Finally, some pictures.

In Part I, I looked at some of the design aspects of the Olympus 9-18mm MFT lens for the Panasonic G1 and in Part II set forth some thoughts on how it handles.

This article addresses results. How good is this lens in practice?

So what qualifies me to pontificate on wide lenses?

I have always been a ‘wide’ rather than a ‘telephoto’ guy, liking to get close to the action. That’s my street snapper thing. In that context the widest lens I have used, and still own, is the Canon full frame f/2.8 8 mm fisheye for my 5D which, with de-fishing software, yields an effective Full Frame Equivalent (FFE) of 12mm. That’s insanely wide. That Canon lens is no slouch but the micro contrast is simply not there in big prints and definition is not that great at the corners until you stop it down to f/8.

The next widest lens I have used is the very costly 14mm f/2.8 Canon L for the 5D, a loaner. At thrice the cost of the fisheye it underperforms in every way with heavy chromatic aberration at most apertures and poor edge detail. A real dog. Apparently improved in the Mk II version but at $2,100 you can forget it. And it’s an absolute monster in your bag or on your camera.

The next widest was a sweet and minuscule 20mm f/2.8 Takumar which I used for years on my Pentax ME Super 35mm film camera. Small, fast, no bulbous front element and sharp all over. Everything was right about this optic which explains why it is much sought after on the used market.

My worst experience with ultra-wides was with the Canon 20mm f/2.8. No fewer than two of these soiled the rug and I was glad to see the last of them. Poor corner definition at most apertures, horrible vignetting, there’s really little good to be said about this excuse passing for a lens. Canon should be ashamed.

Then came two really heavy hitters. The unsurpassed 21mm f/2.8 Leica Aspherical Elmarit for my Leica M bodies (really a bit too large to equate well with the compact Leica M’s ethos) and the huge 21mm f/4 Super Angulon for my Leicaflex SL (a nice pairing) and Leica R4 (which it overpowered from a balance perspective). The former cost me $1,000 lightly used, I sold it for $2,000 and it now costs $4,200. The latter, actually a Joseph Schneider design licensed to Leitz, moved on with my Leica SLR gear when digital came along. It was almost as good as the Aspherical but sported a huge front element and was immensely heavy. Over-engineered in the way only Leitz knew how back then.

In use:

To check things out I set out for Half Moon Bay, a rather down-at-heels coastal town a few miles south of San Francisco. That is a good feature. Have you ever taken a good snap in the pristine, manicured sterility of Beverly Hills?

Half Moon Bay has some funky beach streets and an interesting boat marina and commercial fishery on the wharf.

Using the lens, absent the reverse rotation of the zoom ring compared with the two Panny lenses in my G1 kit, is unexceptional. The size, once extended, is similar to that of the 14-45mm kit lens and operation is much the same except, of course, that the 9-18mm Olympus is really wide at 9mm.

Loading the pictures into Lightroom 3, three considerations arise:

1 – Orientation sensor: In common with other Olympus MFT lenses, this optic has no orientation sensor to automatically rotate pictures in Lightroom 3. (Olympus does this in their MFT bodies). All pictures load in landscape orientation so it’s necessary to Command-click all the portrait images and turn them through a right angle using LR3’s controls. A minor irritant.

2 – Barrel distortion: Panny lenses on the G1 have in body distortion correction. Load the images into LR3 and distortions are notable for their absence. Because there is no in camera distortion correction with the Olympus lens on the G1, barrel distortion is noticeable – straight lines at the edges bow outwards in the center. This is easily fixed, where it matters, using the Lens Corrections->Manual->Transform->Distortion slider in the Develop module of LR3. (LR2 does not have this feature). This has to be done in the Manual section, as Automated (“Profile”) corrections in LR3 are currently limited to Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Sony and Tamron lenses. I do not know if Adobe will add Olympus lenses mounted on a Panasonic body. To get things dead straight, the slider has to be at +10 with the Olympus lens at 9mm and +3 at 18mm. The distortion is not severe and need only be corrected in architectural or landscape shots with prominent straight lines. You can also automate distortion correction by clicking here.

3 – Chromatic aberration (color fringing): As with barrel distortion, this has to be corrected manually. It’s mostly noticeable as a red fringe when pixel peeping at 9-10mm focal length and a setting of -15 to -20 on the Lens Corrections->Manual->Transform->Chromatic Aberration->Red/Cyan slider in LR3 does the trick.

It makes no sense to incorporate these settings into an import profile as that assumes that all pictures imported are taken on this lens at a specific, wide, focal length. Simply add the settings on the ‘keepers’ – it takes seconds to do.

