MFT Wide angle ?

zorbo

zorbo

Messages
280
Name
john
Edit My Images
Yes
Having just moved to MFT with the em1 mk11 i am in the process of increasing my lenses and at present only have the panasonic 14-140. I am considering purchasing a wide angle lens for landscape shooting .Not interested in vlogging or portraits just for landscapes.
As it would not be my main lens i am considering price and how it would fit in with my 14-140 without overkill.
Previously i was using canon 17-40 with my full frame gear and still do ocasionaly but wishing to move over to MFT more. I have consdered the 8-18 panasonic ,but not sure as i have 14mm with the existing lens and it would only be used for landscapes . I would also like to have a filter thread to take polarisers etc. Any sugestions.
 
Olympus 9-18mm is the route I took and it hasn’t disappointed.
I also have Pan 14-140mm and has proved to be a good all round zoom for landscapes.
 
You're bound to get a bit of overlap of focal lengths so I wouldn't worry too much about that.

I've read good things about the Panasonic wides but I went for the cheap and cheerful Olympus 9-18mm which I find ok and does AFAIK take filters. 52mm, I think.
 
zorbo said:
Having just moved to MFT with the em1 mk11 i am in the process of increasing my lenses and at present only have the panasonic 14-140. I am considering purchasing a wide angle lens for landscape shooting .Not interested in vlogging or portraits just for landscapes.
As it would not be my main lens i am considering price and how it would fit in with my 14-140 without overkill.
Previously i was using canon 17-40 with my full frame gear and still do ocasionaly but wishing to move over to MFT more. I have consdered the 8-18 panasonic ,but not sure as i have 14mm with the existing lens and it would only be used for landscapes . I would also like to have a filter thread to take polarisers etc. Any sugestions.
Click to expand...
Stick with what you have and stitch multiple shots if you want wider coverage.
 
Brian G said:
Stick with what you have and stitch multiple shots if you want wider coverage.
Click to expand...

That's an option but maybe not always the best option if for no other reason than you can't do it in one shot and need to take multiple shots which could be inconvenient or even impossible and when possible could lead to more processing time.
 
Panasonic 8-18 is the obvious choice and it does have a filter thread.
14mm end of your lens isn't that wide in m4/3 terms and every mm is noticeable the wider you get.
Tried the 9-18 a couple of years ago, not impressed especially at the edges, also no weather resistance.

How about sell/trade your existing lens and get the 12-100, covers you for the wide end and still get 100mm at the long.
Its an outstanding lens and with your camera you get Sync IS, handheld possible at 1 sec and some get longer

I can recommend both of the above, use them more than any other lenses I own.
Another option would be the 12mm primes, had both and the Panasonic f/1.4 is the better albeit dearer choice.
Currently enjoying using the relatively new Olympus 12-45, small, light and excellent image quality plus WR too.
 
Last edited:
The big problem with m4/3 is the 2x "crop factor"
I'm a big fan of ultra-wide angle lenses, and on FF I have 10mm FL available.
There don't seem to be many 5mm FL non-fisheye UWA lenses available for m4/3.
I bought the 7-14mm F2.8 Olympus lens and it produces excellent images, but if I want real wide angle I use my FF outfit.
The 12-100 is only the quivalent of a 24mm at the wide end, which these days is not considered to be particularly wide.
M4/3 excels at the telephoto end of the focal range, but is pretty poor when it comes to wide angle.
 
Last edited:
Brian G said:
The big problem with m4/3 is the 2x "crop factor"
I'm a big fan of ultra-wide angle lenses, and on FF I have 10mm FL available.
There don't seem to be many 5mm FL non-fisheye UWA lenses available for m4/3.
I bought the 7-14mm F2.8 Olympus lens and it produces excellent images, but if I want real wide angle I use my FF outfit.
The 12-100 is only the quivalent of a 24mm at the wide end, which these days is not considered to be particularly wide.
M4/3 excels at the telephoto end of the focal range, but is pretty poor when it comes to wide angle.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's many 10mm non fish eye for full frame either.

For M4/3 a bit longer you have the two Iaowa lenses, are they 7.5mm f.2 and 8mm f2.8? I would love one but i didn't have the money. So I went for a cheap but huge samyang 10mm T3.1 which i got for cheap. Still which i would have bought a laowa they are so tiny compare to the lump i got and they have autofocus too.
 
