When I worked with the paper, I decided early on the buy the 9mm Leica as my wide angle and leave my 8-18 zoom at home for other jobs.
Pictured on the left as almost an after thought, it was at that time in one of its many “which kit and why” periods. Truth be told, it is probably my favourite zoom.
I only really bought the lens as a safety net option when I was building up a pro kit, because my widest was a 17mm and I knew a few jobs may bite me eventually. Almost immediately, it saved me with a large group shot in a confined space and as a lens in its own right I really liked its form factor and image quality.
It did not make the cut in my journalistic kit though because it was too slow (I felt) at the longer end at f4 which was a standard focal length for me, and the bulk of it’s range too wide for general use, so to save weight and bulk (it is a little wide to fit in some over stuffed bags easily), the 12-40 f2.8 Pro was re-adopted instead*.
Ailing as that lens was I saw it as a “use it until it fails” proposition and it proved to be a worthy companion, a great video option and the “lumpy” zoom slowly smoothed out with use.
A win-win I guess, but the excellent 8-18 was neglected.
Recently my kit has become more of a pack-it-as-you-need-it dynamic, rather than a catch-all, so my thinking has evolved.
The 8-18 has become a good option for outdoor jobs and I am reminded of its very good properties.
It is sharp, Leica sharp with character, great contrast and consistency. Bokeh, when it gets a chance is gorgeous.
It handles flare as well as any lens I own. It generally follows that simple lenses with less glass are better here, but the 8-18 can actually handle shooting straight into the sun no problem, something most other lenses I own cannot do.
It also handles very strong light well. The Olympus 75-300 is also a star here, smoothing out highlights well, so the two give me an extreme 16-600 ff range in a light weight package (with a tiny 45mm prime in the 35-150 gap), ideally suited to overly bright light.
Sun stars are nice, not something I use much, but they are nice.
It handles well, even though I am more used to the Olympus direction of things. To be honest, it is my favourite zoom lens to use.
It is tough. I have dropped it twice, even with its limited use, and it has come away with a scratch or two, but nothing else.
It shares the same 67mm thread as my Lumix-S lenses, so it is the ideal standard for the G9II in a mixed video kit.
It also offers a handy video range, especially with teleconverters or E-stabiliser crops applied.
When maximum weight reduction or space saving are not a priority, it is a very well balanced lens overall. Not at all heavy or large by most standards, it was ridiculous that I could replace it with a “better’ option, but Panasonic did make that amazing 9mm f1.7 Leica**.
Negatives?
The hood scratches easily and the Leica 9mm and 8-25 Oly exist, but to be honest, in this new working world of mine, I can now take both Leicas! The f4 thing does not seem to be a thing really, if I use the lens for its intended purpose and in the semi-standard, fast glass range I am over serviced really. Even at f4 the lens shows an ability to render smooth backgrounds with real Leica “pop”.
*I realised later that the 8-18 with a 15, 17 or 25 fast prime was actually the same weight as the 12-40 and 9mm (the 12-40 is actually the heaviest, but the 9mm the lightest), but the “shape” of the new kit was better and the 12-40 because a better lens for it. Video for me at the time was also a priority and the 12-40 provided the perfect interview range with instant manual focus override. I also carried a 45mm f1.8 either way, so the need for a fast normal was probably reduced.
**The bulbous 7-14 Olympus never appealed on many levels, nor the older 9-18, Panasonic 7-14 or Laowa 7.5, the 9mm becoming the best option and I would have bought originally if available. The only other lens I would have looked at is the Oly 8-25, which may still happen.