Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 27

Thread: Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm f/4.0-5.6 Lens Review

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,255
    Real Name
    Amin

    Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm f/4.0-5.6 Lens Review


    I received an Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm f/4.0-5.6 lens from B&H Photo for testing on Serious Compacts.

    As many reading this review are aware, the M.ZD 9-18mm is a native Micro Four Thirds with the same focal length and aperture range as the well regarded ZD 9-18mm lens for regular (non-Micro) Four Thirds. The M.ZD 9-18mm is the second ultrawide angle zoom for the Micro 4/3 system, the first being the Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm lens.

    The Olympus M.ZD 9-18mm is an impressively small lens. Like the Olympus 14-42mm "kit" lens, the M.ZD 9-18 remains extended for use and collapses for storage.

    For the purposes of this review, the M.ZD 9-18 will be compared with the Panasonic 7-14 and Panasonic 14-45 lenses, since those are lenses I own. Here's how the three lenses compare in size when collapsed:

    Name:  P1060425.jpg
Views: 54111
Size:  367.1 KB

    Here are the lenses extended (the Panasonic 7-14mm lens does not change in length when zooming):

    Name:  P1060427.jpg
Views: 35529
Size:  354.9 KB

    The M.ZD 9-18 comes with the usual pinch-style front cap. Olympus does not include a hood with this lens, whereas the Panasonic 7-14mm lens has an integrated hood to protect the bulbous front element:

    Name:  P1060426.jpg
Views: 33717
Size:  477.6 KB

    Though lightweight and unabashedly plastic, build quality on the Olympus 9-18mm zoom seems very good. The manual focus ring is a bit smoother than that of either of the Panasonics. The zoom ring has a very short travel and reasonably smooth, damped feel. There is no significant "play" (wobble) in the barrel when extended, and the mount is metal.

    The Olympus lens covers the traditional focal length range of an ultrawide zoom, providing the same angle of view as a 18-36mm zoom for the 35mm format. The Olympus lens zoom range better suits my "walkaround" needs, from ultrawide to wide normal, than does the more specialized Panasonic 7-14mm lens.

    Here is a comparison of the wide field of view provided by these three lenses at their shortest focal length setting in 3:2 aspect ratio on a Panasonic GH1 (Pan 7-14 at 7mm, Oly 9-18 at 9mm, Pan 14-45 at 14mm):

    Name:  Wide-AOV.gif
Views: 33380
Size:  613.0 KB

    The same three lenses at their longest focal length settings (Pan 7-14 at 14mm, Oly 9-18 at 18mm, Pan 14-45 at 45mm):

    Name:  Tele-AOV.gif
Views: 31306
Size:  558.1 KB

  2. The following 4 members thank Amin Sabet for this post:


  3. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,255
    Real Name
    Amin
    Both the Olympus 9-18mm lens and the Panasonic 7-14mm lens have a significant amount of barrel distortion at the 9mm setting. This is automatically corrected in-camera for JPEGs as well as by the manufacturer-specific RAW converters and some of the major RAW converters.

    Here's a comparison of the uncorrected barrel distortion at 9mm with those two lenses:

    Name:  Distortion.gif
Views: 32041
Size:  504.6 KB

    As you can see, the Olympus lens has significantly more barrel distortion at this setting.

  4. The following 3 members thank Amin Sabet for this post:


  5. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,255
    Real Name
    Amin

    Next we'll look at the performance of the Olympus 9-18mm lens and the Panasonic 7-14mm lens with both lenses at 9mm. Since most individuals will choose to use in-camera JPEGs or a RAW processor which corrects for the distortion, I chose to use Adobe Lightroom 3 to process the RAW files used to compare lens performance. Adobe Lightroom 3 automatically corrects the distortion for both lenses, although it leaves a touch more barrel in the corrected Olympus 9mm images than it does in the corrected Panasonic 9mm images (data not shown).

