]

Sorry to disagree with you but as he likes to use it for Pasar Malam as well, then the tripod will be useless there. Certainly to have a tripod is essential, but I think, to have extra brightness with the 11-22 is more important then to have extra wideness.

I think there are be different ways to shoot a pasar malam. For example:

1) Use long exposure on tripod so that only the static objects such as the pasar malam stalls are sharp but the moving crowd will be blur. I prefer this kind of shots as it is more dynamic.

2) If you want the moving crowd to appear sharp as well, just use the flash with reasonably fast shutter speed but slow enough to retain the ambiance.

3) If don't like to flash but don't want motion blur either, increase ISO to 1600 or higher.

4) If ISO 1600 has too much noise, time to get 5D Mk II and 24mm F1.2L or D700 with 14-24mm F2.8.

[unpro]

why not try shooting pasar malam with your kit lens first and see

a. if 14mm is enough (28mm equiv), then you don't really need as wide as 9mm (18mm equiv)
b. if f/3.5-5.6 is enough for you, then you don't really need as bright as f/2.8-3.5

if i were shooting in events/low light, the 11-22 would be my choice. if i was more casual landscape shooter where i can take my time with my subject and shoot in good light, i'd take the 9-18mm. either way in both conditions i'd still prefer 11-22mm. :D. also partly because i have no experience with the 9-18mm.

[Urs]

I think there are be different ways to shoot a pasar malam. For example:

1) Use long exposure on tripod so that only the static objects such as the pasar malam stalls are sharp but the moving crowd will be blur. I prefer this kind of shots as it is more dynamic.

2) If you want the moving crowd to appear sharp as well, just use the flash with reasonably fast shutter speed but slow enough to retain the ambiance.

3) If don't like to flash but don't want motion blur either, increase ISO to 1600 or higher.

4) If ISO 1600 has too much noise, time to get 5D Mk II and 24mm F1.2L or D700 with 14-24mm F2.8.

Agreed there are several methods to shot a Pasar Melam, it all depends what you like to show. I saw it more from the press angle. Mea culpa. However I still feel, that 400 ISO is the limit, otherwise the object should be flashed. There are very few cases in my view when you have to go higher then 400 ISO like an action of great importance e.g. news. I do not think that scenario No 4 has to be considered, because Olympus in my view still can capture such scenes easily.

[Urs]

why not try shooting pasar malam with your kit lens first and see

a. if 14mm is enough (28mm equiv), then you don't really need as wide as 9mm (18mm equiv)
b. if f/3.5-5.6 is enough for you, then you don't really need as bright as f/2.8-3.5

if i were shooting in events/low light, the 11-22 would be my choice. if i was more casual landscape shooter where i can take my time with my subject and shoot in good light, i'd take the 9-18mm. either way in both conditions i'd still prefer 11-22mm. :D. also partly because i have no experience with the 9-18mm.

Your proposal is most probably the best solution, to spend the money wisely. In the old analog days 28mm was o.k. so why not today? Next step would be to ask a forum member who has a 11-22 and or 9-18 to let you do some test shots with the lenses incl. the kid lens - always use the subject for a fair comparison. Then you can decide , what you like to have.

[WONGFK321]

i asked before why din they construct a 7-14 at F2 or 2.8....well......i am sure there is a reason why it is F4...

1.
2765

2.
2766

[mfahrur]

it's f4-5.6. the 50/f2 kinda spoiled me you know.


I understand, considering 14-35 is 2 stops faster than 7-14.
then get 11-22 la. i used it for 2 yrs. it's wide enuff for people shots. wider is for architecture. 7-14 is not people friendly. 9-18 a touch too slow, i tested it for 7 days.

[shengliang1981]

If IQ is important, you can view the sample images in full resolution for the 9-18mm and 11-22mm here: http://fourthirds-user.com/2008/11/zuiko_digital_918_sample_image_comparisons.php

1) 9-18mm at 11mm F4.2 (Widest aperture): http://fourthirds-user.com/images/144/full_aperture/9-18/P1020985.JPG

2) 11-22mm at 11mm F2.8: http://fourthirds-user.com/images/144/full_aperture/11-22/P1020937.JPG

3) 9-18mm at 11mm F8.0: http://fourthirds-user.com/images/144/f8/9-18/P1020987.JPG

4) 11-22mm at 11mm F8.0: http://fourthirds-user.com/images/144/f8/11-22/P1020940.JPG

[red]

my idea of pasar malam shot is to bring the lens hand held and shoot the people and stalls. well, people are are not that friendly when we set up tripod in front of their stalls but more importantly i find it more fun to go street roaming lightly.

all these while i used the 14-45mm at pasar malam and there are some issues which are prompted me to look for better alternatives:

1. not wide enough. also i cannot get that almost distorted image of pineapples on the stall being shot slanted.
2. noticible softness at 14mm, especially at widest aperture. this is annoying.
3. a bit brighter can be useful since i don't like to use flash outdoor (ok, my FL50 got H1N1). those NGC dudes use leica RF with no flash in tv and it drools me to the bone.
4. prone to flare with back lighting.

the main issues are #1 and #2.

the sample pics from shengliang are very nice for both lenses but i suspect PP was done thoroughly and possible usage of CPL. with my pathetic PP skills, i will be struggling to fix any optical defect. some how i think i can judge better from you guys' sample pics (no, this is in no way suggesting your PP skill is bad :D )

urs, when you use the built-in flash, don't you get uneven lighting if the subject is close? any diffusing technique you employed? pasar malam is probably the toughest of crowd-centric shooting. if it can do pasar malam well, it surely can do other kind of bazaars and cultural places.

fahrur, how do you find the IQ of 11-22 and 9-18 at widest? outdoor la. any difference in AF performance? which gives better color?

wong, 7-14 tak aci la wei!! but f4 indoor is not a problem with flash. i'm thinking of using available light outdoor.

[Urs]

Red, I'm not using the in build flash or better very, very seldom I use it, if I'm not ready to mount the Metz 58 AF-1, because the in-build flash satisfies only it the object is about 1 meter away. With the Metz 58 AF-1 I can control the amount of light, by using Auto with aperture setting at what ever I feel is right normally between F8 - F11. Depending the availble sun light, I may use TTL HSS, just to assist the sun a bit. Most of the time I will flash only indirectly, sometimes using the secondary flash of the 58. Doing so removes shadows not completely but greatly, so that the natural ambiance is retained.

When you go shoting outdoors it makes no sense to carry a tripod for no good reason. In a Pasar Malam or any other outdoor event you have to practice action photography, there is no time for tripods. And as you wrote, it will annoy the people. When they see a DSRL what they think, that tomorrow they will be int he paper. I let them think what they like, sometimes when asked, I explain that the shots are for my wire agency in Europe, and they are happy.

