Panasonic Leica 25mm 1.4 really a Leica?

agree, this is why I shoot a 1950 leica Summitar 5cm f2

The summitar is uncoated, no asyspherical elements, classic double-gauss/planar leica-variation design which gives a small amount of spherical aberration but is also a sharp lens with great micro-contrast. What this gives is a "look" that you don't get with modern "clinically perfect" corrected lenses. I am not good enough to really capture this but it gives a soft-sharp look similar to the noctilux.

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/03/05/the-leica-50-summitar-lens-review-on-the-leica-m9/

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/05/13/a-true-classic-re-visiting-the-leica-50-summitar-lens/

http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/50mm-f2-summitar.htm

http://www.daguerreotyping.com/?p=2645

http://www.antiquecameras.net/leicalensreviews.html

http://alensaweek.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/summitar-25cm/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-Gauss_lens

Yes Leica lenses are good (some great) but it is not some holy grail of perfection looking into the eye of god. If you want a real leica just get one. If you want a modern, super sharp, autofocus, leica-approved lens get the PL25 (or PL45 which I think has even more leica-look). All lenses come from the same design book, with designers making compromises to hit a price point given the materials they have access to.

Actually the lumix 20mm f1.7 is closer to a classic double-gauss/planar leica design than the PL 25mm.

http://alensaweek.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/summitar2-50mm.jpg