8mm fe or 7-14

[ASA400]

Hi guys!

Okay, so I'm getting the money together to get my nauticam housing for the E-M5. Right now, I've got two lenses for the camera that are uw capable. One is the 12-50 and the other is the 8mm fe.

I originally bought this camera primarily for uw work. When I talked with some people about it, they said be sure to get the 8mm fisheye as it provides spectacular photos underwater. So I picked one up with that in mind. However, I'm having second thoughts and am thinking that the 7-14 might be a better lens for me. Let me explain why.

One of the problems with the fe as I now know, is that because of the very wide field of view, you really, really need two strobes to light your photo. Unfortunately, I won't have the money for a second strobe for some time. While the 7-14 would look better with two strobes also, at least it is usable with only one. Additionally, it has been brought to my attention that the fisheye is one of those lenses which demands a lot of diving to get the most out of it, in that many times, you will run across a photo that would look excellent with a rectilinear wide-angle lens that just looks a little "odd" when shot with a fisheye. Living inland and not independently wealthy, my diving is more limited than if I lived on the coast.

My thoughts are now that I should sell the fe and pick up the 7-14 panasonic lens. The big plus to the 7-14 is that it is a very capable land lens also, unlike the fisheye which has very limited uses above water.

What's everyone think?

 

[Akimbo]

I am in a similar dilemma except between the Olympus 9-18mm and the Panasonic 7-14mm. Aside from the price difference, it requires the Nauticam 6" port instead of the 4". My real debate is if the 7-14 is so much better that it compensates for the greater bulk underwater, during handling, and to transport. The net cost increase is about $250 for the lens and port. Opinions welcome.

 

[PhilW]

I use the 8mm fisheye with a single YS-01 strobe (example below from my most recent dive). It isn't ideal with the one strobe but it is possible.

The other scenario is ambient light photography where you have no such issue. The 8mm works great for this.

 

[bullshark]

I'm sorry ASA400, but I can't make sense of your post. If you have enough money to buy another lens, then you certainly have enough money to buy another strobe. If it is an "either/or" proposition, the strobe wins; hands down. I'm not surprised you were dissatisfied with one strobe on the mighty 8mmFE. Its pretty much "no way". Don't toss it off until you have proper lighting. It's a fantastic lens.

Two strobes is essential for all U/W Photography. To be sure, you can get by with one, even take a fine picture but there is never a case where a 2nd strobe couldn't/wouldn't make the photo better. This applies to Macro and all ranges of your 12-50, and all ranges of your proposed rectilinear WA additions. IMNSHO (2500+ dives and 1000's of shots), another strobe is the best money you could spend.

I think you'll get much more bang for the buck (improving all your photos) with a 2nd strobe instead of another WA zoom. The 9-18 won't do much that your 12-50 doesn't already do. At best it provides an additional 8 degrees coverage on each side (100 degrees vs 84 degrees). If you don't have a dome port for it, then its a good deal less (69.8 degrees). The 7-14 is better, but some guy with wet-lens on his S100 is still going to have a wider field of view. That sucks. The mullet snappers in this picture are 2-3' long. You couldn't get a quarter of this school in view unless without a fisheye. There would be no way to get the "school" view.


I just got back from Cocos. There were Photo professionals aboard. D800 setups were COMMON. These are people who can have anything they want. Throughout the trip, I was the only photographer that ever took off his fisheye (I got some excellent shots of Panamanian Jawfish as well as the Cocos batfish with my 12-50). In other words, every other photographer on the boat used nothing but fisheye WA for the whole trip.

 

[Wisnu]

I use 7-14mm and like it.
Here few pics taken with OMD and this lens

 

[ASA400]

Bullshark, thanks for your input.

As you say, if I had enough money to buy another lens, I could get the strobe instead. Problem is that I have to sell the fisheye to get another strobe or lens. Yes, you are right, another strobe will make all the shots look better, but I was hoping to limp along with only one for now so I could actually be able to afford to go diving with my kit instead of purchasing another strobe and sitting back and waiting another six months to be able to get somewhere besides Lake Mead or Lake Mojave (I would prefer to go to Hawaii for some diving )

Back in the old days, (1980's) my rig was a Nikonos V with two Oceanic 2001 strobes, so I do know the value of two strobes. I wish I had the easy access to great diving that you have living in Ft. Lauderdale, but here in Las Vegas, even a one-day trip to Southern California for some cold water diving costs me around $300. So my "fun" money has to be stretched to allow for a great diving trip.

Your points are valid, however, and I might be better served at this time by tabling the fisheye and not buying a second strobe or lens and using the rest of my "fun" money to go diving instead. As you say, the 9-18 isn't that much wider than the 12-50. Perhaps I would be better served by getting some experience shooting the 12-50 before venturing into another lens, port and/or strobe anyway. BTW, I think you misunderstood as to my usage of either lens. I'm still getting the kit together and have not used this camera or lenses underwater yet.

Wisnu, nice photos, can I assume you are using one strobe?

PhilW, You're right about the ambient light with the fisheye, I'll have to put that in perspective.

 

[guyharrisonphoto]

Personally I prefer the 7-14. Much more versatile over a wide range of circumstances. I also do not prefer the fisheye perspective on scenics. ON land fisheye is practically useless as well, while the 7-14 is one of the best landscape/architecture lenses available, in any format.

Fisheye is a niche tool, and difficult to master. You must be inches from your subject and it takes a lot of trial and error to properly frame a subject. Given your description of your diving experience the 7-14 is the far better choice. I disagree with Bullshark's post that it does not give significantly more than the 12-50. Even the 9-18 gives more. Even in the ultra-specialized "big animal" or "big school" arena, the 7-14 will cover 90% of the shots a fisheye would cover.

However, I second the comments that a second flash might be a better investment if you have to choose between that and adding wide angle. The 12-50 is an excellent generalist set-up (I use it constantly) and a second flash does add a lot to the quality of your images.

 

[AndyT]

Just to add to the comment by PhilW - I shot all of the images in the link below with a 8mm Fisheye, no strobes. Yes they were with an E-3, but 8mm underwater is not that difficult to master - it was the first time that I had used the lens anywhere ....

Red Sea August 2008 - a set on Flickr