9-18mm F4 + 14-54mm F2.8 vs 12-60mm F2.8


Status
Not open for further replies.

nex100

Senior Member
Aug 15, 2008
587
0
16
Hi,

I am in a midst of a decision. I like landscapes and low light shots. Sunsets and city buildings in dazzling city lights is the thing for me.

So I was wondering if I would get the 9-18 mm lens together with the 14-54 mm lens OR the 12-60 mm lens for my use.

Where the wide angle is the maximum with the 9-18 mm will I have difficulty taking low light shots handheld with it compared the 12-60 mm lens? Will the shallow depth of field when using the F2.8 aperture render me not being able to get enough depth of field for the entire picture while taking a landscape shot (e.g. sunset) at 12 mm?

The aperture of the 14-54 mm at 17 mm is F2.8 whereas the aperture of the 12-60 mm at 17 mm is at F3.2 (can anyone help to confirm this?). Is there a lot of difference in the night? Will I miss the SWD focusing system on the 12-60 in exchange for this short coming?

Currently I already have the 14-42 F3.5 (which I am prepared to ditch) and the PL 25 mm F1.4 and the Oly 50 mm F2.

Any comments/help is greatly appreciated before I dump my money on the wrong lens.
 

Last edited:

spidey89

Moderator
Staff member
Jun 6, 2007
8,166
12
38
South Western Singapore
Basically,I'd rather invest in the 9-18 and 14-54,9-18 and 12-60 if I have more cash to burn,at 12mm,dof is not very shallow because of the nature of wide angle lens so still can use f2.8,also how close are you focusing plays a part in dof,if you never used SWD before,I don't see why you will miss it.

I don't get what you mean by "is there a lot of difference in the night"
 

nex100

Senior Member
Aug 15, 2008
587
0
16
Well in good/bright light a F2.8 aperture will probably use 1/4000 shutter speed on my E620 so I am guessing F4.0 will probably use 1/2000 shutter speed and I can take shots handheld using either 1/4000 or 1/2000 it does not matter. So at night is the shutter speed with F2.8 aperture a lot faster than using a F4.0 aperture such that I cannot take shots handheld using F4.0?
 

headfonz

Senior Member
Apr 6, 2006
1,953
0
36
between 2.8 and 3.2, its really not much of a difference for both DoF and your shutter speed since its only 1/3 stop between. focused at infinity, the DoF is not going to be shallow.

those ZD lenses are sharp wide open so you can shoot wide with confidence.

based on your post, seems you intend to shoot handheld only though i will strongly recommend a tripod if you intend to do proper night landscapes.

your E620 has IS so that will more than make up the 1/3 stop difference between 2.8 and 3.2
 

spidey89

Moderator
Staff member
Jun 6, 2007
8,166
12
38
South Western Singapore
As headfonz already said,usually at night use tripod,plus E-620 got IS, beside,I'm using 7-14,its always at f4,but I've no problem shooting at night,handshake less visible at wide end rather than tele ends
 

Hi,

I am in a midst of a decision. I like landscapes and low light shots. Sunsets and city buildings in dazzling city lights is the thing for me.

So I was wondering if I would get the 9-18 mm lens together with the 14-54 mm lens OR the 12-60 mm lens for my use.

Where the wide angle is the maximum with the 9-18 mm will I have difficulty taking low light shots handheld with it compared the 12-60 mm lens? Will the shallow depth of field when using the F2.8 aperture render me not being able to get enough depth of field for the entire picture while taking a landscape shot (e.g. sunset) at 12 mm?

The aperture of the 14-54 mm at 17 mm is F2.8 whereas the aperture of the 12-60 mm at 17 mm is at F3.2 (can anyone help to confirm this?). Is there a lot of difference in the night? Will I miss the SWD focusing system on the 12-60 in exchange for this short coming?

Currently I already have the 14-42 F3.5 (which I am prepared to ditch) and the PL 25 mm F1.4 and the Oly 50 mm F2.

Any comments/help is greatly appreciated before I dump my money on the wrong lens.
The small difference in F number will make little difference in your case. Try to consider more about which range will serve you better and which lens is technically more suitable for your application and also your budget rather than trying to decide between F2.8, F3.1 or even F4.

F4 is one stop slower than F2.8 so you can easily do the math to see if it suits you. Most wide angle lenses have alot of dof especially if you focus at something far away (near infinity) so that should not be your concern when you shoot your landscape.

On the note on SWD, why would you need SWD for landscape? I'll choose a conventional motor over an SWD one if given this choice of shooting what you like shooting.

