Choice of Lenses 9-18mm for sombody who already has the 8mm, 12-50mm and 60mm

[BoltSnap]

If somebody has the 8mm, 12-50mm and 60mm lenses already for the Oly OM-D camera with Nauticam housing, is there a reason to buy the 9-18mm lens? Would this lens, 9-18mm, add anything he doesn't have in the other lenses?

 

[nudibranco]

Hello! I have the 9-18mm which I use a lot ... on land!!! It is small, good quality, and very versatile especially if you like wide angle shots.
You can even fit a polarizer on it for some overly contrasty skies and water scenery. Underwater is also very nice in a dome port and the Nauticam one is light and well designed. However I am not using it enough it seems maybe because water is often not clear enough to give it its full potential and the versatility of the 12-50 allows me to cover most situations I have where I live in the mediterranean sea. Instead I am planning to buy the 8mm fisheye which instead gives better WA coverage and even some decent CFWA shots (as I have seen on the web). So it depends a bit the on type of diving and pics you do.

If I were to have a bit extra range (like 9-27mm) and a nice diopter setup to fit the 4" dome port from nauticam I would use it a lot more...
For my land shots however... I just have it on almost all the time

 

[chile7236]

i think the 12-50 might give you a better range of options underwater. when i had my 9-18, there wasn't much i could do except WA-Semi WA with it.

edit: so i guess my answer would be "no"

 

[ConchyJoe]

I only have the 8mm, but I would say no as well. My direction to start was true wide angle. I am still mulling over the 60mm and a flat port..

 

[guyharrisonphoto]

Burhan, I have to differ with the folks who do not recommend an ultra-wide zoom. The 9-18 gives you a true ultra-wide option with the versatility of zoom. In the 4" semi-dome, the 9mm setting gives you a much wider field of view than the 12mm behind the flat port, because refraction with a flat port narrows the 12mm lens' true field of view somewhat. Although there is overlap between the two, they serve two distinct purposes and you will see a big difference.

I went on a shark trip with the 9-18mm and found the zoom range perfect for ultra-wide close-ups and also for shots when the fish were more distant. So, for "big animal" wide angle use, much more versatile than the 8mm or the 12-50mm. It is also more versatile for reef scenics and such, which are typically shot in the 9-18mm range and, in my view, usually look better with a rectlinear perspective than with a fisheye (not always, sometimes the fisheye is awesone and unique). It is also easier to light scenes than with the fisheye. Again, two distinct purposes.

Finally, it is a fantastic above-water lens. It is very tiny, very light, and very good optically. It takes filters such as polarizers and nd filters. I use it quite a bit especially for shooting buildings, interiors, and landscapes. In fact, my above-water travel kit is the 9-18 and 14-150, that's it! (I have dedicated the 12-50 solely to underwater use due to the gear mounting).

However, and this is a factor, none of the ports you have will work with this lens. It needs the 4" semi dome. The dome for the fisheye is too short and does not function. So, another thing to carry and another expense.

When I made my decision for u/w, I went with the panasonic 7-14mm lens and larger nauti dome. This is true, ultra-ultrawide, with a rectlinear perspective which I prefer for most types of shots, but still zooms out enough for fish portraits. The optical quality is outstanding and it is regarded as one of the very best wide zooms in any format for image quality. For land use, it has disadvantages as it is bigger and heavier than the 9-18 and does not take filters. I was going to sell my 9-18 when I bought the 7-14, but decided to keep the 9-18 for my above-water travel kit.

My take is that a ultrawide zoom like the 9-18 or 7-14 adds a lot to your shooting. I usually view the fisheye as a niche lens by comparison. Personally, I have no desire to get the fisheye now that I have the 7-14. I have a hunch that if you got the zoom you wouild use the fisheye much less.

 

[BoltSnap]

Burhan, I have to differ with the folks who do not recommend an ultra-wide zoom. The 9-18 gives you a true ultra-wide option with the versatility of zoom. In the 4" semi-dome, the 9mm setting gives you a much wider field of view than the 12mm behind the flat port, because refraction with a flat port narrows the 12mm lens' true field of view somewhat. Although there is overlap between the two, they serve two distinct purposes and you will see a big difference.