I still recommend, go for 11-22, with this lens you can cover events, landscaps and weddings, what do you need more?

[mfahrur]

fahrur, how do you find the IQ of 11-22 and 9-18 at widest? outdoor la. any difference in AF performance? which gives better color?

wong, 7-14 tak aci la wei!! but f4 indoor is not a problem with flash. i'm thinking of using available light outdoor.

each lens has its quirks.
for UWA, AF speed is not an issue.

9-18 has slight CÅ, 7-14 has unique flare issues. 11-22 has no optical flaw, except for it's only 11mm.

[shengliang1981]

Red, looking at your requirements, I believe the 11-22mm will suit you better, if the 11mm is really wide enough for you. For me, I already have the 12-60mm, so I will not consider the 11-22mm as it is only 1mm difference. I previously used the 11-22mm and 14-54mm (both are great lenses) but have switched to 12-60mm as it is much more convenient with the trade-off of 1mm and more distortion.

[red]

each lens has its quirks.
for UWA, AF speed is not an issue.



pasar malam shooting need reliable AF. cannot afford the lens to go hunting.

[mfahrur]

pasar malam shooting need reliable AF. cannot afford the lens to go hunting.

i never heard UWA lens hunt before.. :D

[brandoneu]

i still don't understand what's the big deal about this thread. 9-18, 11-22, 7-14, they're all good and sharp. I'm sure you've tried most of the lenses before, red. the only time when you can really know if a lens is suitable is by purchasing one and using it thoroughly yourself, and i'm afraid just borrowing another person's lens is not enough. one person's advice may be another man's poison. if you don't like it, just resell it to someone who may want it, and move on to the next one.

cheers.

[blu_by_u]

Well said. All 3 lenses are good..it's actually one own preference. Now why did I not bring that 7-14 to Melaka??

[pfjong]

Originally Posted by red
pasar malam shooting need reliable AF. cannot afford the lens to go hunting.
i never heard UWA lens hunt before.. :D

So far I haven't experience any hunting issue that I'm aware of yet with the 9-18 for the night street shot (@ Jonker Street after 8:15pm) as well as inside a restaurant (around 8pm).

Well said. All 3 lenses are good..it's actually one own preference. Now why did I not bring that 7-14 to Melaka??

And also for quite different purposes ;)


i still don't understand what's the big deal about this thread. 9-18, 11-22, 7-14, they're all good and sharp. I'm sure you've tried most of the lenses before, red. the only time when you can really if a lens is suitable is by purchasing one and using it thoroughly yourself, and i'm afraid just borrowing another person's lens is not enough. one person's opinion may be another man's poison. if you don't like it, just resell it to someone who may want it.

cheers.


I understand Red's "dilemma" as I went through that before :D We try to spend "as wisely as possible" as even a brand new electronics commodity's second hand value won't be that encouraging :he: (2nd hand good copy can be a good idea) Other than borrowing lenses to try them, discussion is another route w/o one burning $$, albeit you may got the confusion. Interesting thread, we only need to discuss this once. Good for future reference too. :sifone:

[red]

aiyoo brandon, i'm trying to get it right by buying it just once. imagine if i grumble to my wife about not happy with the new lens and i need to buy another. later have to sleep outside for a week. :D

i agree that to understand a lens is to own one and fully using it. generally it took me 2-3 months to get comfortable with a new lens with around 3000-5000 frames shot. i guess nothing much can go wrong between 11-22 and 9-18 but i just hate it if later i say, "dengg i should have thought of this earlier!"

so we don't have hunting problem so that's good.

i'm still not very convinced that the IQ of 9-18 can match that of 11-22. so far most of the images from 11-22 are magnificent (sharpness, contrast, color bla blaaa) but haven seen any from 9-18 that can match the classic blue from 11-22. please prove i'm wrong.

[pfjong]

All shots taken with 9-18.

#1. Lr-2: @18mm, F/8, 1/320s, ISO100, EV-0.3 [developed from single ORF file, among the first shots taken with 9-18]
#2. Lr-7058662: @9mm, F/4, 1/20s, ISO200, EV-0.7 [almost the first shot taken with 9-18]
#3. Lr-8089086: @9mm, F/4, 1/10s, ISO1000, EV+0.3, 8.42pm
#4. Lr-8089094: @9mm, F/4, 1/125s, ISO800, EV0, 8.52pm
#5. Lr-8089103: @9mm, F/4, 1/50s, ISO800, EV0, 8.59pm

3, 4 & 5 taken at Jonker street.

more to come...

[pfjong]

b1. Lr-8089108: 9mm, f/4, 1/10s, iso800, ev0
b2. Lr-8239174: 9mm, f/8, 1/40s, iso100, ev0
b3. Lr-8249205: 9mm, f/8, 1/250, iso100, ev-1.7 [i was wearing sunglasses with deep yellow filter; pped according to what i see thru the glass]
b4. Lr-8299253: 9mm, f/5.6, 1/160s, iso100, evo
b5. Lr-8299264: 9mm, f/7.1, 1/500s, iso100, ev-0.7

all jpeg files managed thru lightroom

a few more...

[pfjong]

c1. Lr-8299283: 9mm, f/4, 1/800s, iso100, ev-0.3
c2. Lr-8299289: 9mm, f/8, 1/80, iso100, ev0
c3. Lr-8299312: 11mm, f/8, 1/80, iso100, ev0
c4. Lr-8299368: 9mm, f/5.6, 1/2s iso100, ev0

all shots jpegs, hand-held, last one lean against a pillar. All jpegs are almost like the final results that you see here. Taking the shots at the right time of the day matters most vs the contrast a lens can produce. After all, this is Olympus + ZD lens, it can't be wrong.

all Dutch square & Quay shots taken last Saturday, while waiting for Blu, only to find that he was having dinner with his family during the golden hour, hmmm. Too bad can;t test the Sigma 105 & 150 for candid shots :S

[shengliang1981]

pfjong, those are very nice pictures. b1. Lr-8089108 shows that it is also capable for shooting pasar malam scene. i need to get a 9-18mm soon, simply an impressive lens.. :drool5:

[pfjong]

additional notes:
Like Urs said, when using flash, even my 14-45 lowest grade ZD lens can produce amazing (to me at least) sharp images (resolution is another story but at 8 megapixels, I hardly notice it).

I also wish my lens has F1.4 or F2 or even F2.8 too bad still too painful for me to fork out $$ to invest. I'm hoping to get 14-54 II, Sigma 105 and ZD50-200. That is scary RM 8000++ if buying 1st hand! Furthermore, E-p1 *is* tempting.

