MFT: Zuiko 7-14mm Pro or Panasonic?

I think it is time to start a new tread on WA zoom lens selection (in order not to derail Draqs tread on the OMD-EM1MII camera).

Recently I acquired an OMD-EM5MII with 12-40mm Pro lens in Nauticam housing and Zen DP-170-N120 dome with 60mm Nauticam N85-N120 adapter. The Zuiko 8mm FE with appropriate adapter is on the way and I am considering now ultra WA zoom lenses and which one to acquire. Currently I am inclined towards the Zuiko 7-14mm Pro lens, but there are many arguments in favour of the Panasonic lens:

#1.: arguments I see for the Panasonic 7-14mm:

*size & weigth

*no additional extension ring required (would be the case for the Olympus)

*much easier to handle, when installing camera and lens into the housing

resolution in the center almost as good as Olympus, but in the periphery resolution is better than Olympus (better "field-curvature" according to photozone review)

*price

#2.: arguments I see for the Zuiko 7-14mm Pro:

*weather sealed

*less chromatic abberation

*cleaner images according to Drag, because of less color fringing.

* closest focus distance is 20cm (25cm with Panasonic). Likely more than 5cm better, when considering that focus is on a scaled-down virtual image.

*faster focusing when not so much ligth

#3.: there is a third option with one positive argument, the Zuiko 9-18mm:

* only lens that can be placed geometrically correctly into the DP-170 dome - but how much benefit would this bring in the real world?

Will be grateful for opinions and real world comparisons...

Wolfgang

I forgot another argument in favour of the Panasonic, here it is:

*less geometrical distortion at 7mm.

I am not sure about the distortion issue:

"The Olympus 7-14mm ƒ/2.8 Pro is currently the widest rectilinear lens available for the Micro Four Thirds system with a constant ƒ/2.8 aperture, so there really isn't a direct competitor at the time of this review. The most similar alternative, however, would be the equally wide Panasonic 7-14mm ƒ/4. Though not as bright with its ƒ/4 aperture, the lens offers the same range of focal lengths. Sharpness is very good, though its CA, vignetting and distortion characteristics aren't as nice as the Olympus'."

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/7-14mm-f2.8-pro-m.zuiko-digital-ed/review/

"It’s worth adding that using RAW files you might have a field of view as wide as 120 degrees at your disposal. It means the shortest focal length of the lens is in reality closer to 6 than to 7 mm."

http://www.lenstip.com/465.6-Lens_review-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_7-14_mm_f_2.8_ED_PRO_Distortion.html

"When keeping the field curvature in mind and act accordingly, you can certainly achieve very good results. The center quality is breathtaking whereas the outer image region has be handled with care when shooting below 10mm at least (pull the focus a bit). Image distortions aren't relevant from a user perspective."

http://www.photozone.de/m43/961_olympus714f28pro?start=2

“The distortions are very well controlled and very discreet on this objective: a very good point! We are, however, somewhat disappointed by the optical quality it produces, and more particularly by its lack of homogeneity between the center and the edges of the images. By comparison, in the world of the reflex 24 x 36 mm, it is much better. However, the center and the sides of the images are well pricked and are full of fine details. We also appreciate the very good control of distortions.”

https://www.focus-numerique.com/zoom/tests/olympus-m-zuiko-digital-ed-7-14-mm-f-2-8-pro-1478.html(Translated from French)

It seems that the lens does suffer from "field curvature", but keep in mind that this is may be due in part to the actual angle of view being quite wide, and in any event hard to evaluate when you are not shooting flat objects. I rarely have underwater photos where the center, the subject and the edges are the same distance. Also, I always try to remember there are substantial sample to sample variations in lenses, particularly zoom lenses, so any single review may not reflect what you will experience.

In the end, I think both lenses offer similar performance with the Panasonic doing so for less money, so that may be the better "buy" long as the limitations of using a Panasonic lens on an Olympus body are acceptable.