    Note: All images were taken using a sturdy tripod and self-timer with image stabilization off (when applicable), and all crops are representative of several nearly identical results taken with each lens at any given setting. These samples are not adequate for judging color, which is largely a function of the RAW converter chosen. Likewise, they are not appropriate for judging dynamic range or light falloff, given modestly changing light conditions (cloud cover).

    The following are all 100% crop comparisons of images processed from RAW in Lightroom with no luminance noise reduction and sharpening to bring out apparent detail.

    Name:  Picture-1.jpg
Views: 30719
Size:  363.9 KB

    Both lenses show excellent performance in the center at f/4.

    Name:  Picture-2.jpg
Views: 30833
Size:  393.4 KB

    Near the left edge, both lenses do well again, with the Panasonic a bit stronger in terms of detail and resistance to color fringing.

    Name:  Picture-3.jpg
Views: 29922
Size:  391.2 KB

    Close to the upper left corner of the frame, the Panasonic looks stronger, while the Olympus isn't bad at all considering this is the near-extreme corner of the frame with the lens wide open.

    Name:  Picture-4.jpg
Views: 30183
Size:  502.5 KB

    The absolute extreme corner of the foreground is a torture test for ultrawides. Here in the extreme bottom right corner with both lenses wide open, the M.Zuiko struggles to keep up with the larger, heavier, and more expensive Lumix lens.

    Center crops at f/5.6:

    Name:  Picture-5.jpg
Views: 29309
Size:  357.7 KB

    Nothing to complain about here, the Lumix looking a touch crisper still.

    Name:  Picture-6.jpg
Views: 28974
Size:  393.5 KB

    At the left edge, not much has changed at f/5.6. Likewise for the upper left corner:

    Name:  Picture-7.jpg
Views: 28789
Size:  393.4 KB

    Name:  Picture-8.jpg
Views: 28810
Size:  554.7 KB

    At f/5.6, the Olympus near-field extreme corner has improved quite a bit but still lags behind the Panasonic.

    Here are the f/8 crops without commentary:

    Name:  Picture-9.jpg
Views: 28421
Size:  357.5 KB

    Name:  Picture-10.jpg
Views: 28312
Size:  389.8 KB

    Name:  Picture-11.jpg
Views: 28100
Size:  390.3 KB

    Name:  Picture-12.jpg
Views: 27966
Size:  552.4 KB


    Next we'll look at some crops comparing the M.ZD performance at 18mm to that of the Lumix 14-45mm lens at 18mm.

    Name:  Picture-13.jpg
Views: 27875
Size:  346.0 KB

    Here in the center, both lenses have an excellent showing.

    Name:  Picture-14.jpg
Views: 27451
Size:  403.8 KB

    If you look closely, the Olympus shows a bit of chromatic aberration here at the left edge and is just a bit less crisp than the Panasonic.

    Name:  Picture-15.jpg
Views: 27351
Size:  516.1 KB

    Both lenses put in a good extreme corner in the right foreground, with the Panasonic coming out slightly ahead.

    Now the f/8 crops at 18mm:

    Name:  Picture-16.jpg
Views: 27143
Size:  329.7 KB

    Name:  Picture-17.jpg
Views: 27059
Size:  389.1 KB

    Name:  Picture-18.jpg
Views: 26979
Size:  502.4 KB

    The Olympus has caught the Panasonic here in the extreme corner at f/8.

  6. The following 6 members thank Amin Sabet for this post:


  7. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,255
    Real Name
    Amin

  8. The following 4 members thank Amin Sabet for this post:


  9. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,255
    Real Name
    Amin
    Other issues to consider with the Olympus M.ZD 9-18mm lens:

    • Flare resistance: As the Olympus lens doesn't ship with a lens hood, one naturally wonders how well it resists flare. In use, I found it to be highly resistant to flare spots with the sun in the frame. On the other hand, it was moderately susceptible to veiling flare with incidental light sources. For this reason, I'd be on the lookout for an aftermarket hood.
    • Autofocus: AF with the M.ZD lens is both quick and quiet. It isn't the absolute fastest to focus, but I had no complaints.
    • Light falloff: Negligible. A bit better than the Lumix 7-14 in this respect with both lenses at 9mm.
    • Filter friendly: Unlike the Panasonic 7-14, the M.ZD 9-18 will accept standard filters. It has an internal focusing mechanism, so the front element doesn't turn when focusing, and it shares a 52mm filter size with my Panasonic 14-45mm and 45-200mm zooms, which is very convenient.
    • Wallet friendly? That depends on your perspective, but the Olympus lens is substantially less costly than the Panasonic ultrawide offering.

