Image Quality
The Olympus PRO lineup of f/2.8 zooms is known for their excellent image quality. When I reviewed the 12-40mm f/2.8 and the 40-150mm f/2.8, I was very impressed by the overall optical quality, and I’m glad to say the 7-14mm is similarly impressive for the most part, though it is not a flawless lens.
Sharpness
The 7-14mm f/2.8 is an ambitious lens design, as only a handful of wide zooms have fields of view that start as wide as the 7-14mm. Thankfully, Olympus has done a remarkable job with regards to image sharpness. Images are sharp over almost the entire frame right from f/2.8. While the corners are a bit softer at f/2.8 than they are in the center, even wide open shots show good edge-to-edge sharpness. Stopping down to f/4-f/5.6 yields images that are impressively sharp from corner to corner. The center does retain a slight edge over the corners, but that’s the case with any ultra-wide zoom. The shot below was taken at 7mm at f/5.6, and provides excellent resolution across the frame. Click on the image for a larger version, and click here for a 100% crop of the lower right corner of the frame.
Bokeh
Ultra-wide lenses aren’t known for their ability to blur the background very much, and this is especially true on the smaller formats like Micro 4/3. However, it is still possible to achieve some background separation when shooting close to your subject, and when this is the case, the 7-14mm does a fine job at rendering a smooth background. While the lens won’t win any awards for smoothest bokeh, things are relatively neutral here, with only a very slight bright outline around specular highlights. Still, given the nature of the lens, bokeh isn’t something you’ll generally be concerning yourself with.
Color, Contrast and Chromatic Aberration
The Olympus 7-14mm displays excellent contrast throughout the focal and aperture ranges. As such, the rendering of the lens is similar whether shooting at f/2.8 or f/8. Contrast is nice and crisp without being overly strong, while colors are rich and faithful.
The 7-14mm PRO is not great, however, when it comes to chromatic aberration control. Lateral CA is visible at all focal lengths, but is especially pronounced at the wide end of the zoom range. The edges of the frame at the wide end display red/green chromatic aberration that is several pixels wide, and will be visible in the final image unless corrected in postprocessing.
Distortion, Flare and Vignetting
Like most Micro 4/3 lenses, the Olympus 7-14mm f/2.8 PRO makes extensive use of built-in distortion correction algorithms. These are baked into the RAW file, and so when using a compatible RAW converter, such as Adobe Lightroom, you won’t ever see the uncorrected image. Some people take issue with this, while others only care about the final result. I’m fairly pragmatic when it comes to automatic distortion correction: I don’t mind if a lens was designed with it in mind, as long as the corrected version doesn’t show obvious issues as a result of the correction. With the 7-14mm, I am honestly fine with it. The distortion correction, I’m sure, takes a few lp/mm out of the resolving ability at the corners, but in my experience with the lens, sharpness is nothing to worry about, even at the corners on distortion corrected images.
On those corrected images, there is very little visible distortion remaining, and for the most part, you won’t notice it. In shots where there are a lot of straight lines, there is a bit of residual mustache distortion at the wide end, though it’s quite minor. When looking at the uncorrected images, however, the lens shows very pronounced barrel distortion at the wider focal lengths that softens to a more negligible profile at the longer end of the zoom range. An uncorrected image at 7mm can be seen below. The corrected version of the image below can be found in the image samples on the next page.
The lens performs much better with regards to vignetting. Vignetting is very minor with the 7-14mm, even at f/2.8. Even when using a converter that doesn’t utilize profile corrections, vignetting is generally quite minor.
The same can not, however, be said for flare. While the distortion correction I view as essentially a non-issue, and the chromatic aberration is notable, but again correctable, the 7-14mm earns poor marks with respect to performance against bright light. With any bright light in the frame, small discs of flare can be seen around the light source, but thing get especially egregious when the sun is in the frame. Given the wide-angle field of view, the sun can often be in the frame when shooting outdoors. While the 7-14mm will not lose contrast across the frame when bright light sources are present, there is a local loss of contrast around the light source.
With the sun, large multicolored ghosts are spread across large portions of the image. In some cases, these provide a neat effect. In many images, it will ruin the picture. Placing the sun near the edge of the frame will also result in bright purple ghosts smeared out from the light source. Flare is an issue with the lens at all focal lengths and all apertures as well, so you really must plan accordingly when using the lens with the sun in the frame. See the image above for a typical scenario.
Dear Jordan,
great review, but we are used to that already 😉
As I’m shooting Olympus and Fuji X bodies – like you – I would like to know what you would favor personally, the Fuji 10-24 or the Olympus 7-14.
How are both of these in comparison to the Olympus 9-18mm in the overlapping range?
Thank you!
I would be interested as well.
The 7-14 is the sharpest of the three. I think that none are perfect, but all are quite good. If you’re debating between this lens and the 9-18, it really comes down to whether you value resolution vs. compact size. The 9-18 has good resolution, but it’s not the same as the 7-14. Vs. the Fuji 10-24, things are a bit closer. The Fuji can flare in the right circumstances too, but it isn’t nearly as obvious, and it also controls CA better. That said, the 7-14 is still a bit sharper throughout the range.
I own both Olympus 7-14 and 9-18 lenses and for my needs, I wouldn’t want to be without either lens. For any long trek, especially for street shooting, I much prefer the 9-18 for its lightness, compactness, and screw-in filter capability. It’s my favorite WA lens. Rarely do I need 7mm wide angle, but I often use the longer focal lengths of the 9-18 lens, which is plenty sharp and software correction takes care of distortion and CA. The 7-14 is essential for architecture & interiors and yes it delivers superior IQ.
I have both now, Zuiko 7-14 and Fuji 10-24, and the Zuiko is better, exceptionally good, even at 7. I’m going to sold my 10-24 and stay with small primes for my Fuji and 7-14, 12-100 et 45 1.2 for my EM1 mk III.
Hello,
Thanks for a great review. I love your reviews, very informative and wonderful photos.
Dear Jordan,
great review, thank you!
I would also like to know, if you compare the fuji10-24 to the oly 7-14, which you prefer. Thank you!
I’d like a bit more in depth comment on how it compares to the Panasonic 7–14 f/4.
I no longer have the Panasonic 7-14, so I couldn’t do a direct comparison, but I shot with it extensively for a few years. My impression given that time gap is that the Olympus is a bit sharper, especially at the corners, though regular lens flare is better than the Panasonic. For interior shooting, however, the Olympus doesn’t have the ‘purple reflection’ problem that the Panasonic displayed when shot on Olympus bodies.
How about a comparison with the 9-18mm? It’d be interesting to see how much difference there actually is and what we are sacrificing for the smaller size.
Regarding the purple blobs with the Panasonic 7-14 on Olympus bodies, for anyone who is concerned about it – it is caused by a weak UV filter on the Olympus sensor stack. It can easily be eliminated with a simple Haze 2A UV filter. Unfortunately, this does require adding the rear filter holder from the Panasonic 8mm fisheye and using a Wratten 2A filter gel. Not a hard modification, but irritating for those with Olympus bodies nevertheless.
Great review and I concur 100% with your assessment of this terrific lens. I got mine shortly after it was released. Have been enjoying looking at the world “wide-eyed.” Have some spectacular flower close-ups throughout the 7-14mm range.
This new “PRO” lens has no filter threads. It it’s aimed for landscape photographers. How smart is that?
Well, neither does the Nikon 14-24, the Canon 11-24, the Tamron 15-30, or the Sigma 12-24.
If you want a field of view wider than ~107 degrees or so, the front element is just too bulbous to allow filter threads. You can also get adapters for Lee / Cokin-type square filters that clamp over the hood.
Not necessarily. Plenty of such lenses have filter threads : Tokina 11-16, Sony 10-18, Sigma 10-20, Canon 10-22, Nikon 10-24 etc.
None of the lenses you mention are as wide as this lens. Those lenses are all APS-C lenses, with the widest of them having a field of view equivalent to ~15mm on full frame, as opposed to 14mm here. It may not sound like much, but I’ve yet to see one 14mm equivalent lens with filter threads.
I own the 12-40 an 40-150 Pros and consider them excellent. But I’m not at all convinced with this 7-14. Seems like it has too many glaring flaws to be worth the money. Flare issues, and no way to use filters, for example. Seems like this design was not as well thought out as previous Pro series lenses.
Did I miss them or are there no example photos of the lenses “horrible” flare characteristics?
my bad…I see the one image…hmmmmm….the flare does seem a bit extreme for a lens in this price range for this format….
There’s the one with the fire escape on this page, and if you enlarge the image below where I discuss the flare on page 2, you can see a tremendous number of ghosting artifacts. Not only the purple blob to the left of the image, but a big series of white flare ghosts mid/right frame, plus the purple bleed. Thing is, if the sun is included in the frame, that level of flare is there no matter where. The shot with the fire escape shows what it does with the sun at the corners/just out of frame. Once I saw this, I often chose to exclude compositions that had the sun in them.
I have successfully used the Pany 7-14mm f/4 for years (especially for architecture shots), but I have traded it for the new Olympus 7-14mm Pro f/2.8. It is common knowledge that very wide angle lenses are very prone to flare and CA at the edges of the frame, and this was the case for the Pany 7-14mm on my Olympus M5 and M1 bodies. I have read every test report I could find on the Olympus Pro 7-14mm, and it’s CA and overall sharpness ratings have been superior to those of the older, slower Pany 7-14mm lens. Further, large purple blobs very not infrequent in interior shots with the Pany when bright window light was present. Getting the new Olympus Pro 7-14mm is an upgrade for me over the Pany version even thought the latter gave me great service for years.
Olympus (or Panasonic) should make an UWA prime (actually, given the amount of people who seem to adapt, it only makes sense to address very well the wide end). Every wide angle zoom I know of will have problems with flares and sunbursts, not to mention expensive filters. Resolution in the corners is great, but it means nothing when there are colorful blotches all over the image. This Olympus is actually surprisingly bad (in this particular aspect) for its price.
I used it for 8 years (from 2006 until today), the Zuiko 7-14 F4, the Old lens suffers from what I can see, the same problems of ghosting and flare of the new lens, I could know if the quality is the same?
Are you able to comment on how this lens compares to the Four Thirds 7-14mm F/4.0 lens? Obviously it is smaller and one stop faster, but apart from those factors? I ask because I have the Four Thirds lens which I use on an E-M1 and so focusing is OK. I’m been wondering whether to sell the F/4.0 lens and buy this Pro lens.
I am not. I have never had the pleasure of using the FT version of the 7-14. To be honest, I’ve never actually used a FT camera or lens. I dove in with Olympus with the original E-P1.
I’m looking for something wide for my GH4 that is decent in low light. would you pick the Olympus 7-14 over the Tokina 11-16 w/ speedbooster?
I think the distortion of this lens is worth noting in more than a cursory way. While I admit I have not used the lens personally, I think it’s instructive to take Photozone’s conclusions into account. When a lens has this much raw distortion that must be corrected, you are simply losing something. The Panasonic 7-14mm does not have as much, to be fair to that lens. Please see link below:
http://www.photozone.de/m43/961_olympus714f28pro?start=1
Especially nice photos.
Bonjour,
Le piqué et la netteté sont meilleurs sur le zuiko 7-14 f2.8 que sur le 10-24 de Fuji ? Même à Iso élevés?
Dans l’attente de vous lire.
Cordialement