OM SYSTEM OLYMPUS E 9-18mm f/4.0-5.6 Zuiko Lens for Olympus Digital SLR Cameras

This would not fit on my Olympus OM-D E-M1 micro 4/3 camera. It must be for some other Olympus camera. if you have a 4/3 camera don't buy this lens.

Pros:Very Small, Very Light, fits easily in a jacket pocketUltra-wide angle is very usefulImage stabilization available on-cameraNoticeably better construction than my other Olympus standard grade lensesWide filter ring prevents vignetting (use just one filter)Good image quality, except for:Cons:Barrel distortion at wide end (correctable in Photoshop)Last few pixels not quite as "sharp" as centerPractice required to keep horizon level, not create weird perspectiveConstruction not as good as Olympus "pro" lensesThere are wider lenses for other brands (that weigh 2x more... hehehe.)There are better ultrawide zoom lenses (in the $1500 range... haHaHA!)My stuff for reference: E-410, 9-18mm, 25mm pancake, 35mm macro, 40-150mm (small), 14-54mm, 70-300mm (14-42mm and 18-180mm lenses sold)I bought the Olympus system to get great image quality at a small size and price, I wouldn't have if not for rumors of this lens. When it was announced it seemed better than I hoped! I bought it early for a trip to China (I normally wait for the price to drop), it is a good thing I did, because I used the 9-18mm about 70% of the time! I also took the 14-54mm and the 40-150mm kit lens, thus making a small, quality, versatile package that I always carried in my pockets and hand/neck.The 9-18 is ideal for travel, it fits in a pocket or can be carried attached to your camera all day and not be tiring. More importantly, when you get to touristy places, you can stand very close to your subject (if you don't mind the perspective), thus you will be in other people's photos, rather than them being in yours! Plus, there are a surprising number of subjects that can only be photographed whole or with no obstructions with an ultra-wide angle lens. Great for "spy" pictures of people who think you are pointing the camera somewhere else. And, you can lower shutter speeds to 1/20s and still have sharp pictures, a huge benefit for cameras with no IS. Imagine what it would be like on a camera with IS!Image quality is good, but there is noticeable barrel distortion towards 9mm. Otherwise I would say IQ is between the 14-54 and 40-150, but closer to the 14-54. Lens flare was not a big problem for me, but more than my 14-54 (and I like placing the sun in the frame). Keeping the lens clean helps a lot with flare. Contrast (something I like) is much better than the 40-150, but not as good as the 14-54mm. Chromatic aberration happens, and is slightly worse towards the edges, but is not too bad. Sharpness I am less attuned to because all Olympus lenses are sharp and I rarely view the corners of my pictures full size, but it is sharp from f/4 to ~f/10, about/nearly as good as the 14-54mm. The 14-54 seems to experience less corner variation from f/2.8 to f/8 than this lens from f/4 to f/8, but this is a very minor consideration.Other thoughts: construction quality is better than my other Olympus standard grade lenses, including texturing on the whole exterior and a less plasticky sound when you hit the limits of the zoom range. Zoom travel is very short and is of the out-in-out variety. I now think my 14-54mm is too big, and got the 25mm pancake to anchor the gap between the 9-18mm and 40-150mm. With the 9-18mm, 40-150mm and any of the <Olympus 14-54mm, Sigma f/2.8 18-50mm, Olympus 25mm pancake, or Sigma 30mm> you will have a small yet extraordinary setup with the E-420, E-520, or E-620. Alternatively, use the 9-18mm, 35mm macro, and 70-300mm for landcapes/macro/wildlife. You will see many tourists walking past with a Nikon D300 or Canon 50D and a large lens, that weigh more than your camera and three lenses together despite having less zoom and smaller aperture. You will wonder what delusion they are under that they think they are making better pictures (of the same thing)!Update: I returned to China for a longer stay, and have been using the 14-18mm range quite a bit to take pictures of people around town. I am glad that the good image quality occurs across the zoom range. I have found that this lens is now the anchor of my small lens collection. Things I notice even more after a few months are, the 9-18 is contrastier than the 40-150mm, and the construction quality is far higher than the 40-150mm or other standard grade lenses (except the 25mm pancake?). My 40-150 has a quite a few nicks in it. The 9-18 has just 3 hairline scratches which are difficult to see even on close examination.Update #2: After a year and a half this lens has become widely traveled and I am getting better at using it with time. I have never had a complaint about the final image quality of pictures with this lens. The only complaint I ever had is barrel distortion, because I hate fixing it in Photoshop. Contrast still doesn't equal the 14-54, but that never seems to matter. It is still holding together perfectly, showing no signs of abuse, even though I have sometimes abused it (in a wide variety of ways).