I forgot to mention also, I ever tested 7-14 from Blu, it is really sharp (my impression) but the time for the shots were not right, 8.30pm ++ & dark, so can't really tell the resolution in day time. Comparing images not taken by the same camera & person and time & place & PP really make a lot of difference, to the point it is no longer worth to judge a lens by that, other than may be the angle of view (how much it can swallow the scene)

cheers.

[simplyrobin]

Hey Red,

Blu was kind enough to lend me his 11-22 for two days in Malacca and Muar. I did use it extensively, and this is my first time having used a wide angle lens for such a long time.

I got to say in terms of IQ this lens is really good. Its a heck lot sharper than my other lenses (all standard lenses lah.. so sad). I have not shot much with a 9-18mm, so I cannot really tell you how this 11-22 compare with the 9-18. Nonetheless, I am very pleased with how the 11-22 performed, and yes, if you want pasar malam, F2.8 is very very helpful !!

Here are some sample shots I have taken while shooting along with Blu, Moli and Fishee during last weekend at Malacca walkabout. All photos shown here were taken with Blu's 11-22, handheld. Thanks blu !!!

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/357/8290178.jpg (http://img198.imageshack.us/i/8290178.jpg/)

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/2912/8290322.jpg (http://img198.imageshack.us/i/8290322.jpg/)

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/24/8290294.jpg (http://img198.imageshack.us/i/8290294.jpg/)

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/6345/8290275.jpg (http://img198.imageshack.us/i/8290275.jpg/)

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/7030/8290282.jpg (http://img198.imageshack.us/i/8290282.jpg/)

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/4273/8290320.jpg (http://img198.imageshack.us/i/8290320.jpg/)

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/4883/8290188.jpg (http://img198.imageshack.us/i/8290188.jpg/)


If it is really that hard to decide, all thoughts and ideas may seem overwhelming. The best thing to do is grab yourself a copy of the lens (im sure we have a few members who own either 9-18 or 11-22) and try it on yourself and see which one suits you best. Let your own camera do the talking.

If I were to choose, I would appreciate the 2mm wideness the 9-18mm provides. That 2mm can make a lot of difference. But that is just me.

Hope this helps. Cheers mate.

[simplyrobin]

Comparing images not taken by the same camera & person and time & place & PP really make a lot of difference, to the point it is no longer worth to judge a lens by that, other than may be the angle of view (how much it can swallow the scene)

cheers.

pjfong, I cannot agree more with that statement. So many variables in the equation, it does not produce a very representative comparison result. Red, like I mentioned, if you do not want to regret buying either lenses, try them both out. You cannot go wrong with this.

[brandoneu]

I told pfjong once that the IQ of the 9-18 is very very similar to the 7-14, and it won't burn a hole in your wallet. There's almost no noticeable difference, really. Though being a kit lens, it employs advanced technologies, such as Dual Super Aspherical glass, so its sharp as. Do you want a wider field of view or do you want weather sealing + plus brighter aperture? its up to you to decide of course.

we have to be aware that sometimes our idea of ''image quality'' = nice pictures, and we have to separate that from the actual optical quality of the lens. For example, anyone can take a crap photo with the 7-14, but technically the image is very good, aka. correct exposure, sharpness, etc. Sometimes, i admit i am seduced my pictures rather than what the lens is (which is not very good btw). cheers.

[mfahrur]

just get 11-22 la... you wanna shoot people, not architecture...

it's wet, it's wild... it's fast...
:rain: :willy_nilly::f_biker:

[blu_by_u]

Those 9-18 pics are beautiful. I am more convinced to get it and dump that heavy 7-14..If only I can find a buyer willing to pay me the price I am asking :(

[shengliang1981]

Those 9-18 pics are beautiful. I am more convinced to get it and dump that heavy 7-14..If only I can find a buyer willing to pay me the price I am asking :(

Not sure what is your asking price. I don't mean to low ball, but my max budget is only MYR3,600 (or SGD1,500) for the 7-14, or else I just have to be content with buying the 9-18 (still want to wait for a used piece or price to drop a bit more). Can PM me if that's ok with u. :D

[brandoneu]

Not sure what is your asking price. I don't mean to low ball, but my max budget is only MYR3,600 (or SGD1,500) for the 7-14, or else I just have to be content with buying the 9-18 (still want to wait for a used piece or price to drop a bit more). Can PM me if that's ok with u. :D
i thought a 7-14 does come by occasionally in clubsnap. its a wonder how miserly we can be, even when we have a couple of SHG lenses in our dry boxes [myself included, of course] :)

[shengliang1981]

i thought a 7-14 does come by occasionally in clubsnap. its a wonder how miserly we can be, even when we have a couple of SHG lenses in our dry boxes [myself included, of course] :)

Those good deals at Clubsnap always come at the wrong time for me. :( Btw, I don't own any SHG lenses... :willy_nilly:

[brandoneu]

eh.. isn't a 35-100 considered a SHG lens ? :S

[shengliang1981]

eh.. isn't a 35-100 considered a SHG lens ? :S

Maybe u have misunderstood.. :) I do have have some pictures taken with 35-100, but the lens is not mine. But I have to admit I did bought the 35-100 once on impulse but only kept it for a few weeks before letting go to Cicak...

[brandoneu]

Maybe u have misunderstood.. :) I do have have some pictures taken with 35-100, but the lens is not mine. But I have to admit I did bought the 35-100 once on impulse but only kept it for a few weeks before letting go to Cicak...
ah.. my apologies. such a pity for you to let it go...

[red]

Comparing images not taken by the same camera & person and time & place & PP really make a lot of difference, to the point it is no longer worth to judge a lens by that, other than may be the angle of view (how much it can swallow the scene)

cheers.

that's true. that is why i want to see the output from screw2 members because i know your style, equipment etc to a certain extent compared to photos by strangers.

[blu_by_u]

7-14. Carried this amazing lens to Harbin.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2409/2208883741_d8c2cc1671.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2010/2209685644_6a67825a88.jpg

[unpro]

Some of my 11-22mm samples here. do note that i PP my photos like crazy.

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/unpro/tags/zuiko

now i jumped ship to tokina 12-24mm. there's a 4mm difference (18mm vs 22mm in 35mm equiv.) between them and i barely notice the difference (no, didn't have both of them at the same time to test, so a side-by-side comparison would be better to show how big a difference 4mm is). so i would say the 11-22mm was wide enough for my stlye and use.

good luck choosing la, bro. regardless of your choice i'm sure we'll see some amazing photos from you.