Lemaildetom said:
I don't think there's many 10mm non fish eye for full frame either.
Click to expand...
There are 9, 10 and 11mm Rectilinear lenses available for Full Frame.

Lemaildetom said:
For M4/3 a bit longer you have the two Iaowa lenses, are they 7.5mm f.2 and 8mm f2.8? I would love one but i didn't have the money. So I went for a cheap but huge samyang 10mm T3.1 which i got for cheap. Still which i would have bought a laowa they are so tiny compare to the lump i got and they have autofocus too.
Click to expand...
Those Laowa lenses equate to Focal Lengths of 15 and 16mm - quite a difference from the FF ultra-wides.
To me, ultra-wide starts at around 15mm, down to there it's just "wide."
I have the 7artisans 7.5mm f2.8 fisheye for m4/3, but it still suffers from the curved lines typical of fisheye lenses.
I know there is software to "De-fish" FE lenses, but there's usually so much loss you would be better off with a rectilinear in the first place.
 
Thank you for all your comments ,i have been having a look at some of the reviews and to date it looks as if the olympus 9-18 would propably be best for my needs.
As i said it would be a lens i would not use much and also would take some of my filters with a step ring. I like the laowa 2.8 also but would have to buy a slim polarising filter for this if i have read the reviews correctly. As i will be looking to buy a longer telephoto also in the near future i am trying to work out my budget.
 
I am still going through the reviews of WA lenses for MFT and have another question to ask. Forgive me if this is a stupid one ,but i am trying to compare a lens with my canon FF 17-40 F4 lens. So with the smaller sensor on the olympus would i be correct in asuming that 9-18 would still be the equivelent of 18-36 on FF or is there another factor to consider.
Having given this more consideration and checking some of my older images shot with the 17-40 there are very few that needed to be this wide.so i may be able to consider 10 or maybee 12 mm prime .Sorry i dont wish this post to drag on .
 
zorbo said:
or is there another factor to consider.
Click to expand...
Obviously the squarer format will make some difference other things being equal.
 
Brian G said:
I bought the 7-14mm F2.8 Olympus lens and it produces excellent images, but if I want real wide angle I use my FF outfit.
The 12-100 is only the quivalent of a 24mm at the wide end, which these days is not considered to be particularly wide.
M4/3 excels at the telephoto end of the focal range, but is pretty poor when it comes to wide angle.
Click to expand...

Had the 7-14 and was a gorgeous lens but ultimately rarely used so sold it. 12-100 is my go to now and happy to shoot panos for wide angle, very few times you can't get what you need from that.

Dunno if it's poor quality wise so assume you mean from a choice perspective? Oly has 4 lenses at less than 12mm, panasonic another 4?

Lemaildetom said:
I don't think there's many 10mm non fish eye for full frame either.

For M4/3 a bit longer you have the two Iaowa lenses, are they 7.5mm f.2 and 8mm f2.8? I would love one but i didn't have the money. So I went for a cheap but huge samyang 10mm T3.1 which i got for cheap. Still which i would have bought a laowa they are so tiny compare to the lump i got and they have autofocus too.
Click to expand...

I've had the laowa 7.5 briefly and it's nice but again, it's limiting as its a one trick pony to be honest so sold it too.

zorbo said:
Thank you for all your comments ,i have been having a look at some of the reviews and to date it looks as if the olympus 9-18 would propably be best for my needs.
As i said it would be a lens i would not use much and also would take some of my filters with a step ring. I like the laowa 2.8 also but would have to buy a slim polarising filter for this if i have read the reviews correctly. As i will be looking to buy a longer telephoto also in the near future i am trying to work out my budget.
Click to expand...

Yep had the 9-18 too! Again, nice little lens but again found it wanting, especially in the weatherproofing department.

Then I've also had the 7.5 fisheye rokinon/samyang and a 12mm f2, both nice and fun for different reasons but ultimately sold.