If you like landscape, 11-22 will never fail you. Its an excellent lens. Don't know about the 9-18 because I never owned one. But it I needed to shoot a sunset landscape, the 11-22 will be the lens of my choice, even over the 7-14.
 

headfonz

Senior Member
Apr 6, 2006
1,953
0
36
If you like landscape, 11-22 will never fail you. Its an excellent lens. Don't know about the 9-18 because I never owned one. But it I needed to shoot a sunset landscape, the 11-22 will be the lens of my choice, even over the 7-14.
good points raised, to add, the 11-22's distortion at the 11mm is easier to fix than the 12-60 at 12mm. compared at brand new prices, the 12-60 is a better buy over the 11-22 for the short tele reach. on the 2nd hand market, 11-22 is strong contender.

i owned the 9-18 for a very period, great lens for the price. very lightweight and compact too.
 

nex100

Senior Member
Aug 15, 2008
587
0
16
This is a very difficult choice. SWD is tempting but the CDAF, I cannot ignore the lack of it.
 

nex100

Senior Member
Aug 15, 2008
587
0
16
the 11-22 is a very good lens but for the price, I would rather get a 12-60 swd
 

headfonz

Senior Member
Apr 6, 2006
1,953
0
36
This is a very difficult choice. SWD is tempting but the CDAF, I cannot ignore the lack of it.
you don't need SWD for landscape work. landscapes photography does not need AF in nanoseconds.

you don't need CDAF unless you shoot live view all the time. the 12-60 will focus in live view hybrid mode.

you don't need to spend money on features you don't need.
 

spidey89

Moderator
Staff member
Jun 6, 2007
8,166
12
38
South Western Singapore
you don't need SWD for landscape work. landscapes photography does not need AF in nanoseconds.

you don't need CDAF unless you shoot live view all the time. the 12-60 will focus in live view hybrid mode.

you don't need to spend money on features you don't need.
Exactly,save the money for filters if you're doing loads of landscape
 

nex100

Senior Member
Aug 15, 2008
587
0
16
true if I do landscape I do not need swd nor do I need CDAF all the time but I am a hobbist so I would be using this set of lens to do other stuff too =)
 

spidey89

Moderator
Staff member
Jun 6, 2007
8,166
12
38
South Western Singapore
How about renting a 12-60 and try it out see if it fits for "all" your needs?
 

theITguy

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2003
3,142
0
36
In this small world
Visit site
As a hobbist, you buy what you can afford. That is the only one and only motto you should have. Other than that, you are an equipment collector or real photographer.

Train yourself to take the picture with your current lense until you cannot make it work any longer.

F2.8 and F3.2 aint much difference in real world practice (1/3 stop??). My view is, you want 12-60 to go with the 9-18, but you do not have money, so you are just trying to make it such that 14-54 is just what you will need (when 14-42 will be enough maybe).
 

nex100

Senior Member
Aug 15, 2008
587
0
16
In my opinon, 14mm is not wide enough. 12mm is good for me but the distortion is what puts me off. 9mm is very good but I am afraid that I cannot take good landscapes in low light. So it is either I put up with the distortion and pp all my pictures or I get another F2.8 wide angle lens which is relatively cheaper than the 12-60 to take care of landscapes in low light. Thus my dilemma.
 

spidey89

Moderator
Staff member
Jun 6, 2007
8,166
12
38
South Western Singapore
then the only alternative is probably the 11-22,between 9-18 and 12-60,2.8-3.5 and you can keep your 14-42 for your usual shots
 

nex100

Senior Member
Aug 15, 2008
587
0
16
you are probably right.
 

elgkh

Senior Member
Dec 12, 2008
681
2
18
www.flickr.com
Another way is to look at your night shots and work out the shutter speed you would have gotten at a bigger aperture.

I still think a tripod is the way to go for nightscape though.
 

theITguy

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2003
3,142
0
36
In this small world
Visit site
In my opinon, 14mm is not wide enough. 12mm is good for me but the distortion is what puts me off. 9mm is very good but I am afraid that I cannot take good landscapes in low light. So it is either I put up with the distortion and pp all my pictures or I get another F2.8 wide angle lens which is relatively cheaper than the 12-60 to take care of landscapes in low light. Thus my dilemma.
The 12-60 is never a landscape lense. It is more of a street shooting / traveling lense.


Oh I see, you are either (1) lazy to bring a tripod, (2) cannot afford a tripod, (3) no skill or (4) any combination of the above.

For your information, the sharpness of the 9-18 is not that great unless stopped down. If shoot wide-open, then a bit blur also cannot be seen easily.

Remember, there is no good or bad photographer, only lazy or hardworking photo to make things work. If you know you can get a great photo by using the tripod, hell by all means use one.
 

elgkh

Senior Member
Dec 12, 2008
681
2
18
www.flickr.com
For your information, the sharpness of the 9-18 is not that great unless stopped down. If shoot wide-open, then a bit blur also cannot be seen easily.
Actually, it is sharpest wide open. This is according to the dpreview charts.

Remember, there is no good or bad photographer, only lazy or hardworking photo to make things work. If you know you can get a great photo by using the tripod, hell by all means use one.
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
 

Status
Not open for further replies.