PDA

View Full Version : Pany 7-14 on OM-D


RJM
19th March 2013, 04:10 PM
Hi

I love my Samyang 7.5mm fisheye and believe I'd get a lot of use out of a 7-14 zoom.

However, researching it I have read conflicting reviews and mention of purple fringing when used on the Olympus.

It's a lot of money and I'm umming and arring about getting it.

Any thoughts?

I have thought about waiting and seeing what Tamron or Sigma bring out.

I would love a 7 or 8 mm prime!

StephenL
19th March 2013, 06:26 PM
I had this lens but sold it as I found it was not as good as its Olympus big brother on an E3.

Dogcow
19th March 2013, 08:42 PM
Same here, I refrained from buying after having tested it.

It is not up to my standard. For my use (panorama photography) I think it is even worse than the Samyang 7.5 FE

Jetset95
13th April 2013, 01:01 PM
Same here, I refrained from buying after having tested it.

It is not up to my standard. For my use (panorama photography) I think it is even worse than the Samyang 7.5 FE

Can users of the Panny 7-14mm on the OM-D give a bit more info as to why they didn't find it up to scratch? I've heard and seen the purple CA which is more pronounced on this lens than the Olympus M.Zukio 9-18mm wide lens, is that the reason, and can't Lightroom or Olympus Viewer clear that up easily enough these days?

Thanks, James

StephenL
13th April 2013, 01:13 PM
I am of the unscientific, often disputed, view that Panasonic lenses simply don't have that same sparkle as Olympus glass. Like looking through dusty specs, you don't notice the difference till you've cleaned them!

Dogcow
14th April 2013, 07:55 AM
Same as StephenL.
I miss the 'sparkle' in the photographs taken with the Panny 7-14, which does show in my pics with the Samyang 7.5.

Here is an example (http://360vr.nl/VSMloods) of the quality the Samyang 7.5 Fisheye produces:

StephenL
14th April 2013, 08:12 AM
That is one great picture! (Or many!) Difficulty comes when you try to print it!

Jetset95
14th April 2013, 06:55 PM
Thanks for your input guys - I have a few Panny lenses as I came to the OM-D from a G3 kit, and I don't really understand what you mean so perhaps its very much a personal feeling. If the Panny 7-14 really isn't good that will simplify things greatly, the Oly 9-18mm is smaller, lighter and cheaper - if it takes better photos I'm sold.

Dogcow, do you have examples of the fisheye which are not panorama? How do you deal with the distortion?

Thanks, James

StephenL
14th April 2013, 07:20 PM
If you're interested, I have an Oly 9-18 m4/3 which I am considering selling.

Jetset95
14th April 2013, 07:41 PM
If you're interested, I have an Oly 9-18 m4/3 which I am considering selling.

Hi Stephen, yes I'd be interested, can I ask why you're selling it and how much would you like / what's in the package?

Thank you, James

StephenL
14th April 2013, 07:51 PM
I'll PM you tomorrow, if that's OK?

peak4
14th April 2013, 08:41 PM
Personally I've found that bright light sources in, or near the field of view of the 7-14mm almost always cause some purple flaring on the E-M5.
Fortunately I also own an E-P2, so when I have the desire to carry the wide angle zoom, I just attach it to the Pen and put the combination in my bag. It's just a pain having to carry two different battery sizes.
I've not had a serious problem with flaring on the E-P2/7-14mm combination unless the sun is actually in the viewable area, but that's likely to happen with any lens.
I'm assuming it has something to do with the new sensor rather than the camera itself, so I suspect that the latest Pen might exhibit the same problem; I've not tried it myself though.

Jetset95
15th April 2013, 06:06 AM
Personally I've found that bright light sources in, or near the field of view of the 7-14mm almost always cause some purple flaring on the E-M5.
Fortunately I also own an E-P2, so when I have the desire to carry the wide angle zoom, I just attach it to the Pen and put the combination in my bag. It's just a pain having to carry two different battery sizes.
I've not had a serious problem with flaring on the E-P2/7-14mm combination unless the sun is actually in the viewable area, but that's likely to happen with any lens.
I'm assuming it has something to do with the new sensor rather than the camera itself, so I suspect that the latest Pen might exhibit the same problem; I've not tried it myself though.