[blu_by_u]

RED!!! a 11-22 on sale here in screw2...http://mychiaroscuro.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3002

[red]

thank you friends for your inputs about the lenses. both seems to be excellent lenses and i hope to try them again soon.

otherwise you can give me enough duit raya to but both.

[pfjong]

Hi fellow chiaroscurians,

Here is an interesting field of view simulator, aka lensfinder, from Olympus @
http://www.olympus.co.uk/consumer/208_21614.htm

happy shooting :)

p/s: Blu, that two Harbin shots are very nice (especially the second one) why bother to sell it? It ain't that big. If budget is not the constraint, I'd have bought the 7-14. How much is the trip? When is the best time to tour the place? (pardon my out of topic questions :P PM me)

[blu_by_u]

Hi fellow chiaroscurians,

Here is an interesting field of view simulator, aka lensfinder, from Olympus @
http://www.olympus.co.uk/consumer/208_21614.htm

happy shooting :)

Nice simulator..if only I can point it to some Malaysian scenery :D


p/s: Blu, that two Harbin shots are very nice (especially the second one) ..... How much is the trip? When is the best time to tour the place? (pardon my out of topic questions :P PM me)

Thank you for the comments..As usual, I made so careless mistakes in my shooting..forgot to stop down to f8 for those star shots :(

My tour was in early 2008 I think it cost me around RM6k for that trip. The theme for that year's ice lantern festival was the Beijing Olympics. This year (2009) was Disney.Not sure what is this year's theme.

The best time would be around end Dec/ January period. If you go too early, those carvings may not be ready and too late, it would have melted. Temp was around -23 to -27 Celsius.. It was fun not feeling my nose. hehehe

You can see all my Harbin shots here. http://www.flickr.com/photos/blu_pages/sets/72157603729088881/

[red]

turned out i was poisoned by the 7-14

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m37/metaurus/P1011845.jpg

[blu_by_u]

turned out i was poisoned by the 7-14
http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m37/metaurus/P1011845.jpg
Start saving :na:

[Cicak]

Start saving :na:

:whistle::willy_nilly::whistle::willy_nilly: :whistle:

[brandoneu]

what was supposed to be a 11-22 or 9-18 thread turned out to be a 7-14... lol

[Cicak]

what was supposed to be a 11-22 or 9-18 thread turned out to be a 7-14... lol

what to do... somebody wanna sell his 7-14:lol:

[superman]

Fuyoh...this has gone out of hand...haih...

[innerzen]

Fuyoh...this has gone out of hand...haih...

Out of hand? What is out of hand? A 7-14 out of someone's hand and some money out of Red's hand, fair a square. :whistle:

[mfahrur]

haiya get 14-24/2.8 la!

[brandoneu]

lets give some encouragement to red, shall we :). with the 7-14, u can get glorious 14mm equivalent FOV without need for painstaking panoramic techniques, at just a click of a button. voila!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3481/3814569137_c5c7af72b0_o.jpg
kuching from above

[Cicak]

Red, You are dead. They are zooming in to trap you with the 7-14:willy_nilly:

[brandoneu]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3441/3406579504_00a4c8fce4_o.jpg

beautiful blue skies at a click of a button, without polarisers, at 14mm [i applied a gradient filter in PP, but u get what i mean :)

[WONGFK321]

Start saving :na:

i believe that blu is more than ready to let go his unit ....:callme::spank:

[red]

i admire the 7-14 and can imagine a lot of great scenery to shoot with it. but even if i sell my entire gear i cannot finance it. mimpi aje la.

if things go right (there's a 20-30% chance it might be), i'll grab a wide angle before raya so i can shoot the shores of nenasi on my way from kuantan to batu pahat. last year i used the 14-45 and i think it didn't do justice to the beautiful scene. neither is my crappy skill but that's a different story. this is what i mean.

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m37/metaurus/PA038453.jpg

14-45 is a good kit lens, better than most other out there. but after many years together i found several limitations which limit growth. i find the constraint is more in the lens, thus embarked on the search for the suitable wide angle. below is a pic taken last year with the 14-45 which i think is nice but how i wish i had something with better IQ and a bit wider.

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m37/metaurus/P1012041.jpg

[innerzen]

Red your picture are very underexposed. The left side not exposed, the right not exposed not to mention the top and bottom.

You need an exposing lens 7-14. :rofl:

[pfjong]

Red,

Sunday night I was at Bukit Beruang's (Melaka) mamak stall and the light was dim, which prompted me to think if Ramadhan Bazaar is also in the same kind of lighting. So I guess the 11-22's bright aperture might be the right choice for you. And judging from your photos, the 11mm end may be enough to meet your need.

The decision is yours.

happy shootings :)

[mfahrur]

just get the 11-22mm la!

[roger]

yes yes..get the 11-22.....then I can borrow..

[Cicak]

i am seriously considering the 9-18mm... pls comment, will appreciate especially negatives ones:p

[mfahrur]

i am seriously considering the 9-18mm... pls comment, will appreciate especially negatives ones:p

negative? this is easy.
1. It's not full frame
2. It's not full frame
3. It's a 4/3

[brandoneu]

OK.. negatives

1. It is cheaper than a 7-14
2. It is lighter than a 7-14
3. smaller than a 7-14
4. no self polarizing effect compared to 7-14 (u need try 7-14 to believe it)
5. you need to put filters compared to 7-14
6. no weather sealing compare to 7-14, cheap plastic construction
7. variable aperture compare to 7-14
8. not as wide as 7-14
9. no oomph compared to SHG lens, and u dont' have bragging rights

when i think of some more, i will add to this :p

[Cicak]

OK.. negatives

1. It is cheaper than a 7-14
2. It is lighter than a 7-14
3. smaller than a 7-14
4. no self polarizing effect compared to 7-14 (u need try 7-14 to believe it)
5. you need to put filters compared to 7-14
6. no weather sealing compare to 7-14, cheap plastic construction
7. variable aperture compare to 7-14
8. not as wide as 7-14
9. no oomph compared to SHG lens, and u dont' have bragging rights


when i think of some more, i will add to this :p

1,2,3 is positive
4 is a good point
5 i dont use filters
6 my 510 is also not weather-sealed
7 i buy this lense for the 9mm not the 18mm, so 18mm f/5.6 does not bother me at all
8 9mm is wide enough for me
9 i dont need bragging rights, i need stunning photos

Plese add more. thanks

[Cicak]

negative? this is easy.
1. It's not full frame
2. It's not full frame
3. It's a 4/3

errr dont know how to respond. thanks

[brandoneu]

errr dont know how to respond. thanks
no need to respond. just wait for him to jump ship to a 14-24 /2.8, then u can get his 7-14 ! :p

[CompMac]

Just buy it! :willy_nilly:

[brandoneu]

negative? this is easy.
1. It's not full frame
2. It's not full frame
3. It's a 4/3
Actually, I would prefer if we could avoid the question of FF cameras altogether, because it doesn't make sense to discuss it in this thread when we're actually debating about Olympus lenses. I suggest that those who rave about full frame get one themselves, and shut up. Please excuse me for being direct.

