Olympus Zuiko 18-180mm Photos

[Photo-John]

Olympus sent me the 18-180mm f/3.5-6.3 with the E-520. I hadn't shot with it much because I like the 12-60mm and 70-300mm lenses so much. That's a powerful combo! But for the past week or so I committed to riding with just the 18-180mm and it's grown on me. For some reason, at first, I felt like it wasn't so great. I haven't done any real serious testing or analysis with it. But I sure have taken some photos I like with it over the past week. And it's nice to ride with one, compact lens that has this much range.

[Greg McCary]

Thanks for the post John. I honestly don't think Olympus makes a bad lens. Just good ones and really good ones.LOL Great pictures.

[Photo-John]

I honestly don't think Olympus makes a bad lens. Just good ones and really good ones.

I'm sorta starting to think the same thing. The more I use this one, the better it seems to work. Maybe the glass gets better when you use it more

[erikzen]

These shots are fantastic. Of course a lot has to do with the skill of the photographer and the quality of the subjects, but the image quality seems excellent.

I have been considering buying the 70-300 to compliment my two kit lenses and the 50mm macro. It seems like that would give me everything I need for quite some time. Yet the idea of buying this to replace the two kit lenses and get a little more reach is intriguing. Also, I have an upcoming vacation and I could see just bringing the 18-180, whereas with any other lens I would think I would need to bring along at least two.

Which would you recommend to a novice like myself, buying the 70-300 or the 18-180 to round out my lens kit?

If I went with the 18-180 I would probably want a longer telephoto eventually. The 18mm probably has me covered on the wide end of things for the forseeable future.

[rigel]

Those are amazing photos! :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

I've been contemplating on this lens to supplement the 2 kit lenses, mostly for travel. I've been put off by mediocre reviews of it, but after seeing these images, I'm reconsidering

But then again, this is likely a classic example of the image quality due not to the equipment, but the photographer

Thanks for the post!

[Photo-John]

Thanks for the compliments, guys. I do think these photos came from a couple of great days with the 18-180mm lens. However, I also have the 12-60mm and 70-300 and aside from the limited range I had with the 18-180mm, I didn't feel like I ended up giving up much in terms of image quality. You should know that these photos have been adjusted with Lightroom, though. I don't recall doing anything really sophisticated with them. But they didn't come out of the camera looking like this. In fact, you'll never see photos from me right out of the camera, unless I specifically post them as an image quality sample and say so. I consider what comes out of the camera to be raw material. The final image happens on the computer, just as it used to be a product of the darkroom.

As for the 70-300mm lens, I love it. It's actually one of my favorite things about the Olympus E-System. That lens is an awesome outdoor lens. I especially love it for ski photos where really long shots are often the best. On the other hand, it's a really long lens. I often find I'm too close to effectively use it. The 18-180mm is definitely a more practical lens. I am please with them both as far as optical quality goes. Although I do think the 70-300 is a better lens.

[Robusto]

What great photos and looks like a great lens but come is for some £300 over here in the uk

something i might consider in the new year especially if i can get shots like that

[zio2000]

I just bought my 18-180mm f3.5 lens. But for some weird reason, when I take a shot using the18-180mm at 180mm and my 40-150mm f3.5 at 150mm, the 150mm takes a closer shot. Any idea?

Please see attached. I stood at the same distance, same angle, same f-stop... everything the same setting exept for the lens.. so i wonder why a 180mm lens will give me the same as the 150mm? Anyone?

[Greg McCary]

Wow, I am not sure about that one. You would think the first one would be closer.

[zio2000]

I'm not sure but at 180mm, isn't it supposed to be closer than 150mm? I was about 25 feet away from the subject. I'm still wondering why.

[OldClicker]

I'm not sure but at 180mm, isn't it supposed to be closer than 150mm? I was about 25 feet away from the subject. I'm still wondering why.

I've seen something that explained why the further you are from the short end the less the actual length of the lens is. 180mm is much further from 18mm (10x) than 150 is from 40 (<4x). I cannot find it.

It could be because modern 'zooms' are actually variable focus lenses. They don't stay in focus as you change the length. Therefore the further you get away from the short end, the more you have to compensate by focusing - shortening the actual length.

TF

[zio2000]

Here's another sample of a photo taken approximately 200-300 feet away. The 180mm now is slightly closer than the 150mm. I think that explains with the focusing. But anyhow, lens is good for all around and to carry the whole time. Thanks.