Thanks Bill, I guess that fact you switch bodies means it's too much of an issue to deal with in post. Much appreciated.

James

Jetset95
15th April 2013, 06:07 AM
I'll PM you tomorrow, if that's OK?

Yep thanks. James

Dogcow
15th April 2013, 07:33 AM
...
Dogcow, do you have examples of the fisheye which are not panorama? How do you deal with the distortion?

Thanks, James

Sorry James but I do tend do shoot 'pano only'. But there are Lens profiles in ACR (or Ps) that you can use to defish the images or you can make your own in Adobe Lens Profile Creator.


Karel

StephenL
15th April 2013, 07:45 AM
Yep thanks. James

PM now sent.

Jetset95
15th April 2013, 08:07 AM
Thanks Karel for your reply

drmarkf
21st September 2013, 07:53 AM
I tried my 7-14 on the E-M1 at the London meetup - actually I tried to get it to flare using the ghastly LED lights down at floor level, and it wouldn't do it on either the M1 or my M5!

There wasn't much time to play around, so this was hardly a definitive test...

I am well aware of the 7-14's propensity to produce odd purple flares with the M5 under certain circumstances. It is, however, fully visible in the viewfinder and I find I can eliminate it readily with small re-positionings of the camera. This only happens in my experience when you're doing something like photographing on a tripod in a dark church where sunlight's streaming through the windows: frankly its a very minor issue in comparison with the benefit of the extra 2mm over the 9-18 (which I also own, but currently have up here for sale). Neither lens is the best superwide zoom in the known universe, but both give good-very good IQ at a highly competitive price and are fantastically compact and light.

Personally I'd like Oly to produce a SHQ-standard superwide prime (7mm would be fine) and I'd buy it in a flash.

The flare is said to be due to an internal reflection within the M5 body.

So, has anyone done a more definitive test of the 7-14 with the M1?

peak4
21st September 2013, 11:10 AM
Well not a definitive test, but I've just come in from a play with one at my local dealer and I struggled to get it to flare on the indoor ceiling lights. Where I could induce anything, it didn't seem to be purple.

The Bigma seemed to behave as well without any of the rattling that the E-M5 induces in the lens.
The 300mm F2.8 seems pretty snappy too.

That was all I had time to play with despite being round for 1 1/2 hours. I think it's going to be popular.

RJM
21st September 2013, 02:23 PM
The 300 F2.8 - what lens is that?

You summed it up with the Pan 7-14.......the purple fringing happens only occasionally and is easily corrected by repositioning.

That extra 2mm (or 4mm on FF) doesn't seem much but it can matter sometimes.

I recently tried the OLY 9-18mm on a recent OMD experience day and it is a very nice lens, a lot more compact than the Pan 7-14.

I have seen reviews that say the 7-14 is as sharp or sharper than the Oly 12mm prime..........so it shows you how good it is.

benvendetta
21st September 2013, 07:26 PM
The 300 F2.8 - what lens is that?

You summed it up with the Pan 7-14.......the purple fringing happens only occasionally and is easily corrected by repositioning.

That extra 2mm (or 4mm on FF) doesn't seem much but it can matter sometimes.

I recently tried the OLY 9-18mm on a recent OMD experience day and it is a very nice lens, a lot more compact than the Pan 7-14.

I have seen reviews that say the 7-14 is as sharp or sharper than the Oly 12mm prime..........so it shows you how good it is.

Probably means the 43rds monster. How about trying the 43rds 7-14mm? Damn fine lens.

delaneyb
10th December 2013, 06:16 PM
I'm torn between for a SWA on my M1
- the ZD 7-14 (which I used to own and is a wonderful lens), but its a beast on the OMD...
- the Pana 7-14, which gets variable reviews to say the least!
and waiting for an Olympus m43 SWA....
will probably wait.

drmarkf
10th December 2013, 07:58 PM
will probably wait.

To be perfectly honest I was going to stick with my 9-18 until we got some clues about what Oly might do with a SW prime, but I found the 7-14 Panny at a decent price s/h, so I jumped.
Even if I do sell it eventually this should limit my losses, and I am using it quite a bit!