You have to buy and sell quite a few I think in your camera system journey before you settle, if you ever do but for some time now my only lens has been the 12-100f4 which ticks lots of boxes, actually thought when i got rid of my 12-40pro and 40-150pro I'd be unhappy but nope, the one lens has yet to disappoint. I will admit though to buying a 17mm prime f1.8 for low light before Christmas when the neowise comet was visible with plans to do some astro etc but it's been gathering dust so far.
 
zorbo said:
I am still going through the reviews of WA lenses for MFT and have another question to ask. Forgive me if this is a stupid one ,but i am trying to compare a lens with my canon FF 17-40 F4 lens. So with the smaller sensor on the olympus would i be correct in asuming that 9-18 would still be the equivelent of 18-36 on FF or is there another factor to consider.
Having given this more consideration and checking some of my older images shot with the 17-40 there are very few that needed to be this wide.so i may be able to consider 10 or maybee 12 mm prime .Sorry i dont wish this post to drag on .
Click to expand...

Samyang 12mm f2 second hand can be had for £200-250 and is a great little lens though is manual focus, I really liked mine but as said previously sold it on.
if autofocus is important Id suggest the oly 12-40 f2.8 pro which is a beautiful lens and can be had second hand for £400-450
 
I will say again, have a look at the Olympus 12-45, great little lens and pleased with mine
Very handy when you need something light, small and weather resistant.
 
Phiggys said:
Olympus 9-18mm is the route I took and it hasn’t disappointed.
Click to expand...
I'll second that. 9mm is wide enough for most purposes and I have a 7.5mm fisheye for being silly.

Olympus Pen Lite 5 with 9-18mm lens GX7 P1140564.JPG
 
tijuana taxi said:
I will say again, have a look at the Olympus 12-45, great little lens and pleased with mine
Very handy when you need something light, small and weather resistant.
Click to expand...
But again, only the equivalent of 24mm at the wide end, which these days is not considered very wide.
 
Brian G said:
But again, only the equivalent of 24mm at the wide end, which these days is not considered very wide.
Click to expand...

Wide yes, ultrawide no.
Commonly accepted that something like the Canon 24/1.4 L is a wide angle lens
 
zorbo said:
Previously i was using canon 17-40 with my full frame gear and still do ocasionaly but wishing to move over to MFT more. I have consdered the 8-18 panasonic ,but not sure as i have 14mm with the existing lens and it would only be used for landscapes . I would also like to have a filter thread to take polarisers etc. Any sugestions.
Click to expand...
When I had a FF Canon 5D I convinced myself I needed the 17-40 to go with the kit 24-105, so I bought one. A long while afterwards, I started checking what focal length I had shot with the 17-40, and found I hardly ever went wider than 24! Is it worthwhile you checking what focal lengths you shot with your 17-40 before spending any more? :thinking:
 
tijuana taxi said:
Wide yes, ultrawide no.
Commonly accepted that something like the Canon 24/1.4 L is a wide angle lens
Click to expand...
When I was shooting 35mm film with a "standard" 50mm lens, 35mm was considered "Wide", 28mm was "Very Wide" and 24mm was considered "Ultra Wide"
Things seem to have changed a bit in modern times and 35mm is considered "standard" and 24mm is just a "normal wide" angle.
 
Brian G said:
Things seem to have changed a bit in modern times and 35mm is considered "standard" and 24mm is just a "normal wide" angle.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I use a 24mm or equivalent equivalent as my general purpose wide angle and something equivalent to 17mm as my "wide" wide. This was made through a Sigma 10~20mm on a Canon 40D with the lens at 13mm (roughly 17mm equivalent)...

Mittenwald Banhof 40D 7778.JPG
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Agreed. I use a 24mm or equivalent equivalent as my general purpose wide angle and something equivalent to 17mm as my "wide" wide. This was made through a Sigma 10~20mm on a Canon 40D with the lens at 13mm (roughly 17mm equivalent)...

View attachment 304715
Click to expand...

OMG! pre MFT I had a 40d then was in love when i had a 5D mark 1 and the the 10-20 sigma!!!

Ah memories!!

Still, olympus m43 is better!
 
Donnie said:
OMG! pre MFT I had a 40d then was in love when i had a 5D mark 1 and the the 10-20 sigma!!!

Ah memories!!

Still, olympus m43 is better!
Click to expand...

I had exactly the same gear and now have m4/3.
Panasonic cameras for me now with some Olympus lenses.
Can't fault the 8-18 and with the 12-100 don't really use much else.
Just got the 12-45, its very nice for when you just want something light.