None of these are disabling issues as the pictures from the lens are in every way as detailed and sharp as from its Panny stablemates, which means superb. There is a total absence of vignetting at any focal length or aperture and if you see any in the pictures here it’s because I added it in LR3 to heighten the impact of an image. Rather funny that designers go to all that effort to eradicate vignetting and photographers then proceed to add it when processing their pictures.

Examples:

Barrel distortion:

Barrel distortion at 9mm – look at the horizon.

Barrel distortion at 18mm – less pronounced, but still there.

Chromatic aberration:

Not illustrated as it’s only visible to pixel peepers.

How wide is 9mm (=18mm FFE)?

18mm FFE is incredibly wide and if you are new to something this wide be prepared for disappointment with your first few snaps. Take a look at the two pairs of pictures above – one is at 18mm FFE, the other at 36mm. The increased amount of foreground is immense – I have kept the horizon at the top of the frame for comparison purposes. If you think you need this lens to ‘get more in’ forget it. Unless your back is against a wall or unless you have strong foreground interest, your pictures will be awful, your subject a tiny blob in the distance. And if you are afraid of getting in close, stick with your longer lenses and save your money; an ultra-wide is not for you.

Here’s another case in point – I was but a couple of steps away from this surfer dude throwing the ball to his retriever:

At 9mm, f/4.5 – the chocolate lab gets ready to retrieve.

An 18mm FFE lens is a surrealist’s delight. Sure you can take the proverbial interiors of cathedrals with it, and that’s fine, but I prefer to buy picture postcards of those as they are far better done than anything I want to spend time on.

At 9mm. Portholes and gull. Lovely architecture for a building in a fishing village.

How about flare?

The wider a lens gets the higher the likelihood that strong light sources will be in the frame. This is an extreme example – the dynamic range between the interior of the bar and the strong sun outside is some 10 stops.

At 9mm, f/4.6. Lower picture shows the effect of using the Fill Light slider in LR3.

Flare is very well controlled, even in this extreme case. There are only minimal light source haloes to be seen in either interior or exterior pictures at 9mm. I do not, and will not, use a lens hood. Here’s a larger image:

At 9mm, f/4.6. Flare is well controlled.

What’s the depth of field like?

It’s extreme at 9mm no matter what aperture you use. 9mm is 9mm. No matter whether it’s on an MFT body or something larger – depth of field is a function solely of focal length and aperture and has nothing to do with the size of the film or sensor used. While in the picture below I stopped down to f/22 to be safe (the rusted beams were inches from the lens) this also shows that, DP Review’s charts notwithstanding, where they show definition falling as the lens is stopped down, f/22 is as sharp in practice as is f/4.

At 9mm, f/22. A few inches to infinity ….

Finally, when your back really is against the wall, this sort of thing becomes easy:

At 10mm, f/9. Colors on a wall. Taken in a narrow alleyway.

For more snaps over the next few days check my photoblog, Snap! While I have emphasized pictures taken at the wide end of the lens (a primary reason to buy it) performance at longer focal lengths is every bit as good.

Be honest – Micro Four-Thirds is lousy for big prints!

OK – here’s a full frame image:

At 18mm, f/8. Sunflowers.

Now here’s a magnified section which, if the whole thing was printed, would make a 30″ x 45″ print:

Magnified section of above – screenshot.

And your point is?

Conclusion: Despite a few quirks – a contra-rotating zoom ring, a non-existent image orientation sensor on import to LR3 and the need to manually correct chromatic aberration and barrel distortion if needed when used on a Panasonic rather than an Olympus body, the performance of the Olympus 9-18mm MFT ultra-wide zoom is as good as anything I have used at this focal length range. Color rendition is identical to that of the 14-45mm and 45-200mm Panasonic MFT lenses for the G1 camera range. At $600 it is an outstanding bargain.

42 lbs. The fish and the amount of fat this fisherman needs to lose. At 9mm, f/4.5

As the above shows, one huge advantage of an ultra-wide is that your subjects have no reason to believe they are in the frame!

Automating aberration corrections: If you want to learn how to create profiles for this lens which will correct aberrations automatically in Lightroom 3 – or if you simply wish to download the ones I have already created – please click here.

Some thoughts on ergonomics.

In Part I I looked at some of the design aspects of the Olympus 9-18mm MFT lens for the Panasonic G1. My Olympus 9-18mm MFT lens duly arrived on schedule, Bert the Border Terrier viciously attacked the UPS person (always a fun time) – and I have had a chance to try it on the G1. My first impressions relating to fit, finish and ergonomics follow.