Ricoh
19th May 2014, 11:21 PM
Before I give up using the Panasonic 7-14mm f4 on my EM5 (or E-P5) I'd like to consider the rear filter option. I've read the fix posted on http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51390321, but the solution talks about cutting plastic shims to allow the revised baffle to fit flat over the underlying 'wings'.
Anyone have first hand experience of this, or know of a better solution and where I might get the parts?
And having gone to the expense and trouble, does it actually eliminate the purple flare/blobs?

peak4
19th May 2014, 11:57 PM
Don't rush into selling just yet.
I've now amassed the parts, a couple of types of gelatine UV filters and the requisite holder off an 8mm Panasonic fisheye.
Just not had time to assemble them yet as I've been rather tied up.
Hopefully I'll get a piece put together but it might be a week or three yet.
Off to bed now though.*zzz

Ricoh
20th May 2014, 09:26 PM
Thanks Peak4, can I ask where you managed to purchase the 8mm fisheye filter holder and Wratten 2A. Is that the complete shopping list of parts?
What sort of outlay might I expect?
Many thanks, Steve.

pdk42
20th May 2014, 10:13 PM
Steve, when I had mine, I had to order from CSE in the USA. I couldn't find any local supplier at all. Sourcing the 1A Wratten filter wasn't easy either. Now, YMMV, but I wasn't 100% satisfied with the end result either. Firstly, the gel filter was very easy to scratch. You need to treat it carefully and plan on replacing it periodically. Secondly, I could detect a slight drop off in contrast and sharpness when it was fitted. It wasn't a lot, but whenever I compared it to the 9-18, I found the only thing I was missing was the extra 2mm; there was certainly no better IQ. I've since added a Sammy 7.5 and that satisfies my addiction to ultra w i d e !

As much as i loved the the 7-14, it just didn't gel (pun intended!) for me.

Ricoh
20th May 2014, 11:09 PM
Thanks for the reply Paul. Based on what you've just said it doesn't sound too encouraging in terms of expected results. I'm in a quandary, do I mod it, sell it or get hold of a Lumix body - but do I really want a third camera, probably not.
The lens is virtually like new and cost me a fair bit of money reflecting the condition, but disappointingly it's sitting in my wardrobe most of the time since it doesn't work for me on my EM5. One good thing, the lens is probably not going to devalue greatly, as long as I try to sell it before Olympus bring out an ultra wide.
My present thought pattern is to get the parts and give it one last chance, if it doesn't perform then I'll eBay it (notice the use of eBay as a verb!).

peak4
20th May 2014, 11:11 PM
Thanks Peak4, can I ask where you managed to purchase the 8mm fisheye filter holder and Wratten 2A. Is that the complete shopping list of parts?
What sort of outlay might I expect?
Many thanks, Steve.

The filter holder came from Panasonic's official repairers and had a part number of VXQ1911
It came posted to me for 30 from DK AVS http://www.dkavs.co.uk/

The filter is rather more problematic, I managed to get a 3" Wratten 2a and a 2" Wratten 2e from Israel. The former was just shy of 15 and the latter a bit less than 9 inc postage. New old stock.

The holder seems readily obtainable, so I'd hold off getting that until you have tracked down the gel from somewhere. (I think Tiffen sell them too)
Ebay might be your friend here as well.;)

Ricoh
21st May 2014, 06:17 PM
Thanks for the info.
Having done an internet search I can't quite see how the holder actually holds the gel filter, but presume it's fairly obvious once you have the part layed out in front of you.
I don't suppose you get any instructions, but I'm only guessing.
Steve.

pdk42
21st May 2014, 07:12 PM
It's all very obvious and easy Steve - literally less than a 5 min job to fit the holder and probably the same to cut the gel to size. Don't let that put you off.

Ricoh
21st May 2014, 07:42 PM
Thanks Paul - you're very helpful once agin!

Ricoh
21st May 2014, 10:22 PM
The filter is rather more problematic, I managed to get a 3" Wratten 2a and a 2" Wratten 2e from Israel. The former was just shy of £15 and the latter a bit less than £9 inc postage. New old stock.