Thought about getting the Olympus 8/1.8, but got a much cheaper used Samyang 7.5mm
Maybe one of those for the OP to consider especially if you de-fish it in camera or software
One other lens I own is the 15/1.7, probably not wide enough for the OP, but an excellent lens nonetheless
 
Last edited:
Again i thank you for all the comments and im still reading reviews and yutube videoes trying to decide. One point that was mentioned was checking the focal points of previous WA shots and i did .I was suprised to see that very few were shot at 17mm or close to. I did have the 12-35 2.8 but foolishly sold it along with my GX9 .all done in haste im sorry to say. Wish i had kept it now.
They say you live and learn hhhmmm
 
I just bought a samyang 7.5 mm fisheye for my Olympus and while it is a fisheye the results once PP using the L/R lens profile come out excellent . Although manual focus is does not really need focussing and colours are really rich and pleasing to the eye . A cheap option that gives good results
 
I have the Laowa 7.5mm which is rectilinear (or as close as it can be for such a wide angle lens!) Manual again, but very easy to use as the DoF on m43, even not that much stopped down is (technically speaking ;)) goes from quite close, to really far away!
 
Just a quick update .After giving it more thought i have decided to sell the 14-140 along with some canon full frame gear and go for the 12-100 pro lens.
I was going to hang on to the FF gear ,but i have now commited myself soley to MFT.
 
zorbo said:
Just a quick update .After giving it more thought i have decided to sell the 14-140 along with some canon full frame gear and go for the 12-100 pro lens.
I was going to hang on to the FF gear ,but i have now commited myself soley to MFT.
Click to expand...

Very good choice, its an excellent lens and hard to find any faults with.
Only thing I can think of is vignetting at 12mm, but its easily dealt with in pp.
 
Brian G said:
When I was shooting 35mm film with a "standard" 50mm lens, 35mm was considered "Wide", 28mm was "Very Wide" and 24mm was considered "Ultra Wide"
Things seem to have changed a bit in modern times and 35mm is considered "standard" and 24mm is just a "normal wide" angle.
Click to expand...

Standard refers to the focal length in relation to the sensor size so the definition can’t really have changed.


I think one of the key drivers to wider is mobile phone cameras which seem to be around 28mm. I don’t get the fascination with ultrawide, very very few circumstances fit their use and more often than not the photos you see with them are very formulaic and, frankly, boring. There often seems to be a mentality (especially with new owners) of “I’ve got an ultrawide and am going to make everything fit” rather than “I have a specific tool which I will use in the rare circumstances it’s needed”.
 
Nawty said:
Standard refers to the focal length in relation to the sensor size so the definition can’t really have changed.


I think one of the key drivers to wider is mobile phone cameras which seem to be around 28mm. I don’t get the fascination with ultrawide, very very few circumstances fit their use and more often than not the photos you see with them are very formulaic and, frankly, boring. There often seems to be a mentality (especially with new owners) of “I’ve got an ultrawide and am going to make everything fit” rather than “I have a specific tool which I will use in the rare circumstances it’s needed”.
Click to expand...
I've always understood that "standard" focal length referred to the angle of view compared to the natural angle of view of the eye.
It would appear that we now perceive a wider angle of view with our eyes than we did 50 years ago - quite obviously ridiculous, although have we developed a different way of "seeing" these days?
 
Brian G said:
I've always understood that "standard" focal length referred to the angle of view compared to the natural angle of view of the eye.
It would appear that we now perceive a wider angle of view with our eyes than we did 50 years ago - quite obviously ridiculous, although have we developed a different way of "seeing" these days?
Click to expand...
Language changes with usage. iPhones have a ‘telephoto’ of 50mm equiv I think which by no stretch of the imagination would previously been called such :).

Although it’s true that approx 50mm was considered to be the “natural” angle of view of the eye it’s obvious there’s nothing magically correct about that as to some extent it depends on perception and one is always ‘aware’ off a much wider angle of view in one’s surroundings. Just playing with my iPhone 11 what I can ‘see’ looking straight ahead is somewhat more than the 120° angle of the wide lens, so is that the ‘natural’ view?
 
The “natural” angle of view thing derives from the focal length being the “same” as the diagonal of the image sensor (or film). Reality is that on FF would be closer to 43mm but of course there is some tolerance so could be from 35-55mm ish. Coincidentally this is one way of understanding equivalence.

