7-14mm or 8-25mm...Update

[Dave in Wales]

Difficult decision

Quite a bit of difference.

[TravelingChick]

I switched from the 7-14 to 8-25. Slightly longer focal length, plus standard front element outweighed the one stop and 1 mm.

[Shaw]

Same here!

[JeremyB]

Me too, for the exact same reasons! The 8-25 is just a more versatile lense, and paired with 12-100 they make a perfect combo for me.

[mikero]

Same here. Not only that, but the 7-14 'suffered' from severe field curvature which meant that you really needed to stop down to get a sharp image front to back and into the corners. So for me, the F2.8 aperture was largely wasted.

[Keith-369]

What will you do if it's a draw, Dave?

[TravelingChick]

He'll clearly have to buy both.

[Ross the fiddler]

TravelingChick Then he'll sell one a short time later.

[griffljg]

That's a very difficult decision. I have the 7-14mm f/2.8 and very seldom use it. But when I need it, I really NEED it. That's why I still have it. Most of the time, 12mm is wide enough for me. That is why the 7-14 gets so little use.

If I had the 8-25mm f/4, then it would probably get a lot more use as its zoom range makes it a lot more versatile for me. It could serve as a general purpose walk-around lens for street or scenic photography. But that also adds to the confusion. I'd constantly be mulling over whether I should also take another (longer) lens along with me or not. I probably would........ Adding to weight.

So......... In the final analysis, if I had neither, I would probably opt for the 8-25, but it would be a very close call. But if I had the 7-14 (and I do), then I wouldn't change.

[Ross the fiddler]

Good answer Larry. Going on Dave's record, if he finds it heavy it would be for sale in a short time too, then he might have sellers regret & buy another only to end up selling that too (like he did with the 100-400 lens).

[IainMacD]

I use filters, it would have to be the 8-25

[Lester]

For taking photographs, the 7-14 great, especially indoors. For taking videos, the 8-25 quite exceptional everywhere. And I then did sell my 7-14.....

[RobEW]

Shouldn't 8-18 be in the poll too?

[pdk42]

In theory, but hard to recommend the 8-18 over the 8-25, esp to Olympus users.

[pdk42]

7-14: Big. Heavy. Bulbous front element. Doesn’t take filters. Uber wide, but long end is only 14mm.

8-25: Lighter. Shrinks down for storage. Concealed front element. Takes filters. Still very wide, but more useful at the long end.

You can guess where my vote went!!

Biggest question though is “why do you want a UWA zoom?”

[RedRobin]

@pdk42
You ask why a UWA zoom? - Because it offers flexibility in a confined space. I do a lot of railways photography.

BULLEID PACIFIC CREW by Robin Procter, on Flickr

BULLEID BANTER! by Robin Procter, on Flickr

[pdk42]

RedRobin - I know why I want a UWA zoom, and now you - but my question was aimed at Dave in Wales

[RedRobin]

@pdk42
OK but you didn't tag Dave in Wales and so that wasn't clear. No harm done.

[MJ224]

I have the 7-14mm. Works very well, but I suspect I would used the 8-25mm more...

[Dave in Wales]

7-14: Big. Heavy. Bulbous front element. Doesn’t take filters. Uber wide, but long end is only 14mm.

8-25: Lighter. Shrinks down for storage. Concealed front element. Takes filters. Still very wide, but more useful at the long end.

You can guess where my vote went!!

Biggest question though is “why do you want a UWA zoom?”

I have the 12-100 and feel I want something wider.

The 8-25 gives too much overlap with the 12-100.

And as can be seen from the above shot is surprisingly narrower than the 7-14.

[pdk42]

Yes, but what are you wanting to photograph that needs something wider? If it’s landscapes, filters are almost a necessity making the 8-25 the hands-down winner. If it’s interiors then the 7-14 wins because of its wider FOV. If it’s Astro, the 7-14 probably wins due to its wider max aperture. If it’s general walkabout with a wide flavour, then the 8-25 wins because of its better range, etc, etc

[Graham_of_Rainham]

Biggest question though is “why do you want a UWA zoom?”

Having had the 7-14, my answer would have been for the single shots that required the UWA that couldn’t be done with sweep panorama or a 9 shot stitch.

[pdk42]

Difficult decision

Quite a bit of difference.

Yes, but how important is that extra bit of FOV? 8mm is still pretty wide. It’s 16mm equiv in FF, and the 16-35 has been a long time staple of Pros who need a wide zoom.

[MikeOxon]

Don't forget that for static scenes you can pan and then stitch multiple photos..

[Ross the fiddler]

For you Dave, I would suggest the 8 - 25 at

411g (without lens cap, lens rear cap and lens hood)

While the 7-14 is 534g

Being able to use filters directly on the 8-25 & with a larger range is another advantage.

[Chris-G]

I did have the 7-14 for a short while but found the focal length range too restricting for me to use the lens regularly. As others have said, it is a heavy lens, and the inability to use filters on the front is another disadvantage. The 8-25 is a much more versatile lens, though a bit slower and less wide, but with the extra range it can be used as a walk around lens and I find it superbly sharp throughout.

[pault]

One thought is with the overlap 8-25 v 12-100 (which dave has) the overlap cuts down changing lenses compared to 7-14

[JeremyB]

Precisely. That's exactly what I found when I was using my 7-14 and my 12-100. I bought the 8-25 shortly after it came out last year, and sold the 7-14 a few weeks later. I miss the wider aperture, but not so much to make a big difference to me.