[mfahrur]

just get the 11-22 la...

i got it in blind faith also... bought the lens before owning a body!

:D

[Cicak]

just get the 11-22 la...

i got it in blind faith also... bought the lens before owning a body!

:D

You have sold it:p ... because?

You have found something better:)

[blu_by_u]

You have sold it:p ... because?.....
Keat offered him something he could not resist. :glasses:

[mfahrur]

You have sold it:p ... because?

You have found something better:)

solded 11-22 to finance 35-100.
boughted 7-14 with special funds.

[red]

if i can see some stunning pics from 9-18, it might sway me.

[innerzen]

U didn't see CCh11's posting ?

[red]

i mean daylight shot with "polarized" sky.

[brandoneu]

i think u have to put an actual polariser on for that one. yes, there'a tendency for us to be swayed by nice pics and not by the actual properties of the lens itself, as i've said.

[mfahrur]

i mean daylight shot with "polarized" sky.

red, more than 24mm (in FF terms la), skies will be funny.. because of the different blue hues by the position of the sun...

polarizers will make it worse...


:whistle:

[red]

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/357/8290178.jpg (http://img198.imageshack.us/i/8290178.jpg/)



http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/4883/8290188.jpg (http://img198.imageshack.us/i/8290188.jpg/)



this is what i mean. 11-22 is known to produce this sort of sky but i've never seen such from 9-18 despite the claims that their IQ are more or less similar. if 9-18 can give this kind of output, it's pretty much end game.

[CompMac]

You still have to take into consideration whether the pictures have been PP-ed or not.

[brandoneu]

this is what i mean. 11-22 is known to produce this sort of sky but i've never seen such from 9-18 despite the claims that their IQ are more or less similar. if 9-18 can give this kind of output, it's pretty much end game.
not my pictures. just explore flickr and type in 9-18. the sky looks just as blue. please end the game soon :)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3105/2924399257_a80fcece74.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3145/3000587788_69ab098c58.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3062/2967420536_b8c84b5a9c.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2508/3691482552_959085efb7.jpg

[Cicak]

deng Brandon please ceasefire...those 9-18 pics are superb! but then i think 14-42 also can do that? no?

[blu_by_u]

Forget those non SHG..just get that 7-14.

[innerzen]

Haiya, just like E P1, put 7-14, 11-22 and 9-18 into a blender and out come a 6-26mm f2. Stop fighting...:whistle:

[mohd raime]

my 14-45 with e500

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3353/3475676772_cc9dd0e788_o.jpg

[tkp13]

Bluesky? 11-22?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3306/3299786314_a54e8cf42a_b.jpg

Very very minor PP if not mistaken. =P

[simplyrobin]

You still have to take into consideration whether the pictures have been PP-ed or not.

The reason for the deep blue sky is because of the high shutter speed being used. It was near sunset, the sun light was rather intense, being reflected off the mosque, thus high shutter speed is needed to tone down the exposure. The sun was at the opposite direction, hence the sky was already very dark behind the mosque. During mid day, this effect would not be possible, unless you use 9-18 or 7-14.

[tkp13]

This is the website I bookmarked when I was contemplating between 11-22mm and 9-18mm. Hope it helps.

http://torontowide.blogspot.com/2008/11/user-review-of-olympus-zuiko-9-18mm.html

[brandoneu]

This is the website I bookmarked when I was contemplating between 11-22mm and 9-18mm. Hope it helps.

http://torontowide.blogspot.com/2008/11/user-review-of-olympus-zuiko-9-18mm.html
fulamak.. suddenly the pictures become larger.. whats this ar... :S

that torontowide guy also got a 35-100. are you contemplating one too, T-13 ? :p

[tkp13]

35-100? Nah, EP1 first. =P

[red]

You still have to take into consideration whether the pictures have been PP-ed or not.

i know only unpro and cif can do PP here. that's why samples from screw2 members are more trustworthy and natural, except those two mentioned. :D

[CompMac]

Me do PP? You gotta be kidding me... :duh:

I'm a naturalist photographer, mind you... :D

[unpro]

ya la.. where got PP. add contrast aje.

[mfahrur]

Let's start with 9-18mm....

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1039/3164939723_a2aafe910d.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1123/3166408360_2607cce9dc.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3082/3165616229_fa30eb7b54.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3128/3165609561_6cdc4b5565.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1044/3165644461_aa04916570.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1043/3166485582_3d89c53990.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3084/3164959477_83b689b314.jpg

[mfahrur]

Then, continue with 11-22mm...

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1208/574032685_7bfe36b1c0.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2096/2104212285_482cb4bb68.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2335/1683481665_d70fa7e40a.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/106/296051209_06b532aa41.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2170/2446005432_047d53e41c.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/105/271039347_5f98c6ed34.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2407/2217661909_de3827728d.jpg

[mfahrur]

... and finish off with 7-14mm.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3395/3432687941_9579cda2b3.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3563/3432630979_049c023959.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3461/3766773085_e0b28c8673.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3562/3766835005_d290466b63.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3393/3594551861_9dc235e1c8.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3654/3643136324_f7d75e0e1b.jpg

:duh:

[dr_shivan]

i know only unpro and cif can do PP here. that's why samples from screw2 members are more trustworthy and natural, except those two mentioned. :D

yeah :iagree:.. both are sifu PP.. unpro superb HDR display, Chief at SKII

:drool5::drool5:

[CompMac]

fahrur showing serious poison.... I wonder how red is gonna handle them... :willy_nilly:

[blu_by_u]

There you have it...All 3 lenses from all 3 groups. Std, HD and SHG. :congrats:

[red]

there's still no "blue sky" from 9-18 as compared to 11-22. is this lens uncapable to produce it?

[mohd raime]

11-22mm with e520. no PP, just resize plus info on camera setting

www.flickr.com/photos/mohdraime

[blu_by_u]

As mentioned, 7-14 is the way to go..you tried it and got hopelessly poisoned. You won't be satisfied with anything less.

[red]

7-14 out of league la.

anyone has 9-18 with nice blue sky?