The holder seems readily obtainable, so I'd hold off getting that until you have tracked down the gel from somewhere. (I think Tiffen sell them too)
Ebay might be your friend here as well.;)
I see what you mean about the filter, an Internet search has shown only one source in the uk: 'Sigma-Alorich' who do the Written 2A at £44.60 for 3"x3". Otherwise it's the likes of B+H state-side for $59.95 plus tax and postage.
Best from eBay was the 2B, but the passband might not be effective.

peak4
21st May 2014, 11:53 PM
http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_odkw=drill+doctor&_osacat=0&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.Xkodak+2e+ filter&_nkw=kodak+2e+filter&_sacat=0&_from=R40

There may be others too. Maybe worth sounding out others to share?

Ricoh
22nd May 2014, 11:49 AM
Thanks Bill, really helpful of you. I had a look at the spectral plots and from recollection the 2E should attenuate UV equally well. I'm happy with the price so will order I think - when I get to a secure link to change passwords etc for ebay.
Regarding the holder, I emailed Dkavs and received the reply: "Hi,
I am sorry but we do not supply component parts.
Regards, DKAVS".
Have you any further suggestions for sourcing the part?
Many thanks,
Steve

peak4
22nd May 2014, 04:09 PM
Thanks Bill, really helpful of you. I had a look at the spectral plots and from recollection the 2E should attenuate UV equally well. I'm happy with the price so will order I think - when I get to a secure link to change passwords etc for ebay.
Regarding the holder, I emailed Dkavs and received the reply: "Hi,
I am sorry but we do not supply component parts.
Regards, DKAVS".
Have you any further suggestions for sourcing the part?
Many thanks,
Steve

I phoned them, spoke to a friendly chap who took my order, credit card number and posted it the following day.

Ricoh
22nd May 2014, 09:41 PM
Thanks Bill, I'll call hoping I get the same 'friendly' individual.
Steve.

tomphotofx
24th May 2014, 04:51 PM
When mounted on a Lumix camera all CA are removed by the process engine in the camera.

Ricoh
24th May 2014, 06:47 PM
I read somewhere that Lumix had a sensor mounted filter - in common with most, if not all, digital cameras - that had a cut-off frequency (wavelength) that attenuated UV, since the sensor is responsive to UV energy levels. If it's the camera-based process engine that is doing the business, why is it virtually impossible to replicate this process in LR?

Ricoh
28th May 2014, 07:15 PM
For anyone who is interested, for example if you own a Panny 7-14, I've just ordered a VXQ1911 'shading frame' from Panasonic UK for £14.42, delivered. Hoping to have it in my hands in 5-7 days. All I need now is Wratten 2A or 2E and I'm off.
An Internet search came up with the following supplier:
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/sigma/f9265
I'm waiting for the 'shading frame', as Panasonic call it, then I'll be placing an order, unless something cheaper turns up beforehand.

Ricoh
31st May 2014, 12:28 PM
I now have the filter holder and the 2E gel filter is on order. Anyone have any thoughts / experience in cutting the filter to size?

pdk42
31st May 2014, 01:19 PM
I now have the filter holder and the 2E gel filter is on order. Anyone have any thoughts / experience in cutting the filter to size?

The filters are easy to scratch, so first cut a piece of paper or thin card to the right size to use as a template. Scissors are fine for cutting the gel, but put a lint-free cloth underneath to stop scratches as it falls after cutting or as you pick it up. It might be worth using small tweezers to handle the cut piece to avoid finger prints too.

Ricoh
31st May 2014, 01:45 PM
Thanks Paul, it's like micro 4/3 surgery! I hope the end results pay off.
The lens output is fine in overcast conditions, meaning 90% of the time in the UK, it's just those occasions when the sun is out playing.

I think I'll form a sandwich card - filter - card, and cut. Keeping registration of all three could be my problem. I'll think some more whilst awaiting delivery.
Cheers!

Ricoh
2nd June 2014, 12:55 PM
Another question please for those who have experience fitting the filter holder to the P7-14 lens, did you find the need to shim the VXQ1911, and if so by what amount, i.e. thickness? According to a 'how to do it' on DPR, it talks about fabricating a horseshoe shaped plastic shim of thickness 0.5mm, approx.

