7-14 mm- Go Wide Young Man- Go Wide

anwmn1 · February 5, 2008

Got my new baby a week ago and had a chance to got put it use. Here are a few shots with the Zuiko 7-14mm F4.0 :barb

1. For Comparison here is the Zuiko 14-54 F2.8 at 14mm

2. Zuiko 7-14mm at 7mm - Exact same spot

3.

4.

5.

6.

Comments always welcome.

Cuong · February 5, 2008

Beautiful results from a nice lens. Very low distortion even at such wide angle.

Cuong

Tango · February 5, 2008

#5 is my fav!, all are great....

you have some exif data for us to lookie?

anwmn1 · February 5, 2008

AaronNelson wrote:

#5 is my fav!, all are great....

you have some exif data for us to lookie?

Sure-

#2.
<TABLE class=photoInfo><TBODY><TR><TH id=DateTime>Date Modified</TH><TD>2008-02-03 15:22:31</TD></TR><TR><TH id=DateTimeOriginal>Date Taken</TH><TD>2008-02-02 21:21:36</TD></TR><TR><TH id=Camera>Camera</TH><TD>OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. E-500</TD></TR><TR><TH id=ExposureTime>Exposure Time</TH><TD>60s (60/1)</TD></TR><TR><TH id=Aperture>Aperture</TH><TD>f/5.0</TD></TR><TR><TH id=ISO>ISO</TH><TD>125</TD></TR><TR><TH id=FocalLength>Focal Length</TH><TD>7mm (14mm in 35mm)</TD></TR><TR><TH id=originalSize>Photo Dimensions</TH><TD>3264 x 2448</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

#3
<TABLE class=photoInfo><TBODY><TR><TH id=DateTime>Date Modified</TH><TD>2008-02-03 14:52:08</TD></TR><TR><TH id=DateTimeOriginal>Date Taken</TH><TD>2008-02-02 22:00:45</TD></TR><TR><TH id=Camera>Camera</TH><TD>OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. E-500</TD></TR><TR><TH id=ExposureTime>Exposure Time</TH><TD>0.2s (1/5)</TD></TR><TR><TH id=Aperture>Aperture</TH><TD>f/8.0</TD></TR><TR><TH id=ISO>ISO</TH><TD>160</TD></TR><TR><TH id=FocalLength>Focal Length</TH><TD>13mm (26mm in 35mm)</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

#4
<TABLE class=photoInfo><TBODY><TR><TH id=DateTime>Date Modified</TH><TD>2008-02-03 22:30:25</TD></TR><TR><TH id=DateTimeOriginal>Date Taken</TH><TD>2008-02-02 22:01:47</TD></TR><TR><TH id=Camera>Camera</TH><TD>OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. E-500</TD></TR><TR><TH id=ExposureTime>Exposure Time</TH><TD>4s (4/1)</TD></TR><TR><TH id=Aperture>Aperture</TH><TD>f/8.0</TD></TR><TR><TH id=ISO>ISO</TH><TD>160</TD></TR><TR><TH id=FocalLength>Focal Length</TH><TD>11mm (22mm in 35mm)</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

#5
<TABLE class=photoInfo><TBODY><TR><TH id=DateTime>Date Modified</TH><TD>2008-02-04 22:27:59</TD></TR><TR><TH id=DateTimeOriginal>Date Taken</TH><TD>2008-02-02 22:23:23</TD></TR><TR><TH id=Camera>Camera</TH><TD>OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. E-500</TD></TR><TR><TH id=ExposureTime>Exposure Time</TH><TD>10s (10/1)</TD></TR><TR><TH id=Aperture>Aperture</TH><TD>f/8.0</TD></TR><TR><TH id=ISO>ISO</TH><TD>160</TD></TR><TR><TH id=FocalLength>Focal Length</TH><TD>12mm (24mm in 35mm)</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

#6
<TABLE class=photoInfo><TBODY><TR><TH id=DateTime>Date Modified</TH><TD>2008-02-03 22:28:43</TD></TR><TR><TH id=DateTimeOriginal>Date Taken</TH><TD>2008-02-02 21:36:07</TD></TR><TR><TH id=Camera>Camera</TH><TD>OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. E-500</TD></TR><TR><TH id=ExposureTime>Exposure Time</TH><TD>25s (25/1)</TD></TR><TR><TH id=Aperture>Aperture</TH><TD>f/5.0</TD></TR><TR><TH id=ISO>ISO</TH><TD>125</TD></TR><TR><TH id=FocalLength>Focal Length</TH><TD>10mm (20mm in 35mm)</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Tango · February 5, 2008

thanks, i like to compare one to the other and see what i see...

Arvan · February 5, 2008

what a nice bunch of photos..

2x crop on that olympus right?.

anwmn1 · February 5, 2008

Arvan wrote:

what a nice bunch of photos..

2x crop on that olympus right?.

Correct-

So it is 14-28mm in 35mm format.