So to be pedantic, normal (I.e. typical/common) shouldn’t be confused with normal (FL/perspective).
 
sphexx said:
Language changes with usage. iPhones have a ‘telephoto’ of 50mm equiv I think which by no stretch of the imagination would previously been called such :).

Although it’s true that approx 50mm was considered to be the “natural” angle of view of the eye it’s obvious there’s nothing magically correct about that as to some extent it depends on perception and one is always ‘aware’ off a much wider angle of view in one’s surroundings. Just playing with my iPhone 11 what I can ‘see’ looking straight ahead is somewhat more than the 120° angle of the wide lens, so is that the ‘natural’ view?
Click to expand...
As I said previously, the "standard" focal length gave an angle of view approximating to that of the human eye.
I guess I should have emphasised that the 50mm FL was for 35mm film, which is "Full Frame" in todays language.
Obviously the Focal Length to acheive this "standard" angle of view will change dependent on the sensor size.
As to what is the "standard" angle of view of the human eye is, we are able to perceive is from a 120-200° angle of view, depending on how strictly one defines objects as being "seen" as opposed to being simply "aware" of.
However, our central angle of view — around 40-60° — is what most impacts our vision.
I am also aware that the focal length which gives the approximation to this human field of view is around 40-44 mm.

As to why 50mm became the "standard" FL with 35mm cameras, then maybe you should ask the Leica company, since they, as the "inventors" of the 35mm film system, chose to supply 50mm as the "standard" focal length with their 35mm film cameras in the 1920's, and most manufacturers of 35mm film cameras subsequently adopted this as the "standard" focal length.

I think the difference these days is simply that people prefer a wider angle of view than that offered by a 50mm lens, or the equivalent on their chosen fornat.
 
I always understood that the 50mm 'standard' lens (on 35mm) gave a similar perspective to the human eye rather than angle of view.
 
JackBell said:
I always understood that the 50mm 'standard' lens (on 35mm) gave a similar perspective to the human eye rather than angle of view.
Click to expand...
Perspective is controlled by viewpoint - not focal length. -One of the basic rules of photography.
 
zorbo said:
Just a quick update .After giving it more thought i have decided to sell the 14-140 along with some canon full frame gear and go for the 12-100 pro lens.
I was going to hang on to the FF gear ,but i have now commited myself soley to MFT.
Click to expand...

I hope you'll be very happy with your choice.
 
I suspect the use of wider angle lens on phones is driven by the users often taking pictures close in smaller spaces.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I suspect the use of wider angle lens on phones is driven by the users often taking pictures close in smaller spaces.
Click to expand...

And selfies. With selfies you're limited by the length of your arm... unless you have a selfie stick.
 
Brian G said:
As I said previously, the "standard" focal length gave an angle of view approximating to that of the human eye.
Click to expand...
That's an often heard opinion but others are available.
Brian G said:
As to why 50mm became the "standard" FL with 35mm cameras, then maybe you should ask the Leica company... ...as the "inventors" of the 35mm film system
Click to expand...
Not so. Several still cameras using 35mm "cine" film were available long before the Leica went into production. The American made Tourist Multiple went on sale in 1912, giving 750 18mm x 24mm negatives on a load. It was followed in the same year by the Simplex which offered instantaneous switching between 18mm x 24mm and 36mm x 24mm formats, allowing between 400 and 800 exposures per load. By the time the Leica was launched at the Leipzig Spring Fair in April 1925 there were at least a dozen 35mm cameras already on the market, several of which anticipated the key concepts of the Leitz offering.

By 1932, The Leica had a coupled rangefinder and freely interchangeable lenses but their dominance was short lived, as Zeiss introduced the Contax 1 in 1933 with arguably better rangefinder, lens mount and shutter designs. After the war, Zeiss once again beat Leitz to the punch by introducing the world's first pentaprism 35mm SLR, the Contax S in 1948. Leitz didn't manage a SLR design until the mid 1960s and the orirignal Leicaflex was pretty much obsolete on its introduction, compared to the Japanese offerings led by Canon, Nikon and Pentax.
 
Brian G said:
guess I should have emphasised that the 50mm FL was for 35mm film, which is "Full Frame" in todays language.
(my bold)
Click to expand...
Or “miniature format” in the language I grew up with ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top