Ricoh
4th June 2014, 06:12 PM
Although there seems to be very little interest in modifying the P7-14, I add this user manual for the 8mm fisheye which provides the cutting guide for the gel filter to fit the VXQ1911 frame (see page 8).
http://service.us.panasonic.com/OPERMANPDF/HF008-MUL.PDF

dko22
5th June 2014, 11:15 AM
it's interesting to hear the experiences of using the 7-14 with the OMD both with and without the filter. I have to admit that in the first 18 months of using this combination, I was reasonably happy but after one holiday, I increasingly noticed the lack of contrast and fairly subtle but clearly visible purple or blueish flare in many shots when the sun was anywhere near the frame, quite apart from the known and more obvious issues indoors with a strong light source in the frame (sometimes repositioning the shot could get rid of it but very often this was simply not an option). I vaguely considered trying to get hold of the filter set but was a bit sceptical a) of my ability to fit it and b) whether it wouldn't somewhat degrade the image. I remain somewhat unsure having read the contributions here. Have to say that I seemed to get better results with the GH2 than the OMD (less fringing as well).

It's curious that these issues, as well as a mild dissatisfaction with the consistency of performance with the 75-300 without seeing a viable, affordable alternative led a chance experiment with a Fuji X-E1 to building that out as a primary system and selling off some of my m43 stuff including the lenses at the more extreme ends. Why didn't I just get the 9-18? Dunno! I can still see a Pen L or M with 9-18 and 40-150 as being a useful ultralight travel combo but I'd like to see if the next generation improve the IBIS. If not, then I guess that the E-M10 will be pretty cheap in a year or so.. Too many choices these days :o

David

drmarkf
6th June 2014, 08:37 AM
... Why didn't I just get the 9-18? Dunno! I can still see a Pen L or M with 9-18 and 40-150 as being a useful ultralight travel combo but I'd like to see if the next generation improve the IBIS...

I took that combination of zooms on a 3 week holiday to India 3 or 4 years ago, with an E-PL2. Very light and compact, but I found I really missed being able to isolate the subject to any degree with the wider lens, plus indoor natural light shots were a challenge.

The next trip was to Japan, and I took the PanLeica 50mm f1.4 along as well: this time I found I used this lens for about 60% of my shots and the 9-18 hardly at all - I got some lovely images in temples, but another issue emerged that I found I'd got the wrong lens on more often when a fleeting photo opportunity offered itself!

So, since buying the Panny 12-35 f2.8 I've found that this, matched with the 40-150, gives the best balance of size, aperture and focal length for travel (with the M1 now, which further improves low-light performance and IBIS, of course).

Ricoh
14th June 2014, 06:57 PM
With the filter in place, the 7-14 is a totally different beast. I can now point the lens into sun with no purple nonsense to be seen. I've only experimented so far and need to examine more closely for IQ (other contributors here and elsewhere have suggested a trade off with diminished IQ as a result).
In the end I added a spacer underneath the filter holder (Panasonic call it a shading frame) and it sits well, with no stress when the screws are torqued-up. Without shimming the shading frame is in tension, so not acceptable to me.
Cutting the filters is a different matter, the gel filters are so easy to damage, so great care is required. I produced a double sided template 21.5mm square with 3mm corner chamfers, as per the guide, and used adapted tweezers with felt grips to handle and insert the filter. So far I'm glad I kept the lens, I was so close to putting it up on ebay.

drmarkf
15th June 2014, 12:12 PM
This is fascinating - a real labour of love!

Ricoh
15th June 2014, 01:10 PM
This is fascinating - a real labour of love!
Do I detect a bit of sarcasm :)
I can assure you it's not a labour of love, just a choice of modifying or selling!
Anyway, enough said, perhaps more than enough. But for anyone contemplating the mod, go for it, its not as bad to implement as it may sound. Just one final thought, make sure you have the correct screwdriver, a P003 bit is required.

drmarkf
15th June 2014, 03:17 PM
No, not at all - actually I'm very impressed you're motivated to sort this out while the rest of us are muddling on with a compromised product!

I must say I'm hanging on for release of a good Oly superwide, prime or zoom.
I get decent results with my 7-14, but that's probably because I know the limitations and I just tend not to use it in situations where fringing and purple meanies are likely.

MurrayMcMillan
15th September 2014, 06:47 PM
Any examples of pics with it since the filter was added Steve?

And a pic of the modded lens?

Ricoh
15th September 2014, 06:54 PM
Yes indeed Murray, I'll look at some suitable JPEGs out of the camera as I'm uncertain how well my pp'ing is without a calibrated monitor. More likely tomorrow when I have more time.
Cheers.