Wide for GH-2

[AlfSollund]

Hi,

The choice is as I see it between Panasonic LUMIX G 7-14mm F4 ASPH and Olympus M.Zuiko Dig ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6.

So please help me out with this:
- no SW correction for fault by Olympus in the GH-2 (as with the Pana glasses)?
- Possible to correct optical faults (distortion + chromatic aberration) in other SW (Lightroom, ...)? Yes, CA can be corrected by Cornerfix.
- Shouldnt worry about this at all?

Thanks in advance!

[feppe]

Panasonic cameras don't correct Oly lenses, and vice versa, which kinda makes sense from a business perspective. Yes, you can do correction in LR/PS with Adobe's free lens profiler. Note that making your own profiles is a major PITA, but perhaps someone has made profiles for GH2+lens combo.

9-18mm is a stellar lens, but it would benefit from correction. Below uncorrected (since I haven't made profiles, yet) shot at wide(st?) setting with the 7-14mm.

Another option is to wait for the Olympus 12mm f/2.0 to be announced on June 30th - it's supposed to be really good. If that's the case I'll probably sell my 7-14 so that's another option for you



edit: and I was talking about the Panasonic 7-14mm above, not the Oly 9-18mm.

[hsteeves]

I've got a 7-14 coming and plan on the Olympus 12/f2 when it shows ..

[k bennett]

I have the Panny 14/2.5, which is a nice little (very little) lens. Played with a 7-14 at a camera store, took some test photos, looks great. Would have been useful in Utah last week, but couldn't spend the money right now. ($700 used, which is very reasonable I thought.)

[JimU]

it's a damn shame the 7-14 doesn't take filters.  that forced me to get the 14/2.5.  nicely wide and decently fast, but not screaming fast.  I am looking forward to the planned slr magic 12mm f/1.6 noktor if it ever arrrives.

[k bennett]

Question: what filter would you want to place on the 7-14?

The only filter I use anymore is a polarizer, and using one on a very wide lens is less than optimal.

[AlfSollund]

it's a damn shame the 7-14 doesn't take filters.  that forced me to get the 14/2.5.  nicely wide and decently fast, but not screaming fast.  I am looking forward to the planned slr magic 12mm f/1.6 noktor if it ever arrrives.

Thats a good point. I use pola a lot, and with all due respect I have to disagree with k bennett; I fing pola filters highly useful on wides. I use 18 and 28mm a lot on FF, and for flyfishing photos this is a must-have.

[k bennett]

Depends on the subject, I suppose. For blue sky shots, I won't go wider than 28mm (ff equivalent) with a polarizer. Got burned one too many times with a 24 or wider. For reducing reflections on water or other objects, sure, you can go as wide as you want and it'll still work fine.

[JimU]

I've found c-pols on my FF 20mm managable.  The main reason I bought into the m4/3rds was to play with video, so the filters I would want to use are a circular polarizer and neutral density as the shutter speed is set at 1 / (frame rate) & ISO only goes so far.

That leads to this question:  With all the gimmicks like auto HDR & sweep panoramic, why can't camera designers implement low ISOs?  The GH2 in video has a floor of 160.  Why can't it go to 100, 50, 25, 12, 6 etc. ?  Speaking of which, why can't any camera maker do that?  Would greatly reduce the need for ND filters.