PDA

View Full Version : Olympus 9 ~ 18mm Vs 9mm f8 Fisheye


Naughty Nigel
1st December 2014, 12:13 PM
I am interested in doing some ultra wide angle photography, and wondered (price apart) how these two lenses compared?

The 9mm f8 Fisheye will provide a 'fisheye' perspective, but would the 9 ~ 18 millimetre lens provide the same perspective at the 9 millimetre end?

I guess the obvious solution is to hire them from Ian for a few days, but does anyone here have first hand experience of these lenses?

davy59
1st December 2014, 04:52 PM
Hi Nigel,

I have used both of these!

I actually have the 9 - 18 mm and have used it for about 3-4 years. Its not really a fish eye so you don't get the typical look you just get a very wide angle view. No doubt wiser people on here will tell me why? Its a good lens, and great value but having said all that I have only used mine once this year! I have a 12mm Prime that seems to have taken its place! So will be perhaps trading it in shortly.

The 9mm fisheye I hired this summer (from Ian) for a trip to Santorini, I had that particular fisheye shot in mind for some sunsets/landscapes. Its a very good lens albit a little heavy compared to the 9-18 mm. The big problem I found with it was fish eye addition! You tend to use it a lot for a few days, also you have to watch what is included, my bag and feet ruined a couple of photographs.

If you want to see what they can and the effect here are a couple of links to my photographs using the different kit - first is the 9-18mm

https://www.flickr.com/photos/davepickettphotographer/13896446277/in/set-72157632509110211

https://www.flickr.com/photos/davepickettphotographer/15130298462/in/set-72157631807433965

BTW Ian offers an excellent hire service! Will be using again!

Cheers

Dave

Zuiko
1st December 2014, 05:19 PM
Hi Nigel,

I have used both of these!

I actually have the 9 - 18 mm and have used it for about 3-4 years. Its not really a fish eye so you don't get the typical look you just get a very wide angle view. No doubt wiser people on here will tell me why? Its a good lens, and great value but having said all that I have only used mine once this year! I have a 12mm Prime that seems to have taken its place! So will be perhaps trading it in shortly.

The 9mm fisheye I hired this summer (from Ian) for a trip to Santorini, I had that particular fisheye shot in mind for some sunsets/landscapes. Its a very good lens albit a little heavy compared to the 9-18 mm. The big problem I found with it was fish eye addition! You tend to use it a lot for a few days, also you have to watch what is included, my bag and feet ruined a couple of photographs.

If you want to see what they can and the effect here are a couple of links to my photographs using the different kit - first is the 9-18mm

https://www.flickr.com/photos/davepickettphotographer/13896446277/in/set-72157632509110211

https://www.flickr.com/photos/davepickettphotographer/15130298462/in/set-72157631807433965

BTW Ian offers an excellent hire service! Will be using again!

Cheers

Dave

Hi Dave, I think it was the 8mm fisheye that you hired from Ian; Nigel is referring to the 9mm "body cap lens." The main difference between the 9-18mm and the 9mm (or indeed the 8mm that you tried) is that the zoom is highly corrected optically to minimize distortion, whereas the 8mm and 9mm are uncorrected and thus produce the trademark fisheye distortion. As a consequence, the corrected 9mm end of the zoom does not have as wide an angle of view as the two uncorrected primes. So in essence the choice is between an ultra-wide angle of view with startling perspective and whacky distortion (which can be used creatively but equally can quickly become a cliché) or a still very wide but much more moderate angle of view with more of a "normal" look.

davy59
1st December 2014, 06:03 PM
Cheers! Had forgotten about the body cap lens! Very true what you say about 'fish eye - I soon tired of it! But it has its place!

Ulfric M Douglas
1st December 2014, 08:33 PM
Depends if you want 'proper' pictures or 'fisheye' pictures : in my opinion totally different aims and results.
I personally do not like fisheye pictures, but love a nice wideangle without too much distortion.

Mark_R2
1st December 2014, 09:27 PM
As has been mentioned, these lenses are quite different in their intended application. The 9-18mm is a conventional rectilinear lens that preserves (or attempts to preserve) straight lines. A fisheye lens aims for the widest possible angular field of view and achieves it by not attempting to keep straight lines straight. A 'diagonal' fisheye should give a 180° field of view across the corners of the pictures. A 'circular' fisheye will give a 180° field of view across the smallest dimension of the pictures, and the picture will be circular with a black border.

Olympus do not give a field of view of the fisheye body cap lens as it is classed as an 'accessory'. It will be nominally a diagonal type fisheye, but may not even reach 180° field of view.

I have no personal experience of the fisheye body cap lens, but you can read a review on photozone.de

I do have the m.Zuiko 9-18mm and think it is a very good lens indeed. Stopped down to f8, it is very sharp over the entire frame and I have always liked the way it renders - pictures have a nice sense of depth and colours are very good. I don't use mine much now that I have the 12-40 Pro lens, I find the extra reach is more useful than the extreme wide angle.

If you want a fisheye, I recommend the Samyang 7.5mm m4/3 lens. This is a great performer. But it is a specialist lens so I would go for the 9-18mm for general use.

Mark

Andrew Riddell
1st December 2014, 09:42 PM
If you want a fisheye, I recommend the Samyang 7.5mm m4/3 lens. This is a great performer. But it is a specialist lens so I would go for the 9-18mm for general use.
Mark

I second Mark on the Samyang, but I use it only occasionally and for strange effects. For general shots at that range I prefer the Panny 7-14, which I'm sure I'll keep (as I can't see myself justifying the likely cost of the coming Oly one!).

Andrew

Naughty Nigel
1st December 2014, 09:53 PM
Thank you all for your comments. The photographs that David posted are impressive indeed.

I really like the fisheye effect, (and David's example is stunning); but I suspect I would soon tire of it. The body cap lens is at least affordable, but I think for the price I will hire one from Ian for a few days to see how I like it; possibly with the 9 ~ 18 as well.

Meanwhile, if either of them comes up here I could be tempted!

The 12 millimetre prime also looks a very nice lens, but I have the 12 ~ 40, so I doubt that I would see any real benefit for the price.

byegad
2nd December 2014, 08:26 AM
For good Fisheye results look to the Samyang 7.5mm manual lens. I bought it for a specific shoot but often use it for a few shots while on walkabout. I rather like the distorted view it gives and visiting a National Trust style house with it enables me to get some great photos of almost a whole room at the cost of the distortion.

PeterBirder
2nd December 2014, 02:30 PM
For an excellent review and great examples of what the little 9mm lenscap "fisheye" lens will do see Robin Wong's blog report here; http://robinwong.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/olympus-9mm-fisheye-body-cap-lens-review.html

Regards.*chr

Zuiko
2nd December 2014, 05:22 PM
For an excellent review and great examples of what the little 9mm lenscap "fisheye" lens will do see Robin Wong's blog report here; http://robinwong.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/olympus-9mm-fisheye-body-cap-lens-review.html

Regards.*chr

I think that Robin Wong could get great pictures with a milk bottle for a lens - or even a Canon optic! :D

Mark_R2
2nd December 2014, 09:03 PM
The 12 millimetre prime also looks a very nice lens, but I have the 12 ~ 40, so I doubt that I would see any real benefit for the price.

Well, if you have the 12-40mm, I'm not convinced to 9-18 will really be worth the outlay. By hiring it you will be able to see just how many pictures you actually take in the sub-12mm range. I know that when I was using my 9-18mm whilst fell walking I didn't use that end of the range that much, but often wanted longer than 18mm This is why I am happy just to take the 12-40mm with me now.

If you want an ultra-wdie companion to the 12-40mm, I think you will have to go for the 7-14mm. :)

I agree about the 12mm prime. It wouldn't be of any benefit over the 12-40mm for the photography I do.

Mark

Naughty Nigel
8th December 2014, 10:53 AM
Thanks again for all your thoughts which are very helpful.

I must say that, in the past I have been underwhelmed by ultra wide angle lenses, and didn't get a great deal of use from my Zuiko 11 ~ 22 before my son half-inched it!

Having said that, my work sometimes demands a wider angle of view than is provided by even the 12 millimetre end of the 12 ~ 40 zoom.

I think the distorted perspective of the 9mm f8 Fisheye is probably more what I am looking for, but I will try hiring them both to see what I really want and need. :)

davidavdavid
28th February 2015, 10:23 PM
I own numerous Panasonic Lumix bodies (G6, G5 and G2) and am looking for a super wide angle lens. My current arsenal includes: 14mm f2.5, 14-42mm pancake zoom and 45-150mm zoom - and I want something truly wide without a whole lot of distortion.

I will be meeting up with Ian to hire the 9-18mm zoom and possibly giving the 9mm fisheye bodycap lens a quick once-over. Will be curious to see how these lenses function with "alien" Panasonic hardware :)