  10. The following 4 members thank Amin Sabet for this post:


  11. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,255
    Real Name
    Amin

    The M.ZD 9-18mm lens is a compelling offering from Olympus. While the sharpness viewed at 100% pixel crops isn't class leading, overall performance is very respectable. The small size suits the strengths of the Micro 4/3 system, and many who enjoy wide angle photography will find the zoom range of the Olympus to be "just right".

    Strengths:

    • Remarkably small due to innovative collapsing design
    • Versatile, useful zoom range
    • Filter friendly
    • Fast, quiet AF
    • Build quality seems very good
    • Minimal light falloff
    • Good sharpness

    Weaknesses:

    • Not quite as sharp as the Panasonic competition
    • Susceptibility to lateral chromatic aberration in the periphery of the frame
    • Lens hood not included
    • f/4-5.6 is slower than the competition (price you pay for small size)

    Other Olympus M.ZD resources:



    Thanks to B&H Photo for loaning the Olympus lens for review. If you found this review helpful, please check B&H for pricing and availability of these lenses:


  12. The following 8 members thank Amin Sabet for this post:


  13. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    San Francisco / Rio de Janeiro
    Posts
    58
    Thanks, Amin -

    Great, readable review.

    I already have the 9-18, but now I'm looking forward to your reviews of the new µ4/3 lenses as they are released.
    josé
    ..........................
    Black GH-2, Blue G-2
    P 20/1.7, PL 45/2.8, P 45-200, P 100-300, Oly 9-18, and a rarely-used kitzoom
    Some of my favorite legacy glass:
    Nikon AIS 24/2.8, 50/1.8, 105/1.8, 180/2.8
    Contax CZ 135/2.8, 200/3.5, G45/2
    Konica Hexanon 40/1.8, 57/1.4, 85/1.8

  14. The following member thanks arpoador for this post:


  15. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NW corner of CT
    Posts
    13,098
    Real Name
    BB
    I'll add my thanks, too, Amin. I have the 9-18mm, as well. In your photos it does appear that the Panasonic is generally superior, but thankfully what I've found on my own photos, at least from my point of view, is that the 9-18mm works really well for me with my E-PL1. I will say that it seems that I either go for the 9mm or the 18mm, which is I find kind of interesting.

    Appreciate your taking the time to run these comparisons!

  16. The following member thanks BBW for this post:


  17. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,255
    Real Name
    Amin
    Thanks José and BB!

    I received email feedback that the mZD RAW conversion shown here was "terrible" and "crap". These conversions were straight Lightroom 3 conversions using "Auto tone" and subsequent "Smart Sharpen" in Photoshop.

    This was not an attempt to show the best possible result from each lens, else I would have eliminated the CA and applied more sophisticated noise reduction and sharpening. The point here was to use a commonly used (probably the most commonly used) RAW converter which doesn't smear detail and compare the performances of these lenses directly.

    There is no "best" way to do the processing for these types of lens tests, which is why I provided the direct comparisons (if conversion is "crap" for one, it is "crap" for the other) and the RAW files for download (best for seeing how the images compare using your own workflow).

  18. The following member thanks Amin Sabet for this post:

    BBW

  19. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    4,092
    A nice thorough review - glad my purchase of the 7-14 'holds up'.
    __________
    Bill Shinnick
    RX10; RX100; G5{IR}.

  20. The following member thanks bilzmale for this post:



Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •