PDA

View Full Version : Digital Lenses Zuiko Digital (Olympus) 11-22mm f2.8-3.5 High Grade - Wide



craig
09-30-2005, 12:12 AM
Focal length: 11-22mm
angle of view 53-89 degrees
Closet focusing distance: 11.02 inches
Max aperture: f2.8 wide - f3.5 tele
min aperture: f22
Filter size: 72mm
Dimensions: 75x92.5mm
weight 485g
Tele 1.4: yes
EX tube: no
Olympus Website (http://www.olympusamerica.com/e1/sys_lens_ez1122mm.asp)

Support this site by purchasing below:
<iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=fourthirdspho-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=B0001M47FG&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&lc1=0000ff&bc1=000000&bg1=ffffff&f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0"></iframe>

The 11-22mm lens, is a great walk around lens. It gives the user the ability to have a bit more width, than the 14-54mm offers. It also have very little distortion, so even though it is a 11mm, which in 35mm terms would be 22mm. I do not worry about the effects of elongated faces along the edges, nearly as much as I normally would with a very wide lens in my film days.
I wish that it was a 10-20mm lens though for the little be extra width that it would offer, but I cannot complain. If you have the 14-54 and do not know if this lens is for you or not because you will have much of the same focal lengths, I would not worry about that. This lens offers a great interior lens/building lens/ walk around lens. you will not regret purchasing it.
11mm
4196
14mm
4197
22mm
4198
How I did the lens test.
I sat down and shot the test targets with both the E-1 and E-330 in over 12 times at various F stops, and in different light. I then took the results and broke them down into F stops. The E-330 pulled out between 10-15% more resolution than the E-1 produced, because of the greater amount of pixels per inch. As you can see below, at both the edges and the center this lens is very sharp.
The blue column is shot at 11mm and the Red is at 22mm.
4200
(click for larger)

If you do not want or cannot spend $1700 on a 7-14mm, I think that you will be very happy with this lens.
What is the difference between 11 & 14mm it close up is about 1 more large step back, but you will find many times when you can't step any further back. Also I have used this lens many times when I wanted to use a filter on the lens, which the 7-14mm cannot do.
The build of the lens is like all of Olympus lenses, superb.
I would highly recommend this to anyone.

Other reviews online:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/olympus_1122_2835/index.htm
OzRay's review (http://www.australianimage.com.au/reviews/11-22mm.htm)
Previous poll:
In our poll in which 20 people voted, they gave this lens an average of a 4.4 out of 5.
Over all this is a very good lens. I personally really like this lens, it is super sharp. Sharper than the 14-54mm, and a little sharper according to the test than the 7-14mm.
http://fourthirdsphoto.com/images/stories//11-22.jpg

What others have said before:

BL3

Pros: Sharp! Can't find any distortion, no matter how bad I screw up.
Cons: I can get some Chromatic Aberration if I'm not careful. Usually happens when I'm not careful with blown highlights.
Price paid: $679 @ Arlington Camera
Other: Maybe my favorite lens, great for just walking around in picturesque places, equally great for interiors. I even got some good aerial shots with this lens.

totetuti

Pros: sharp, sharp through out the range and at all aperture
Cons: CA is visible but better than other lenses in this class...
price paid:$575 (used in mint condition)
Other info: I have three ZD's 11-22, 14-54, 50-200 and this one is the one if I could only have one lens... This lens, sort of, justifies going with the 4/3 system.

jonr

I love this lens. My 14-54 is getting less and less use after I bougt this. The Ultra-wide range from 11-15mm is not easy to use, but I am getting the hang of it. This lens will be great with the new Panasonic L1...
(Of course, now I lust after the 7-14...)

Bill_Turner
07-30-2006, 03:24 PM
I've been using a borrowed 11-22 for the past few days and, today, purchased a "hardly used" one at a fantastic price.
Having only the 14-45 and 40-150 on my E-1, I'm completely blown away at the resourcefulness of this lens.
Sharp? It's razor sharp. Versatile? Ultra-wide to normal very quickly.
If the 14-54 is anywhere near this good, that's my next lens.

OzRay
07-31-2006, 01:54 AM
Bill

The 14-54mm is a gnat's whisker behind the 11-22mm; as far as mine's concerned.