Size and weight:

Collapsed the lens is smaller and lighter than the excellent 14-45mm kit lens. (Note: For Full Frame Equivalent focal lengths simply double what you see here, making the kit lens 28-90mm, etc.) The first thing I did was to attach a good quality B+W F-Pro UV-Haze filter for protection, identical to the one used on my 14-45 and 45-200 Panny lenses. I can confirm that there is no trace of corner vignetting even with the 9-18mm at its widest setting of 9mm.

Shutter interlock:

I rambled on about collapsible lenses in Part I and the bottom line is I do not like them. The Olympus is a collapsible lens. However, the maker has done a fine job of designing the collapsing feature. Attach the collapsed 9-18mm to a switched on G1 (no need to turn it off) and you get the “Please check that the lens is attached correctly” message. Press the shutter release and nothing happens. Now turn the zoom ring, which is very smooth (unlike the stinker on the 14-45mm) counterclockwise (anti-clockwise to our former oppressors in the UK) and you will feel a gentle click and the viewfinder of the G1 comes to life. There’s no need to depress the release catch on the barrel – just turn the zoom ring. For that matter, when extending the barrel you can simply pull it out by hand and give the zoom ring a slight tweak to lock it. The only time you do have to slide the release button forward is when you wish to collapse the lens for storage, which requires that you turn the zoom ring clockwise all the way – clockwise as viewed from the rear of the camera or by simply pushing the barrel in with the catch depressed.

Zooming:

Zooming is the opposite to that adopted by my two other Panny lenses (14-45mm and 45-200mm), meaning wide is clockwise and telephoto is counterclockwise. That will take some getting used to! Of the three lenses, the Olympus has the smoothest zoom action – you can operate the zoom ring easily with one finger, useful for street snapping. No way you do this with the gritty zoom ring of the 14-45mm and the 45-200mm is best held from below when zooming. The latter’s zoom ring is very smooth though it tightens up noticeably at 160-200mm. The Olympus is longest at 9mm and shortest around 15mm, extending a little from 15-18mm. The wonders of modern optics seem to have turned everything on its head.

Lens caps:

I hate lens caps and never use front ones, replacing them with a UV filter for protection. The rear is a matter of lens design. The 45-200mm needs no rear cap as the glass is always well recessed at any focal length. The 14-45mm does need a rear cap for while the glass is well recessed at 45mm you will likely put it away at 14mm and the rear elements are very exposed. The 9-18mm is a mixed bag. If you are prepared to store it extended the rear element is most exposed at 9mm but not especially so. At 18mm it is well recessed. No rear cap needed. However, once collapsed the rear element is every bit as exposed as that of the 14-45mm at 14mm and a rear cap makes sense. My inclination is to carry the 9-18mm non-collapsed for that reason and for the reason that all that collapsing and extending just results in wear. In that configuration a three lens outfit needs just one rear lens cap – for the 14-45mm. when it’s not on the camera. I like that. In no case does any of the three have a rear element which protrudes beyond the lens flange, so standing any of these lenses on a flat surface will not damage the rear glass.

Size in practice:

Why would you keep the 9-18mm extended at all times? Take a look – there’s little difference in size when it’s at 18mm from the 14-45mm and a little more at 9mm.

The Olympus lens at 18mm.

The Olympus lens at 9mm – its largest physical size.

Clearly it’s a practical answer to simply keep the Olympus in your bag set to 18mm and forget all the collapsing/extending nonsense.

Auto focusing:

Like the other two, the lens is near dead silent when autofocusing. Rather oddly it seems to ‘bounce’ beyond the focus point then comes back a bit and while that’s unnerving at first it’s also very fast and after a few frames you forget about it. Subjectively it’s marginally slower to lock on than the 14-45mm but the difference is minimal in practice. The 45-200mm is slower than both and has that disconcerting habit (which it shares with the Canon 100mm EF Macro at close focus distances) of going the wrong way through the focus range now and then before locking on. But I’m prepared to forgive that wonder lens this occasional quirk in exchange for a pocketable 400mm FFE optic. Thanks to the magic of the EVF it doesn’t matter what the lens aperture is or how poorly lit the subject. The EVF will make the subject equally bright under all conditions, even with the lens stopped down to check depth of field. Magic. So the modest f/4-f/5.6 (at the long end) aperture of the Olympus lens is simply not an issue. Sure, there’s no anti-shake technology unlike on the two Panny lenses, but this is a really wide lens – it’s hard to get camera blur at these wide angles. Use this lens on an Olympus MFT body and you benefit from the in-body anti-shake technology, if that’s important to you.

Indexing:

Only two manufacturers have ever got indexing of lenses right, in my opinion. Leica and Pentax. Both adopted a really large hemisphere of plastic (red on Leica lenses, white on Pentax’s) which you could feel even with gloved hands. Knowing from memory where the related dot was on the bayonet flange on the body of the camera, changing lenses by feel was a dream. You did not have to look. No way you are going to do this with the G1. Sure Panny thoughtfully provided indexing plastic blobs on its lenses but they are so small and hidden behind a flange on the rear of the lens as to be useless. Olympus’s approach is even worse and consistent with their earlier designs. They use a recessed red paint-filled index marker and the only way you are going to use that is by looking hard for it when mounting the lens on the body. Shame. A one cent piece of glued-on plastic could fix this so easily. It’s just lousy design thinking. You can clearly see the issue in the above pictures.

Fit and finish:

(i) Focus ring: The only time you need touch the focus ring is when focusing manually. Like with the two Pannys, the focus ring has no stops and is dead smooth. Set the G1 up right and apply a first pressure to the shutter release and you have what is easily the best high precision manual focusing system on the planet. Even with the camera on autofocus, as soon as the focus ring is turned the image in the EVF is greatly magnified and the lens switches to manual focus. And it’s really, really critical manual focus, owing to the magnification. Let go of the shutter release and the picture returns to normal size.

Now you really do not need this with a lens as wide as the 9-18mm which is very tolerant of focusing errors, but with, say, a macro, it’s a killer feature.

The Olympus uses a scalloped alloy zoom ring whereas the Panasonic lenses use rubberized grips. There’s no difference in practice but 35 years with Leicas make me a huge fan of the elegant scalloped design compared to the utilitarian rubber version. Sadly, Leica dropped that design when the accountants took over but Oly is sticking with it. Nice.

(ii) Feel: The lens is exceptionally light but nothing about it feels cheap.Some have accused it of feeling ‘plasticky’ which is meaningless to me. It feels fine. What did you expect? Stainless steel and brass in a 5.5 ounce ultra-compact optic? These people probably expect a Porsche 911 Turbo to deliver 100mpg too.

(iii) Wobble: All lenses with extensible mounts, be they zoom or collapsible, exhibit wobble. Grasp the front of the lens and you can feel it move from side to side as you work it. That was true of my Leica collapsible lenses, is true of the 24-105mm L zoom for the Canon 5D and is true of all three lenses for my G1. So here are my subjective ‘wobble’ evaluations, with each lens set to its longest dimensions:

• 45-200: – very, very slight. No impact on definition.
• 14-45: – very slight. No impact on definition.
• 9-18: – same as for the 14-45.

(iv) Does the Olympus lens coexist with a Panasonic body?

I have encountered no issues with the use of the Olympus lens on my Panasonic G1 body. Except for the zoom ring turning the other way all camera functions are unchanged. Actually, I did have rather a funny thing happen when first looking through the EVF (I never use the LCD screen, considering it one of man’s worst inventions). Every time I focused by taking a first pressure on the shutter release the image would continue to wobble. Wait a minute, I said to the resident Border Terrier. What gives? I haven’t been close to the hard stuff in weeks and it’s only early afternoon. Even at my age I don’t wobble that early in the day. So I tried the two Panny lenses and there it was again. Everything wobbled after focus was achieved. Well, a quick check disclosed that I had accidentally moved the top left dial on the G1 from AFS (single point focus) to AFC (continuous focus) and what I was seeing was the lens hunting in modest internal light as it oscillated about the optimal focus point. Phew! Switching the dial back to AFS (Panny really needs to make the clicks stronger) all was well again.

None of the lenses discloses any discernible fit issues at the lens flange end.

Firmware:

My G1 is on firmware v1.5 (current version) and the Olympus is 1.0. At this time there are no firmware updates for the Olympus lens – the one out there is for the non-MFT similar spec lens.

So that’s about it for the ergonomics.

In Part III I show some pictures taken with the Olympus lens and comment on the optical performance in real life. If you want test charts, go elsewhere. I use my camera to take pictures, not test charts.

One final thought. Here’s my global travel outfit – total weight 4 lbs. Isn’t technology wonderful?

G1 kit and friends.

The current range of Micro Four-Thirds lenses appears below, with the ones I own circled in red. Using regular Four Thirds or even larger APS-C or full frame DSLR lenses denies the concept of the MFT system and makes no sense to me, generally sacrificing automation and adding bulk. If you need them, use them on the bodies they were designed for.