If you are undecided about the lens and have time, you might want to wait a bit and see how the Panasonic 8-18 compares and what port options are available for it.

Yes, we are complaining here about optical abberations at a very high level. Both lenses are at the high end...

The distortion issue I mentioned seems to be real: distortion is compensated digitally in both lenses and minimal (in the review you refer to distortion was measured under compensated conditiond), but when measured without compensation (a measure for quality of the optics) it is 7,2% for Zuiko and and 5,2% for Lumix at 7mm.

see: http://www.photozone.de/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/530-pana_714_4?start=1and http://www.photozone.de/m43/961_olympus714f28pro?start=1

Some optical parameters are better in the Zuiko and some in the Lumix lens. There does not seem to exist a definite winner, but

"At the end of the day, there is, of course, the big question whether to prefer the Olympus M.Zuiko 7-14mm f/2.8 PRO over the Panasonic Lumix G 7-14mm f/4 ASPH. The Olympus lens is obviously faster so if low light shooting is your thing, this is obviously already the answer. However, in my case the Panasonic lens will remain in my stock because of its smaller size and better field curvature." see here: http://www.photozone.de/m43/961_olympus714f28pro?start=2

What did you mean with "limitations of using a Panasonic lens on an Olympus body"?

Will the image quality suffer (e.g.because of incorrect digital compensations"??

Wolfgang

The biggest limitation with the Lumix on Oly bodies is the fact that shooting towards the sun can result in some pretty awful flare characteristics. Google "Panasonic 7-14 purple blobs" for plenty of reading material.

Re Panasonic lens on Olympus...There are a couple of things. One is what Wapiti mentions above, that the Panasonic lens on an Olympus body is more prone to flare, can exhibit the purple blob issue and is more prone to chromatic aberrations. The other is that Olympus and Panasonic seem to be diverging a bit on things like stabilization and the Olympus E-M1 ii offers a feature called pro-capture that will not work with Panasonic lenses. That feature may be of no importance to you. I intend to try the Panasonic 8-18 when it comes out knowing that it won't work for pro-capture.

I have no idea how significant distortion of 7.2% vs 5.2% may be, as viewed in an image, so those numbers don't mean a lot to me. I also simply expect there to be some distortion in such a wide lens. If the one article I cited earlier is correct that the Oly is actually much closer to a 6mm at the wide end, then that, too, would likely explain greater distortion at its widest point than the narrower Panasonic. As far as I know, lenses are no longer designed to correct for distortion themselves. Manufacturers rely on in-camera software. I shoot RAW so I don't get the benefit of that, although you can correct for distortion in photoshop and lightroom.

When we are talking about distortion with these lenses, we are talking primarily about the ability of a lens to keep a straight line looking straight. When I shoot underwater, there are few straight lines and one of my favorite underwater lenses is the 8mm fisheye, for which straight lines simply don't exist. So, I don't care a lot about distortion as much as vignetting and sharpness (to a point). Of course, if what you shoot requires minimal distortion, or if it simply matters to you for other reasons, that is fine. Generally, I doubt anyone could identify which lens was used on any given image.

sample images:

23mm; f: 3.2; 1/80 sec; ISO: 200

12mm; f: 3.5 ; 1/320 sec; ISO 200.

12mm; f: 6.3; 1/125; ISO: 200.

For some reasons the sample images (posted above) did not get through...

(They were taken last Sunday with the 12-40mm 2.6 Pro in our local turbid waters (vis around 2m) and show that only at very short focal length the image quality is at satisfaction, so the new Pana 8-18mm or the Zuiko 9-18mm are not useful for me either, the 18mm make little sense...)

I just wanted to thank everybody for your valuable contributions and to tell you that I decided now for the Panasonic 7-14mm, since the difference in optical quality to the Zuiko 7-14mm seems to be minimal and the Pana is smaller and lighter and fits to the dome I have without any additional extension to carry around with me...

I invite everybody for a round of virtual beer and promise a real one in case we meet once in the real world, lets say at a dive boat

Wolfgang