300m · February 6, 2008

Arron, very nice! I like #5&6 best. All are good, very clear pictures. I lked the comparision in #1 for the difference.

marlof · February 6, 2008

I know I'd use that lens too little is what I keep telling myself. But images like these have me looking up availability and price.

anwmn1 · February 6, 2008

300m wrote:

Arron, very nice! I like #5&6 best. All are good, very clear pictures. I lked the comparision in #1 for the difference.

Thanks for the comments.

anwmn1 · February 6, 2008

marlof wrote:

I know I'd use that lens too little is what I keep telling myself. But images like these have me looking up availability and price.

That was a big concern of mine too especially considering the cost - I could get the E-3 for the same

However I already have several other places in mind where this lens will be just what I was missing before.

I really feel I can use this lens in almost every application I currently shoot. I am obviously very happy about that!

marlof · February 6, 2008

anwmn1 wrote:

That was a big concern of mine too especially considering the cost - I could get the E-3 for the same

Yah, that's what I did. I regularly take that one with the 25, 50 and 11-22 to have normal, short tele and wide in an easy to carry package. But the 7-14 is quite something, and is the only top pro lens that I'm really eying at times. It helps that it's the most "affordable" too. Anyhow, it seems that you're having quite some fun taming this one.

anwmn1 · February 6, 2008

marlof wrote:

Yah, that's what I did. I regularly take that one with the 25, 50 and 11-22 to have normal, short tele and wide in an easy to carry package. But the 7-14 is quite something, and is the only top pro lens that I'm really eying at times. It helps that it's the most "affordable" too. Anyhow, it seems that you're having quite some fun taming this one.

I looked at the 11-22 but didn't feel it gave me that much more from the 14-54.

I now have 7-14, 14-54, 50-200 (not SWD), & EC20 - plus of course the kit lens.

My next lens decision is the Zuiko 70-300, Sigma 135-400, or Sigma 50-500 - looking for a long one since many of my friends are into the nature stuff

Of course I am hoping the E-3 will come down a little too - how do you like it so far??

I see you have a link to 4/3. Do you post there often? I am still waiting to hear the results of the Photographer of the Year challenge.:devbobo

marlof · February 6, 2008

anwmn1 wrote:

I looked at the 11-22 but didn't feel it gave me that much more from the 14-54.

True, it made me indicisive for over a year to get it or not. In the end I found I was stiff at the 14 setting of my 14-54, and the 11-22 gave me just that little extra I needed. An online friend of mine helped me in the decision, in that he showed me the 22equiv FOV is just about the max one can use before the specialty use of the UWA comes into play. In real life, I find the 11-22 an excellent lens, that is easy to tame. How funny as it may seem, I also feel it makes me think better about composition not having a one-lens-zooms-all approach. Since I got the 11-22 I only use the 14-54 for event like things.

anwmn1 wrote:

Of course I am hoping the E-3 will come down a little too - how do you like it so far??

I like the E-3 a lot. I come from the E-1, and the difference in resolution does show. It took some time getting used to the new user interface, but now I feel confident enough to start image hunting and sharing. So keep tuned.

anwmn1 wrote:

I see you have a link to 4/3. Do you post there often? I am still waiting to hear the results of the Photographer of the Year challenge.:devbobo

Well, often... I like the all brand discussion on Dgrin better than on the specialized forums. People turn a little gear crazy on those forums, and defensive of what they use. In the end, whatever makes you want to go out there and take pictures should work.

Hary · February 6, 2008

lovin #5

stirfry · February 6, 2008

Chiming in to say that I also love #5 for it's interesting perspective, but all of them have such beautiful reflections. What a lovely time to be out shooting, everything looks so serene. I like the direction of #3, too, just wish the fireworks had been a bit more spectacular in form and color (their fault, not yours

).

Is that down by Mill?

will-jum · February 6, 2008

Number 1. is portrait and 2. is landscape so how is that a fair comparison??

anwmn1 · February 6, 2008

Hary wrote:

lovin #5

Thanks Harry

JenGrace · February 6, 2008

I too am impressed with the lack of distortion. These are some really really great shots!

anwmn1 · February 6, 2008

stirfry wrote:

Chiming in to say that I also love #5 for it's interesting perspective, but all of them have such beautiful reflections. What a lovely time to be out shooting, everything looks so serene. I like the direction of #3, too, just wish the fireworks had been a bit more spectacular in form and color (their fault, not yours ).

Is that down by Mill?

Thanks for stopping by.

Yes these are from the North Shore of Tempe Town Lake between the light rail bridge and the Mill Ave bridges. Are you in AZ?

I have a few of the traditional fireworks shots but I actually liked the depth and detail of the smoke in these ones.

Couple with more color

anwmn1 · February 6, 2008

will-jum wrote:

Number 1. is portrait and 2. is landscape so how is that a fair comparison??

Good catch

Here is how-

With the 14-54mm I had to turn the camera portrait in order to get the top of the railroad bridge and the water. If you look closely you will see just a small portion of a pilar on the rt side and the top of the bridge is also cut off pretty far back.

Now with the 7-14 I was able to switch to landscape to get the pilars on both sides (and then some) into the frame as well as gain significant more height. The top of the train bridge is know clearly visible- there is significantly more detail of the bridge on the left- and you can see the concrete barrier in front of the lake (bottom of frame). To give you an idea of how wide this lens is - my front tripod leg was touching that wall at the bottom of the frame and it is only 3 ft tall! The lens has 114 degree viewing angle

anwmn1 · February 6, 2008

JenW wrote:

I too am impressed with the lack of distortion. These are some really really great shots!

Thanks Jen-

So far I have only seen distortion when shooting things close to the lens. It has a bubble front just like a fisheye (though it is a true wide angle) which you can actually have something touch the lens and still take the shot.

The following shot was taken first day with the lens- The wheel of the RC is only about 2 inches from the lens- you can see some distortion in the heads of the guys in both upper corners.

Haven't had a lot of time with it yet but enjoy it so far.

Tango · February 26, 2008

holy cow i just seen the price on that lens......:wow

swintonphoto · February 26, 2008

Love them!
But I must say, I am extremely jealous. I want that lens bad! It gets amazing reviews. I just can't drop the $$$ for it.... So, when you get sick of it, feel free to send it my way!

anwmn1 · February 27, 2008

AaronNelson wrote:

holy cow i just seen the price on that lens......:wow

It was a very tough decision to drop that money. But I think it will pay off in the end.

Counting down the days to re-shooting Horseshoe Bend and and Lower Antelope Canyon. Figure it will be good at the shootout too.

anwmn1 · February 27, 2008

swintonphoto wrote:

Love them!
But I must say, I am extremely jealous. I want that lens bad! It gets amazing reviews. I just can't drop the $$$ for it.... So, when you get sick of it, feel free to send it my way!

Yeah if you ship the E-3 in exchange.

I wanted to use the lens tonight but the location I had in mind was partially closed and I came into the strange situation of being WAY to wide to shoot it. First time for everything I guess.

BTW I am very tempted on the E-500's but this little number set me back and I have a few trips to worry about. Otherwise I would have been all over one of those.

keepright · February 27, 2008

AaronNelson wrote:

holy cow i just seen the price on that lens......:wow

But on the other hand, the results that come from that lens... :wow

Geometric distortion with a wide-angle lens is unavoidable. What the 7-14 offers is incredibly low optical distortion, to the point where I never think twice about putting strong vertical elements at the edge of the frame or using it wide open. Anwmn's examples shows a great use of the (nearly) unique properties of this lens.

It's one of my two favourites; the other is the 35-100. (Don't look its price up, trust me.)

Tango · February 27, 2008

anwmn1 wrote:

It was a very tough decision to drop that money. But I think it will pay off in the end.

Counting down the days to re-shooting Horseshoe Bend and and Lower Antelope Canyon. Figure it will be good at the shootout too.

yep, im sure it will pay off in the end, but whos counting? it looks like it was very well worth every penny.

help me understand a little...
whats wider? this 7mm or a fisheye lens with DxO conversion?

Tango · February 27, 2008

keepright wrote:

But on the other hand, the results that come from that lens... :wow

Geometric distortion with a wide-angle lens is unavoidable. What the 7-14 offers is incredibly low optical distortion, to the point where I never think twice about putting strong vertical elements at the edge of the frame or using it wide open. Anwmn's examples shows a great use of the (nearly) unique properties of this lens.

It's one of my two favourites; the other is the 35-100. (Don't look its price up, trust me.)

i didnt mean to make it sound like "a waste of money" (statement)
i just meant "holy cow", (it just shocked me a bit) (type of reaction)

anwmn1 · February 27, 2008

AaronNelson wrote:

help me understand a little...
whats wider? this 7mm or a fisheye lens with DxO conversion?)

Not very good with all the technical aspects but from what I see they are 2 different animals. The fisheye is essentially wider because it has 180 degree viewing angle compared to the 7-14 at 114 degrees. However when a fisheye image is flattened there is definetly more distortion in the image. The software that is used to compensate for the distortion does so by stretching the image and adding pixels. This can make the picture look more natural but is still not what the actual subject looks like.

I deceided on the wide angle to achive the widest view possible, retain the most natural look, and because I feel I will get significantly more use out of it than a fisheye.

Let me just tell you- 114 degrees is really- really wide!

AaronNelson wrote:

i didnt mean to make it sound like "a waste of money" (statement)
i just meant "holy cow", (it just shocked me a bit) (type of reaction)

That is the problem with quality lenses- they are not cheap at all! This is actually about lower to middle of the road when you look at pro lenses from any of the manufacturers.

kdog · February 27, 2008

Hey, Aaron. Just catching up here and saw your post. WOW! These shots look really fantastic.

I think you have a new favorite lens now.

Cheers,
-joel