Cheers

Ray

baal
08-01-2006, 01:00 AM
I bought it used on this forum a few weeks ago at a fair price. OK, this lense is razor sharp, strongly built and is brighter than its canikon competitors but is not wide enough! A superwide zoom should start at 16 or 18 equi 135mm, not at 22 (and 4/3 is not the best proportion to use wide angles)and therefore is too much of a doublon to the 14-54.
I shoot more WA than Tele but I would rather sell the 11 than the 14 which is a wonder of performances and polyvalence.

Cheers,

Henri

OzRay
08-01-2006, 05:01 AM
I bought it used on this forum a few weeks ago at a fair price. OK, this lense is razor sharp, strongly built and is brighter than its canikon competitors but is not wide enough! A superwide zoom should start at 16 or 18 equi 135mm, not at 22 (and 4/3 is not the best proportion to use wide angles)and therefore is too much of a doublon to the 14-54.
I shoot more WA than Tele but I would rather sell the 11 than the 14 which is a wonder of performances and polyvalence.

Cheers,

Henri

In reality, as far as the old 35mm days are concerned, 22mm is quite a wide FOV. In early days, 24mm was considered a fairly wide angle lens and you couldn't even get zooms with this range and quality.

As far as format ratios are concerned, I guess it's a matter of personal chioce, I quite like the 4/3 ratio, even when shooting with the 8mm. If you want wide (non-fisheye), you can get the 7-14mm, which I don't think any brand has an equivalent.

The 14-54mm is certainly one very versatile and high quality lens, and not one that I'd give up very readily; the elusive 14-35mm could give it a run for its money. But as a general walkabout lens, the 14-54mm is hard to beat.

Cheers

Ray

Bill_Turner
08-03-2006, 06:42 PM
Ray,
I'd have to agree with you here.
When I was shooting with my Canon film stuff, I had a Sigma 17-35 but it was nearly unusable at the 17mm end.
The 11-22 is true rectilinear at every focal length and the sharpness is beyond compare.
Additionally, the 11-22 is splashproof.

Bill_Turner
08-03-2006, 06:43 PM
That much??? :-)

assafx
05-30-2007, 11:08 PM
I convinced my boss to buy it and we spent 4,000 Nis (around 900$ back then) on that lens and were (according to the shop owner) the first one to buy it in Israel.

I loved the lens since the first moment i attached it to my work's E-300 on the way back to the office. It's Razor Sharp (even at f 2.8), Fast, Bright, Strongly Built (that's a major Consideration when you're being an archaeologist and spending time in the Field), splash proof and i found it perfect for indoor and outdoor use.

Cons? none that i could find.

Assaf

and now for the samples:
http://www.pbase.com/assafx/image/73994426/large.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/assafx/image/75641131/large.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/assafx/image/75641132/large.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/assafx/image/67208172/large.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/assafx/image/67659421/large.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/assafx/image/67208171/large.jpg

Godfrey
06-13-2007, 08:41 AM
Coming late to the party on this one ... but glad anyway. ;-)

My 11-22 showed up day before last. I chose it over the 7-14 because it is better suited to the range of FoV I tend to use, and complements the Leica 14-50 on the L1 perfectly, with the right amount of overlap.

I went walking with it yesterday and made about 100 exposures. It proves to be an exceptional lens in every way. The build quality is excellent, the sharpness and contrast are terrific. At my most used focal lengths (18-22mm) the rectilinear correction is superb. There's a little barrel distortion at the 11mm end of the spectrum. it's perfectly acceptable (and of course correctable in image processing) but I'm not sure yet whether it's greater or less than what I get with my Pentax 14mm on their DSLRs.

This could well be my most used lens from this point out ... :-)

Godfrey
http://homepage.mac.com/godders/pigeon-0707.jpg
Pigeon Escape - San Francisco 2007
Panasonic L1 + Olympus 11-22mm f/2.8-3.5
ISO 100 @ f/5.6 @ 1/100 sec, Av, FL=17mm

larger: http://homepage.mac.com/godders/pigeon-0707-half.jpg

clive
04-16-2008, 05:02 PM
I have been using a Sigma 14mm on my Pentax K10D but saw a new 11-22mm at a price I couldn't refuse as I need about this degree of wide angle for my work (although would have preferred 18mm equivalent). I also decided to get a camera to go with it and so got an E-330!