I went on a shark trip with the 9-18mm and found the zoom range perfect for ultra-wide close-ups and also for shots when the fish were more distant. So, for "big animal" wide angle use, much more versatile than the 8mm or the 12-50mm. It is also more versatile for reef scenics and such, which are typically shot in the 9-18mm range and, in my view, usually look better with a rectlinear perspective than with a fisheye (not always, sometimes the fisheye is awesone and unique). It is also easier to light scenes than with the fisheye. Again, two distinct purposes.

Finally, it is a fantastic above-water lens. It is very tiny, very light, and very good optically. It takes filters such as polarizers and nd filters. I use it quite a bit especially for shooting buildings, interiors, and landscapes. In fact, my above-water travel kit is the 9-18 and 14-150, that's it! (I have dedicated the 12-50 solely to underwater use due to the gear mounting).

However, and this is a factor, none of the ports you have will work with this lens. It needs the 4" semi dome. The dome for the fisheye is too short and does not function. So, another thing to carry and another expense.

When I made my decision for u/w, I went with the panasonic 7-14mm lens and larger nauti dome. This is true, ultra-ultrawide, with a rectlinear perspective which I prefer for most types of shots, but still zooms out enough for fish portraits. The optical quality is outstanding and it is regarded as one of the very best wide zooms in any format for image quality. For land use, it has disadvantages as it is bigger and heavier than the 9-18 and does not take filters. I was going to sell my 9-18 when I bought the 7-14, but decided to keep the 9-18 for my above-water travel kit.

My take is that a ultrawide zoom like the 9-18 or 7-14 adds a lot to your shooting. I usually view the fisheye as a niche lens by comparison. Personally, I have no desire to get the fisheye now that I have the 7-14. I have a hunch that if you got the zoom you wouild use the fisheye much less.

Guy,

Just to understand you, you use the 7-14mm underwater but you keep the 9-18mm for above water? In other words, when you have the 7-14mm no need for the 9-18mm U/W?

Now, are the ports for the 7-14mm and 9-18 for the Nauticam housing the same or EACH one takes its own port?

 

[ProfF]

Guy,

Now, are the ports for the 7-14mm and 9-18 for the Nauticam housing the same or EACH one takes its own port?

AFAIK - no.

However, the 9-18mm port (the 4.33" semi-dome) can house the 12-50mm and 60mm lenses (with great quality). Right now this is the only port I am using. The 60mm is a macro lens (with amazing capabilities). The 9-18mm is a great W/A lens and is very versatile. The 12-50 is doing both jobs not as well, but provides flexibility and shooting both macro and semi-WA in the same dive. However, the difference between 12mm and 9mm is huge, and the 9-18mm has much better quality than the 12-50. The 12-50 is much better than the kit lens (12-42) and the latter is gathering dust right now.

Best

Nir

 

[nudibranco]

separate ports are needed and maybe the 6" port for the 7/14 is ok also for the 9/18. Trying to optimize for so many options and carrying all ports as well as affording them all is a big challenge!!!

Like Guy says the 7/14 is best for UW and fantastic for bigger fish and scenic sometimes much better than 8mm but if you like it and can handle it properly the 8mm is a great lens. The 8mm is a specialty lens but has amazing clarity and some defishing will help its use in many situations.

For practical purposes I would buy then the 9/18 and use it a lot for land use. I also generally take only that lens and the 40-150mm for land use also! And for UW I would also buy its port when you have liked it on land... That same port is also good for the 60mm macro lens.

 

[PHIL RUDIN]

To me this is a simple issue of you get what you pay for, today at Amazon a new 7-14 is $888.00 US and the 9-18 is $699.99 with a $50.00 difference between the Nauticam 6 inch (7-14) port and the 4 inch (9-18) port. Also an F/4 lens v. a lens which is F/5.6 on the long end. I have used both in and out of the water and the 7-14 is by far the better lens, not that the 9-18 is bad. The 12-50 is quite good as a topside lens for mid wide angle, people shots and for macro shots like flowers. Out of the water the 12-50 covers much of the range of the 9-18 which to me makes the combo of the 7-14 and 12-50 a better top side choice as well. I am still waiting for a realy good long (at least 100 to 200mm) topside lens for M43.

Phil Rudin

 

[BoltSnap]

Phil,

If one buys the port for the 7-14 (I think the Nauticam 6"), would this port be good to use with other lens without any "negative" results?