Olympus 7-14 vs 8-25 vs 12-40 Comparisons

[btc000]

Hello Folks,

I am new to underwater photography. Having only shot with my cellphone before.

I was originally planning on getting the 12-40 as my mid-range, and sometime in the future investing on a 7-14 as a wide angle. But I have come across a good deal on a 8-25, which seems to fit a good varied focal range which seems to work amazing on ground. How does that translate to in the water?

I tried to find comparisons of the above for underwater, but only seem to into some posts mentioning one or two of them, with no example shots. So if anyone has any experience/thoughts on the 3 and how they compare to each other I would appreciate your input. If you have photos even better.

Thanks for your time!

 

[WS007]

I had both Zuiko 12-40mm (f/2.8), 8-25mm and Pana 7-14mm and used them behind Zen Domeport 170mm (Nauticam housing)...
Pana 7-14mm did not convince me and was sold.
12-40mm and 8-25mm perform brilliant. They are complementary and overlap only partially. If only one lens, I would go for 8-25mm.
For Ultra-WA the Zuiko 8mm fisheye, or better, the Canon 8-15mm f/4 fisheye lens with Metabones adapter...

Wolfgang

 

[btc000]

I had both Zuiko 12-40mm (f/2.8), 8-25mm and Pana 7-14mm and used them behind Zen Domeport 170mm (Nauticam housing)...
Pana 7-14mm did not convince me and was sold.
12-40mm and 8-25mm perform brilliant. They are complementary and overlap only partially. If only one lens, I would go for 8-25mm.
For Ultra-WA the Zuiko 8mm fisheye, or better, the Canon 8-15mm f/4 fisheye lens with Metabones adapter...

Wolfgang

Thank you for the reply!
What kind of situations do you use the 8-25 vs the 12-40?

 

[WS007]

8-25mm is a real WA lens for all WA appliations. I find it not a problem that 7mm is missing (IQ at 7mm is not so good, anyhow; for real ultra-WA I take the fisheye (very high IQ)) and the ability to zoom in up to 25mm is very convenient. IQ is brilliant...

12-40mm is predominantly for fish portraits. 12mm is also WA, but not so much. As said the range is partially overlapping, but these are different lenses for different applications...

UW photography is predominantly Ultra-WA and/or macro. I would go for Canon 8-15mm fisheye (and, later, the 8-25mm as second and rectilinear WA lens) and a macro lens (Zuiko 60mm or Pana 45mm (for less brilliant visibility conditions), both macros are excellent performers...

12-40mm is excellent for fish portraits, but this would be my third choice on a list to acquire (>90% of UW photography I do with fisheye or macro)...

 

[Furnari]

Having shot all 3 behind a 170mm Inon dome, I would rank them 12-40, 8-25, 7-14 f2.8. My experience is almost entirely PNW cold water diving with limited visibility, although I did use the 12-40 on trips to the Caribbean (along with the 7-14), Channel Islands, and Big Sur. I felt the 8-25 performed worse in the 170mm dome than my Panasonic 8-18, and had to go with an 8" dome to get decent performance. Your results may and will vary depending on subject matter and conditions. My subjects are the aforementioned fish portraits, but you can get awfully close with the 12-40 to shoot near-macro things like nudis, while still having wide enough range for wrecks and big things in most conditions.

For truly wide stuff, I echo the comment for the Olympus 8mm fish eye. If you're using an Olympus or AOI housing with OM-D ports, you can use the same 170mm dome. If you're using an Oly or AOI housing with PEN ports, go with the 12-45 f4 and 8mm lenses in a mini dome.

 

[Wobbegong_th]

I'm using 7-14 and 12-40 for WA on my EM5III

It depends, if I'm sure that the dive site would be better for WA, or mainly pelagic fishes, I'd put 7-14 on.
If it's a mix between WA & macro, I might put the 12-40 on.