[CompMac]

Blue skies can be taken with any standard lens... You need the right conditions though. Heck, I've even taken blue blue skies with my C-750UZ. But they are in UK lar~~ :he:

[brandoneu]

there's still no "blue sky" from 9-18 as compared to 11-22. is this lens uncapable to produce it?
i don't get this. the blue sky is obviously due to the weather. why is this a major deciding factor in the first place, when whats more important is that this is a good standard grade lens, and the field of view is wider than the 11-22? are we getting swayed by pictures again? someone please lend red a 9-18.. :S

[Cicak]

i don't get this. the blue sky is obviously due to the weather. why is this a major deciding factor in the first place, when whats more important is that this is a good standard grade lens, and the field of view is wider than the 11-22? are we getting swayed by pictures again? someone please lend red a 9-18.. :S

i am definitely swayed by pictures i take but not by others that i can see but cant take even if i have that lense:D

[blu_by_u]

7-14 out of league la.

anyone has 9-18 with nice blue sky?

If there is no blu sky..ie cloudy, there is no way for even a 7-14 to give you a blue sky. Unless you fake it in with post editing.

Just bear this in mind.. 11-22, 9-18, you have the chance to add a polarizer. You can also add gradient filters. With a 7-14, you are out of luck.

If you intend to shoot in bad weather, then only that 11-22. It's weather sealed.

[innerzen]

I offered to loan him mine , he ignored me. :(

[CompMac]

If there is no blu sky..ie cloudy, there is no way for even a 7-14 to give you a blue sky. Unless you fake it in with post editing.

Just bear this in mind.. 11-22, 9-18, you have the chance to add a polarizer. You can also add gradient filters. With a 7-14, you are out of luck.

If you intend to shoot in bad weather, then only that 11-22. It's weather sealed.

7-14 also weather-sealed what... :p

[red]

I offered to loan him mine , he ignored me. :(

because i know it's a bait to fish the overdue serena cd. :D later la i send you the cd and pikap the lens.

i know la blue sky is because weather condition. but it's also depends on the lens properties some how, ie my 14-45 cannot produce a blue sky as good as an 11-22 even when the sky is blue. the 9-18 blue sky on flickr shows traces of PP and does not look as natural as simplyrobin's using 11-22.

so, is the lack of blue sky in shots taken with 9-18 is due to uncooperative weather or it's simply unable to produce blue sky?

[CompMac]

All lenses can produce blue skies... 14-42, 40-150, 14-54, 50-200, etc...

[mzairi]

I have been using 9-18mm since April this year .... now, it replaces 14-54mm as my main lens :)

Some sample photos (with E3)
(all photos were PPed -> ACR - Crop(if required) - Saturation(if required) - brightness/contrast - unsharp mask):

1. Kuala Abang, Terengganu:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3586/3596152057_c213e10e9c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zairi/3596152057/)

2. Red Sea, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3403/3565246470_3103716346.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zairi/3565246470/)

3. Sunset @ Putrajaya

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2524/3769840537_9a86e9b39b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zairi/3769840537/)

4. Sunset @ Putrajaya

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3552/3780248736_b75af219fa.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zairi/3780248736/)

5. Rumah di Kampung, Kundang Patah, Raub, Pahang

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2483/3697436719_25c7ba39a7.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zairi/3697436719/)

6. McD, Teluk Cempedak, Kuantan, Pahang

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3308/3617538815_f5bc278750.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zairi/3617538815/)

7. McD, Teluk Cempedak, Kuantan, Pahang

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3657/3591756607_fdc9fd8dc0.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zairi/3591756607/)

More photos at my flickr ...
Most of my recent landscape/waterfall/river shots were done with the lens.
-> http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=12741091%40N00&q=9-18mm&m=text


Red, since you want to pair the UWA with E500 and also to do pasar malam shots, I would suggest you go for 11-22mm. Unless you have body with good high ISO + IS capabilities. Just my 2 cents.

[innerzen]

Red, Serena said she is going to do you RAW. :eck13:





why that sentence sound more sexy than hostile wan?

BTW, CCH11 is having my 9-18 now

[dr_shivan]

sounds kinky.. wakakak..:spank::willy_nilly:

[red]

Red, Serena said she is going to do you RAW. :eck13:





why that sentence sound more sexy than hostile wan?

BTW, CCH11 is having my 9-18 now

wait until i buka puasa first la.

now mzairi shots are what i've been waiting for! those are great shots that did justice to the lens. but i think (i might be wrong) the blue from 11-22 is slightly more cun. looks deeper and crispier.

[dr_shivan]

Red, you will need a side by side comparison of the same photo taken by both lense.
so you can outrule the weather factors of the location, clouds, haze, etc.. that diminish the blue sky that you wanted.

[Cicak]

Red, you will need a side by side comparison of the same photo taken by both lense.
so you can outrule the weather factors of the location, clouds, haze, etc.. that diminish the blue sky that you wanted.

yup agree totally, who got 9-18 11-22 and 7-14? we do an outdoor landscape, indoor low light, indoor portrait, outdoor portrait, indoor architecture and outdoor architecture comparison:D

[Cicak]

these are my main concerns indoor low light, indoor portrait, outdoor portrait, indoor architecture:whistle:

[red]

Red, you will need a side by side comparison of the same photo taken by both lense.
so you can outrule the weather factors of the location, clouds, haze, etc.. that diminish the blue sky that you wanted.

ideally that's the kind of comparison test we want to do. but without the luxury of a controlled experiment, i am looking at how good the lens can do in several different attributes. say for example the "blue sky test", the best photos from 11-22 outclass the best from 9-18 so far that i can see. of course we have to give the benefit of the doubt that 11-22 has been in the game for a lot longer thus the output pool is bigger. but i just need to see a few un/lightly-edited shots from 9-18 with crisp blue sky to prove that the lens can do it.

[blu_by_u]

just go borrow that lens and shoot. If you come to shah alam, I bring that 11-22 and 7-14

[red]

just go borrow that lens and shoot. If you come to shah alam, I bring that 11-22 and 7-14

that would be great, in fact we can bring all the UWA lenses one day to one nice outdoor location and do comparison test with controlled settings, maybe a comparison with various bodies.

[blu_by_u]

borrow that 9-18, we shoot this together on a Saturday Afternoon. :D
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/164/403350849_a88ab85ce7.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1285/1133101514_4188a13367.jpg

[mfahrur]

don't waSte your time.
just get 11-22.

9-18 got barrel, just look at the LRT pics.

[brandoneu]

don't waSte your time.
just get 11-22.

9-18 got barrel, just look at the LRT pics.
barrel will definitely be at widest focal length, 9mm. the 7-14 also got barrel distortion at 7mm, so i often use 8mm instead.

[brandoneu]

these are my main concerns indoor low light, indoor portrait, outdoor portrait, indoor architecture:whistle:
for low light, u need the other f2 lens :p

[red]

for low light, u need the other f2 lens :p

like mine. :p

[mfahrur]

usually barrel is strong at close focus. and 9-18 is very weak here.
my 7-14 has no barrel, unless pixel peep.
some of my samples have grid lines like tiles, poles & columns. just judge yourself.
as for blu sky, my 11-22 mostly have CPL on.
bottom line, you get what you pay for.
as i have always said, just get the 11-22!

but from what i gather from your requirements, only one lens on earth can meet your needs. it's the Nikkor ED AF-S 14-24mm F2.8D <N>.

[tkp13]

red mohd raime is selling 11-22...just grab it la

[mfahrur]

red mohd raime is selling 11-22...just grab it la

yea.. grab it!!

to me, the 11-22 should be an SHG lens!!!

it's that good!!!

[tkp13]

yea.. grab it!!

to me, the 11-22 should be an SHG lens!!!

it's that good!!!

:iagree: :lol:

[red]

yea.. grab it!!

to me, the 11-22 should be an SHG lens!!!

it's that good!!!

why? SHG zooms all are constant aperture.

[mfahrur]

why? SHG zooms all are constant aperture.

7-14 is not even f3.5!

[red]

7-14 is not even f3.5!

but constant f4 ma. :D

is it internal zooming? i know it's barely relevant but just curious.

[brandoneu]

but constant f4 ma. :D

is it internal zooming? i know it's barely relevant but just curious.
the lens element does move a little while zooming. otherwise its size is constant.

[mfahrur]

but constant f4 ma. :D

is it internal zooming? i know it's barely relevant but just curious.


at least 11mm f2.8... 7-14 cannot do that...

think about it...:diablo:

[brandoneu]

I have tried 7-14, 9-18 and 11-22. My choice is 11-22.

The problem when it is too wide, you will loose on resolution due to our small sensor.
11-22 plus pano stiching will be excellent.

Just my 2 cents :)
sorry if i'm digging up old posts.

9-18 losing resolution due to small sensor? dpreview (http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/olympus_9-18_4-5p6_o20/page3.asp) says otherwise.

"Sharpness results are impressive, with high consistency across the frame at all focal lengths, and notably little decline in sharpness towards the corners. Best results are actually obtained wide open, with the image progressively softening due to diffraction on stopping down. As usual on Four Thirds, F16 and especially F22 are best avoided."

Conclusion - Pros

High image quality - decently sharp from centre to corner even wide open
Extremely low distortion
Essentially no falloff/vignetting
Small and lightweight
Conclusion - Cons

Moderate chromatic aberration (although not excessive for an ultra-wide)

[simplyrobin]

sorry if i'm digging up old posts.

9-18 losing resolution due to small sensor? dpreview (http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/olympus_9-18_4-5p6_o20/page3.asp) says otherwise.

"Sharpness results are impressive, with high consistency across the frame at all focal lengths, and notably little decline in sharpness towards the corners. Best results are actually obtained wide open, with the image progressively softening due to diffraction on stopping down. As usual on Four Thirds, F16 and especially F22 are best avoided."

Conclusion - Pros

High image quality - decently sharp from centre to corner even wide open
Extremely low distortion
Essentially no falloff/vignetting
Small and lightweight
Conclusion - Cons

Moderate chromatic aberration (although not excessive for an ultra-wide)

I believe resolution should not be an issue for any Zuiko lenses !!!

[red]

simplyrobin, did you use CPL for the mosque shot?

fahrur, dpreview said 9-18 got little distortion. how la?

brandon, what is lens resolution and what does that has to do with small sensor?

[brandoneu]

simplyrobin, did you use CPL for the mosque shot?

fahrur, dpreview said 9-18 got little distortion. how la?

brandon, what is lens resolution and what does that has to do with small sensor?
hi red

okay, I think what selamat means is that the wider the lens is, the more blurry the peripheries of the photo get. The wider field of view will make it harder for light to strike the sensor at 90 degrees, but this should not decrease the resolution of the lens, as Olympus only makes digital specific lenses with high resolving power anyway. in addition, our small 43rds sensor enables the 9-18 to have less distortion compared to full frame lenses mounted on full frame bodies.

regarding lens resolution (http://www.diwa-labs.com/wip4/detail.epl?cat=11122):

Image resolution is defined by the number of picture elements (pixels) on the image sensor. More pixels will, in principle, make smaller details distinguishable in the image. A high resolution sensor can "see" finer details as the pixels are packed closer together on the sensor. However, high sensor resolution requires a lens with adequate "resolving power", so that those fine details can be recorded by the sensor. Sharpness (see "Blur" test") and optical resolving power (MTF) are vital for high image quality.

ps: fahrur's standards are too high. professional opinions from dpreview will help you focus on what is necessary instead of all our opinions, which may be entirely personal.

[mfahrur]

just get 11-22 la.

9-10 won't be useful for you.

f2.8 will be useful for you.

think about it.

[tkp13]

My honest opinion after getting 11-22:

1. 9-18 is UWA and 11-22 is WA, where you can play around your creativity with the 9mm.
2. 11-22 is weather-sealed, true, BUT do you really need it, will you be upgrading to a weather-sealed body in the future?
3. F4 and F2.8, how BADLY do you need the F2.8 ?(Everyone's different =). ) How often will you need a WA lens to shoot indoor's events?
4. Distortion? You dont really expect distortion free on a UWA lens with 2k price tag, do you? =)
5. Price? When a lens you think suits you best, price consideration normally comes second, especially when both are within your budget.

Just my two canadian cents.

[red]

the test review on dpreview on 9-18 is quite impressive but there's none on 11-22.

fahrur, i know you can be a bit more scientific. elaborate la sikit bro.

i am leaning a bit towards 9-18 but i am still unsettled about the IQ since i've seen so many wonderful samples from 11-22. so many people said the IQs are similar but i can't justify yet. a lot of sample photos out there shows very apparent PP.

users of 9-18, how's the performace at 9mm wide open?

i need to feel the kick from either these 2 lenses after i dump the 14-45 so it better be worth the endless posting we are having here. :D

[CompMac]

Use the $$$ Force, red... use the $$$ Force... :D

[WONGFK321]

red...just get the 9-18....likewise said...if you don't mind pano stitching 11-22 is the best choice...

[brandoneu]

There's heaps of stuff online on the 11-22. You just need to know where to look

Wrotniak (http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/43/zd-011-022.html) compares the performance of the 11-22 with the 12-60.

"The 12-60 mm ZD turned out to be as close to perfection as possible to the 11-22. True, the one-millimeter difference at the short end can be noticed, but it is not that significant, and what you get with the new lens is the whole range up to 60.mm, making it an excellent all-around shooter."

So might as well get the 12-60 if you're pining for a 11-22.

[innerzen]

I don't remember all the technical stuff but I did my reading before I bought my 9-19.

I have always used wide angle having had the 24mm 2.8 in th OM film days for all the events that I had. When it come to wide angle , wide is the word. To me 11-22 is neither here nor there. I love to go for 7-14 but I found the 9-18 most practical and versatile. Also the price is unbeatable. 7-14 is heavy and almost to fisheye, fun but for the price.

The distortion is for your creativity, there will be times you wish you have more distortion. Other than that you will learn to frame your shots to the least distortions. Now with photoshop you can retweak your distortions too.

The reason why your internet search results to more 9-18 is I believe ever since it was launch, it is the most buy item among uwa.

[Cicak]

i am also leaning towards 9-18. i have tried 11-22 n 7-14, didnt work for my style. maybe i am lousy.

Red-one, we buy 9-18 together, maybe can get cheaper:cheers2:

[mfahrur]

fahrur, i know you can be a bit more scientific. elaborate la sikit bro.

users of 9-18, how's the performace at 9mm wide open?
D

i stop being scientific since moving to SHG.

Zuiko wide open are good la. I push you to 11-22 more on your shooting style, not due to IQ or other scientific mumbo jumbo.

[red]

IQ?
all the same la.

[blu_by_u]

i am also leaning towards 9-18. i have tried 11-22 n 7-14, didnt work for my style. maybe i am lousy.

Red-one, we buy 9-18 together, maybe can get cheaper:cheers2:

Please buy..at least I have a better chance of owning one when either of you decide to sell it later. :D

[enchek_amat]

distortion somehow can be fun too..
here's photo taken using ZD9-18mm during my lens try out at Boeing Sg.Wang.
note: no PP except resize here:
2846
2847

to be honest, i'm also very tempted to get these lens.
but... still short of money...:cry:

[enchek_amat]

i'm not sure if this picture have been posted before.
just for sharing:;)

2848

[simplyrobin]

simplyrobin, did you use CPL for the mosque shot?

fahrur, dpreview said 9-18 got little distortion. how la?

brandon, what is lens resolution and what does that has to do with small sensor?

Hey Red,
Sorry for late response, kinda not around my computer much these few days.
To answer your question, no, I did not use CPL for that session.

[simplyrobin]

The reason for the deep blue sky is because of the high shutter speed being used. It was near sunset, the sun light was rather intense, being reflected off the mosque, thus high shutter speed is needed to tone down the exposure. The sun was at the opposite direction, hence the sky was already very dark behind the mosque. During mid day, this effect would not be possible, unless you use 9-18 or 7-14.

I have also explained on how I got the deep blue sky. Basically it was being underexposed, so it was darker than usual.

Red, I did not intend to post my photos up to sway you with the blue sky, it was meant to be an appreciation to Blu who was kind enough to lend me the lens for two full days. I am sure 9-18 and 7-14 are just as capable, if not better.

If you truly truly love dark sky, you should grab yourself a gradual ND filter that can darken the upper frame of your photos. That can produce skies that are being less exposed, hence its darker, and deeper in blue. (you must have already blue sky to start with). And ND filters are not that expensive anyway.

I have deep fascination with deep blue skies. Not many people would love the sky that way. It is nice to see that I am not alone !!

[red]

i am a lazy shooter. i want to get capture a deep blue sky the way it is without tripod, cpl or nd. so, that's why i've been so picky about it and as i suspected, the 11-22 can deliver that very well. :D

btw, i am postponing the acquisition of a wide angle lens due to an emergency need to redirect the fund. the initial plan was to get it before raya so i can shoot the beautiful nenasi beach that i pass through once a year from kuantan to batu pahat or vice versa. what's why the blue sky factor is important as a beach photo is meaningless without blue sky.

thank you to all friends who have participated in this thread. i hope everyone learned a bit here and there about the attributes of a WA lens. hopefully i can get mine soon.

[blu_by_u]

RED....7-14 up on sale..you want?

[red]

no la, right now cannot. the fund i had suddenly got redirected to a much needed cause. even 11-22 or 9-18 cannot afford for the time being.

but of course, trying your 7-14 the other day was BIG MISTAKE!!! :ack2: newbies, learn this lesson well- avoid mr blu at all cost.

[mohd raime]

no la, right now cannot. the fund i had suddenly got redirected to a much needed cause. even 11-22 or 9-18 cannot afford for the time being.

but of course, trying your 7-14 the other day was BIG MISTAKE!!! :ack2: newbies, learn this lesson well- avoid mr blu at all cost.

:lol:i must keep social distance from mr blu. my 11-22mm already sold to a nice guy from kl.

[jeffnor]

no la, right now cannot. the fund i had suddenly got redirected to a much needed cause. even 11-22 or 9-18 cannot afford for the time being.

but of course, trying your 7-14 the other day was BIG MISTAKE!!! :ack2: newbies, learn this lesson well- avoid mr blu at all cost.

already met him last month....the poison already travel in my blood vessel...no ordinary anti venom can cure it. muahahaha.....u can run....but u can't hide......:rolleyes:

[blu_by_u]

Jeff found this post tooo late...7-14 on sale :D

[red]

jeff, i pity you bro. either your pocket or your heart will get broken.

[jc.jaime]

hey guys. it's that time again. i've been shooting with the 14-54v.2 for quite sometime now though it seems that the wide end isn't cutting it for me. i mostly shoot in bars for gigs and parties and most of the time, "2 steps back" is not an option. so here's my dilemma:

1. should i let go of the 14-54v.2 and get an 11-22mm? i seriously need a fast wide angle lens.
2. the 9-18mm is really tempting but the trade off for that extra f-stop is too critical.

HELP!

[Urs]

hey guys. it's that time again. i've been shooting with the 14-54v.2 for quite sometime now though it seems that the wide end isn't cutting it for me. i mostly shoot in bars for gigs and parties and most of the time, "2 steps back" is not an option. so here's my dilemma:

1. should i let go of the 14-54v.2 and get an 11-22mm? i seriously need a fast wide angle lens.
2. the 9-18mm is really tempting but the trade off for that extra f-stop is too critical.

HELP!

Considering your needs and that I sometimes have the same situation, not being able to step back these few steps, I use in such circumstances my 11-22. It is a good lens and is fast enough. Although I have never used the 14-54 as I own and use as my standard lens the 14-50 Leica. But there are occasions that I switch to the 11-22 for similar reason you have.

My recommendation: get the 11-22, because the 9-18 is to slow