Support
You can support this site without any cost or disadvantage at all by clicking this link to Amazon or the one on the left before buying anything – be it underpants, a cupboard, a TV, a pen, a lens or a camera. Amazon is the only shop worldwide, I’m really satisfied with to a 100%, so I have no caveats advertising them. Of course, you can also directly donate a small amount of money, e.g. the amount you would have spent for a magazine, with the button on the left.
Olympus M.Zuiko 9-18mm 1:4-5.6 ED MSC
My standard lens for mFT, a very compact ultrawide-zoom with very good optics.
This lens is a collapsible design, shown here in transport-position, you can't shoot it in. When set to it's first "shooting-position", it extends to about twice the length. As an M.Zuiko, it is designed exclusively for micro four thirds. It works on all Olympus und Panasonic mft - bodies and uses 52mm - filters, which is, why the most obvious alternative, the Panasonic 7-14, is no possible choice for me, as it can't take any filters at all.
It's build quality is good but not as good as you could expect for the price. It is extremely light and small in transport position, so that I can take my Pen - camera with me in the pocket of my coat or in a small zip - bag on my motorbike with this lens attached. This enables me to replace my Point-and-Shoot with a camera delivering real-DSLR-quality and a real ultrawide-zoom. I don't care if it extends when set to shooting-mode, because then I hold it in my hand anyway. Important is, that it is as small as possible when carrying it. And this M.Zuiko is really small. Here it is side-by-side to a Tokina 19-35 for Canon EF, which itself isn't a brick, either:
These collapsible M.Zuiko - lenses are the reason, why I didn't - and won't - buy an EOS M or NEX: Even the smallest zoom for EF-M is double the size of this lens.
COMPATIBILITY
As a classic, genuine M.Zuiko, it works on every mft - camera made by Panasonic or Olympus, but not on their DSLRs. Because these cameras have sensors, that are smaller than 35mm - film, it gives you a field-of-view roughly like a 18-36mm lens would give on 35mm. But remember, that 35mm is 3:2 - while mft is 4:3 - format, so that it isn't exactly comparable, in fact a little less in height and a little more in width.
PRICE
This lens is about € 500,- new at this moment and sells on ebay for only insignificantly less, mostly still above € 400,-, so it isn't worth loosing warranty and having the risk at all. This is far from cheap, a Canon 17-40L is the same used and only a bit more expensive new. I was lucky to get it a bit cheaper due to some private contacts, but it was still expensive, though. What should I say, I did never regret this highest-ever expense for a lens.
ACCESSORIES
The lens is shipped without a shade, I wouldn't use anyway, because it'd destroy it's size - advantage.
It uses 52mm filters, that are pleasantly common, because some old lenses use it and seem to develop as a bigger standard for mFT-lenses: Several Panasonic lenses use it and especially the 45-150mm, which is my tele on mFT. My other two "standard"-lens-selections are the 45/1.8 and the 14-42 EZ, which both use 37mm-filters, so I just have to carry two small (cheap) sizes. Of course it'd be better to just have one size of filters, but that's the price you have to pay for the size-advantage: You can't built a 90-300 equivalent lens or an ultrawide with 37mm filters and bigger filters would destroy the size-advantage of the 45mm or the 14-42.
Like on all mFT-lenses I know of, the focus-ring doesn't really move an optical element, but actuates the AF-motor, which, other than I expected at first, actually works fine and even has the advantage, that it can be progressive: The faster you turn the ring, the bigger it's steps are.
The filter - thread doesn't rotate, making the use of grads and polarizers uncomfortable.
MECHANICS
Made in China.
Metal lens mount, the rest is plastics. Plastic filter thread.
It is built with high, but not perfect tolerances, has very little play when extended. The materials feel OK but not more.
Manual focussing is "by wire": When you turn the focus ring, it actuates the AF - motor. This is a bit strange when you do this for the first time, but other than in some lenses for Canon EOS and others, this implementation is actually very good and intelligent and - after you've got used to it - works better than a classic mechanical coupling. This is, because the manual focus ring works progressively: If you turn the ring fast for a significant distance, focus is moved by a comparitively long step, while, when you turn it really slow, very small steps are taken. The longer the focal length, the smaller the steps seem to be to deal with the lower depth-of-field. Pretty smart.
A nice side effect is, that the focus ring of course doesn't turn during AF and that full-time-manual-override is possible. The focus ring itself is small but usable.