After reading all the reviews I don't think I will be disappointed and looking forward to using it. No doubt I will sell the Sigma although I have no complaints with it except the weight as it is a full frame f2.8 lens

john nyberg
04-18-2008, 02:26 AM
I have been using the 11-22mm for close to a year now - and I have to say that 80% of all my pictures are shot using this lense (and most of the time at about 11mm). Itīs a great lense - my best.

PRO: sharp, clear, non disortion, fast (both light and focus) and it's build like a sherman

CON: Only the price (it's true, I can't find another one)

Price: In Denmark the price is just about $ 1,160 (800 euro); the lense is well worth it - but it is a lot of money.

Rockin Ronnie
10-21-2008, 05:38 PM
I am torn between getting this lens as opposed to the 9-18. Aside from being brighter, less wide, weather-sealed, heavier, more rugged construction etc. is it sharper and more contrasty than the 9-18? I mean, I've seen some great shots from the 9-18. Is the 11-22 better?

Here in Canada the price difference is roughly $150. Help me justify spending more for the 11-22.

Opinions?

Ron

AlistairJ
11-13-2008, 07:22 AM
Hello Ron
The 9-18mm is so new that nobody has yet come off the fence with regard to its quality. Hopefully there will be reviews soon.
For me the 11-22mm starts to look tempting when the price has come down a bit, if I can pick up one cheap off the fleaBay.

Rockin Ronnie
11-18-2008, 04:24 PM
Bought the 11-22 this week. Took advantage of a slightly lower price, 796CDN.

Ron

jlevante
01-14-2009, 10:32 AM
Could anyone post some strongly backlight image with 11-22?

I really like backlight and also images with the sun in the frame, and my 12-60 is not very good in that...

I use for those "sunny landscapes" my 50-200 (since after I removed the UV filter I realized his great performance in backlight situations!) but I often need a shorter focal lenght.

Thanks

E

mliu92
02-18-2009, 08:09 PM
Are you looking for something like this?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3246/3036211417_c3354f63b5_m.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mliu92/3036211417/)

baal
02-20-2009, 02:27 AM
I bought it used on this forum a few weeks ago at a fair price. OK, this lense is razor sharp, strongly built and is brighter than its canikon competitors but is not wide enough! A superwide zoom should start at 16 or 18 equi 135mm, not at 22 (and 4/3 is not the best proportion to use wide angles)and therefore is too much of a doublon to the 14-54.
I shoot more WA than Tele but I would rather sell the 11 than the 14 which is a wonder of performances and polyvalence.

Cheers,

Henri

Edit: After a few years of frenetic use, I can say that 11mm....is enough;) I am still in love with the lense, couldn't recomend it enough and it has become much cheaper since the 12-60 and 9-14 have hit the market.
Note that I have sold the 14-54 :D that has been replaced by the 50f2

Cheers,

Henri

nrgaudet
05-27-2009, 07:49 PM
I've had this lens for about a month now. It is sharper than I thought it would be, and I was a bit worried that it wouldn't be wide enough, but honestly in use it is shockingly wide for my use. I don't find the weight or size objectionable. The price was a bit high, (though I got it for $750 Canadian) but it was worth it in the long run to round out the wide end of my lens lineup being as it is weather sealed.

The only thing I don't like is the lens cap which isn't the pinch variety and can't easily be removed or put on with the lens hood on. I also find the lens hood to be really finicky to get on and off. Pretty annoying.

nrgaudet
05-24-2010, 03:04 PM
Just did a blog review:
http://photographyramblings.blogspot.com/2010/05/olympus-11-22mm-f28-to-35-lens.html

minh0204
05-28-2010, 05:07 AM
Pretty good write-up Neil. But a few question: in your samples it looks like the lens has a considerable amount of distortion-something that I've never experienced. Is that because the camera was tilted or the lens is that bad? I did not use the 22mm end that often, but the 11mm end is just faultless. Would you mind confirming my little concern?

Godfrey
05-28-2010, 11:46 AM
The 11-22 shows virtually no rectilinear distortion at 15mm and longer, and only .03% at 11mm. This is as good as it gets, IMO. Perspective distortion, however, can happen with *any* lens which is not aligned parallel with significant subject lines that ought to be parallel in the image. The 11-22 does neither worse nor better than any other lens in this regard.

Just happened to see this as I pulled the E-1 and 11-22 out for today's shooting ... I love this combination. :-)