I am sure this is a great lens but it didn't work well with my Panasonic G1 with the adaptor. I wouldn't make a decision about using this with an OM camera based on my review. With the panasonic, it worked very slowly in focusing using AF and there was quite a bit of softness.

I am slowing building up my travel kit based on m4/3 eco system. My main system is based on APS-C DSLR. Since I already have a well established lens collection for my main system, I don't want to spend a lot to duplicate the lens collection for m4/3. My main lens is Olympus 12-100 which is way more than I wanted to spend, but it is the ideal travel zoom. My next favorite focal length is wide angle. Since I prefer zoom, I looked for the cheapest option and this lens was the cheapest option with decent reviews, less than half of a new m4/3 9-18.In order to use this lens on a m4/3 body (GX85), I bought a cheap adapter. The combination works much better than I expected. AF speed was decent enough for me, probably slower and nosier than the newer m4/3 version. The optical performance is again pretty good. Corner sharpness is comparable to the center. In absolute terms, a good full frame fixed focal length can easily best this lens and I have done this test, but it is an apple to orange comparison. For the purpose of a filling a focal length gap in a travel kit, this is a great addition.

I am just an ordinary picture taker, thought this lens might be what I wanted for some wide angle shots. I can not believe I spent this kind of money for a lens that seems comparable to the kit lens 14/42

I've just recently rectified a seeming contradiction in my photography - most of my pictures are of landscapes or architecture yet I have never used an ultra-wide angle lens. In fact, I have often fallen into the lure of the "sexy" telephoto/tele-zoom lenses.Not any more - I finally picked up a 9-18.One reason I bought this lens was in anticipation of a trip to France. I used 3 lenses in France - a tele-zoom (40-150), a standard zoom (14-42) and this ultra-wide. (These 3 lenses make a great light weight travel pack with the E-620.) I ended up using the tele-zoom a little less than 10% of the time - picking up details, capturing distant objects and isolating the subject. The rest of the shots were split pretty evenly between the standard 14-42 and the 9-18 with the 9-18 surpassing the 14-42 by a handful of shots - I kept the 9-18 mounted on my E-620 and changed to one of the other lenses only when needed.The pictures all came out great.There were shots that can only be taken with an ultra-wide, say the complete vaulting of a church or cathedral, from one end to the other in one shot or the front of a big building when there is limited room to back up.There are problems - a lot of shots, particularly if they are shot from pretty close, come out distorted. This, of course, can't be avoided - if I have a picture of a wall 10 feet in front of me were I show the floor in front and the ceiling 75 up (think the walls of stained glass in Sainte-Chapelle) there is bound to be some oddness going on.Overall, however, I am very happy with the results - Some of my best shots were taken with this lens.If you have an Olympus E-series four-thirds camera you owe it to yourself to try an ultra-wide lens, particularly if you do a lot of landscape or architecture photography. To get this wide you pretty much have the choice of this excellent small lens or the super high grade 7-14, which only costs about 3 times as much... This is highly recommended.

マイクロフォーサーズと書いてありますが、「フォーサーズ」です。ご注意ください。　私は即、返品しました（マイクロフォーサーズのカメラで使用するにはアダプターが必要になります）。