The focus-motor is extremely fast and nearly completely silent. It doesn't "feel" as fast as on Canon DSLRs, but this is due to the system itself and not a fault of the motor: Contrast-AF (used in all cameras that focus relying on the sensor-image), while being absolutely precise, in comparison to phase-detection-AF used in most DSLRs, does not "know" in which direction to focus, so it always moves in both directions (near and far) before it locks, while in most situations, when focus isn't completely off, DSLRs at once turn in the right direction, but don't have such a high precision. AF-fine-tuning (or Micro-Focus-Adjustment, MFA, as Canon calls it) simply isn't necessary on mFT.
It's really great to have such a small and light construction with such a good feeling nonetheless.
Great in general, but I would have liked metal for this price.
ERGONOMICS
It is extremely small and light for an ultrawide. Size DOES matter, also see Lenses: What's important? so this is a real plus. It's size and weight alone justify owning it for me. It is so small and light when retracted, that you can always bring it, even if you know, that you most likely will not need it, what I always do, because I'm an ultrawide-shooter.
It feels very good, but not perfect in every position, see "mechanics" - a lot better than kit-lenses, but not like a Canon 17-40L.
The front does not turn when focussed, so the use of grads and polarizers is a joy. The 52mm - filters are quite cheap and easy to get used, because the size is quite common.
There is no focus-scale, which would make no sense anyway, because of the progressive actuation of the AF - motor, see "mechanics", and no infrared-focus-indices or depth-of-field-scale.
Zoom- and manual-focus-rings feel very good, smooth and tight and even slightly dampened. The focus-ring, even if quite small, is still big enough to give you a good feel and grip and is in the right position.
Fulltime manual focus override is possible, as it always is on mFT, and you can turn the zoom-ring with one finger.
OPTICS
Optics of this Olympus lens are really great, better than any Canon ultrawide-zoom, at any price, and certainly better than the 17-40L. The very high optical quality may partly be due to the automatic corrections, mft - bodies do in-camera, but the result is, what counts and what you see in your pictures.
So, the corrected distortion is relatively low, even if not absolutely perfect. I don't really care about the uncorrected values, because for me, the results is what counts. But if you insist, it's quite heavy, but still not as clearly underdesigned as some other mFT - lenses, roughly on a level with the worse Canon standard-lenses like the 17-85, with heavy barrel on the wide end changing to visible pincushion on the "tele"-end.
CAs are very low, well under one pixel wide at max, maybe a bit over 0.5 pixels. All other ultrawides I have used are a lot worse. The fact, that CAs are visible at all, leads me to the thought, that this aberration may be uncorrected by my PEN, what would be quite strange, because this seems to be relatively easy to do in fact, but when corrected, it should be absolutely zero. And I have to admit, that Canon seems to have problem with this, too.
Vignetting, again, is really well controlled and hardly visible in real photos. Maybe the corners could be a bit over half a stop darker at 9mm wide-open, all other settings are even better. Uncorrected RAW-files are a little bit worse, but still surely below one stop darkening. This really is extraordinary if you are used to Canon "fullframe".
The minimum focus distance is 0.25m, what gives a maximum magnification of 1:10. OK, you won't shoot macros with an ultrawide, but it's really important to get close nonetheless: Since the most important and common reason to use an ultrawide is to exaggerate perspective, to show a big subject in front with a diminishing background, you do always have to get real close with these lenses. 0.25m is very good, even the 17-40L is a bit worse. Adding to that, on mFT, the 18mm - equivalent of 9mm delivers a huge lot more depth of field than the L on "fullframe", so your subject can literally touch the front-lens and still be in focus. GREAT.
The aperture is made of 7 rounded blades, giving you smooth bokeh if you manage to get anything out of focus and out-of-focus highlights with great 14-ray-light-stars, if you manage to get some at all, because of the rounded blades.
I don't know if this lens is usable for infrared-photography, sorry.
Flare, is really well controlled, especially for an ultrawide. Maybe this is a benefit of the small glass-elements, but you really hardly have any problems with flare. I think, that a lens less prone to flare and especially ghosting is not always better, as at least ghosts can be a very nice tool to show the lighting conditions in your pictures, this 9-18mm sometimes flares slightly and produces some ghosts with a bright source of light in the frame, but not at all on an annoying level. You can shoot directly into the sun and if you don't melt your sensor, the pictures look great all the time, sometimes with some green ghosts in the opposite corner of the photo. I think, the small front - element helps a lot here. I use this lens for a while now and I don't have one single shot, that is really blown out from flare - it doesn't "glow out" like many new kit-lenses, which can't handle simple candles without loosing contrast.
It's color reproduction seems to match most of my other lenses, despite some old Sigmas.
Sharpness is one of the most overrated qualities of lenses. That being said, this lens is very sharp, sharper than any ultrawide for Canon "fullframe", at any price. And even better: Olympus has a lot of experience in designing lenses and they know, what a photographer wants: You have this lens to shoot it at 9mm, not primarily at 18mm and so the 9mm-end is best. The center is always between extremely sharp and exceptional, while the corners at 9mm at a tiny bit softer, while still extremely good, and get a little bit worse when zoomed in.
Here are some examples for sharpness and CA, all 100% crops from 16MP JPGs (E-PM2):
9mm, f/4 (wide open), roughly the center.
9mm, f/4 (wide open), extreme top-left corner. CAs are at it's worst here and the most degradng factor to the sharpness-impression - look at the very last corner in the upper-left: You still see and can opticall seperate the thinnest branches, they are just surrounded by colored shadows and seem mushy due to that.
18mm f/5.6 (wide-open), roughly the center.
18mm f/5.6, extreme top-left corner. Worst setting regarding sharpness: Still mostly perfectly sharp, but the most extreme upper-left, maybe 50 pixels or so, is mush.
Look at pictures with a 17-40L and you have to laugh or think it's broken.
On mFt, stopping down usually, at least with lenses this slow, doesn't really help sharpness, because due to the smaller sensor, diffraction, meaning the purely physical effect of softening when closing the aperture, that has nothing to do with the lens' quality, already starts to become visible from around f/5.6 on, while it is f/8 or f/11 on APS-C and "fullframe". These lenses are still perfectly usable at f/11, of course, but already getting weaker.
But if a lens is this sharp wide open, it's not necessary to worry about stopping down.
Alternatives
There aren't lot's of alternatives, it's mainly the Panasonic 7-14mm, which seems to be as good optically, is really crazy-wide, but has less reach on the "tele"-end and doesn't take filters. I use grads very often and I find a blown-out sky a lot worse than any characteristics of a lens, so this alone is a show-stopper for me. But the shorter 14mm on the long end are a point, too. At 18mm (36mm equivalent), you can shoot people if you need to, e.g. in front of a nice scenery or something. With 14mm (28mm equivalent) this look weird. So this 9-18mm really is a lot more versatile and you don't have to change lenses just to shoot your girlfriend. Of course, 14mm equivalent is crazy wide and cool, but your goal when using a real ultrawide, exaggerating perspective, making a close object big and the background small, can be achieved just as well with 9mm as with 7mm. So I do never think of or ever wish for the 7-14mm.
There seems to be a version of the Sigma 10-20mm, too, but thats's silly: This lens is designed for APS-C and so is a huge lot bigger and heavier, is not better optically and only insignificantly cheaper.
I own one.
A word about supporting this site
I don’t run this site to earn money. I have a real job to earn my living with, a completely normal job. Since everything I write about here I have bought myself, for myself and with my own money from normal shops or ebay-sellers to actually use it, how much and what I am able to write about , depends on the amount of money that I can save and invest in equipment with good conscience. I share all this, because I want to, not to sell it. But when you find this helpful, maybe even as helpful as buying a magazine or book, of course you can support me, if you want. Your benefit is, that you help me being able to afford things to write about here.
You can use the “Donate” – button on the left to directly send a small amount of money (or a big amount, if you insist). You don’t need a paypal account to do so, every method is possible. If you decide to donate 99 cents, I’m thankful for it, because 10 people being as kind as you, make one new filter tested! The default currency is US $, but it works well with € or nearly any other currency, too.
But even more simple and without any cost or other disadvantage at all it is, to simply use this link to Amazon (or the one on the left) before buying anything there. For you it’s exactly the same as going there directly by typing the web-adress in your browser, you just klick this link first! It doesn’t matter, what you buy or where in the world you buy it, be it underpants, a pen, a cupboard, a lens or a Leica M9, be it in Germany, the USA, the UK or Australia: Amazon’s servers simply realize, that you came there through the link on my page and I get a small percentage of anything you buy FROM THEM. There’s absolutely no cost or other disadvantage for you, Amazon simply pays for my “advertisement” through this. I originally didn’t want to ever do any advertising personally. But then I decided to break this rule for Amazon. I’m a completely satisfied customer and buy everything from them. It’s the only shop in the world I would personally and on my private basis really rate a complete 100% in every regard. They have perfect service, even do call you back, answer emails with real, personal writing, extremely fast delivery even on Christmas-day, always perfect and completely new items, are never considerably more expensive than the very cheapest internet-sellers, have an extremely fast refund-system without being picky or having ever displeased me in any way and sell every good I have ever wanted to buy. They work on a completely different level than any retailer I have ever tried, and deliver it directly to me, without robbing me time and money to drive to the city or mall. I wouldn’t advertise them, if I wasn’t convinced, that it is OK to do so.