Anyone not like the Panasonic 20 1.7 ?

Note that the oly is the 9-18 zoom, not the 17 prime. I was surprised how well it did.

20mm f 1.7 lens is low light photography. A secondary purpose is to make an e-pl1/2 or Panny GF2 compact, but that can be achieved at a lower price with the Oly 17mm pancake lens. If you are not doing a lot of avialable light photography you are not going to see much advantage with this lens over the kit lens. Unfortunatley, there has been so much hype about this lens (particularly on this forum) that people have unrealistic expectations about what it is good for. Most u 4/3 photographers would be much better served by picking up a cheap, fast 50mm legacy lens as their second lens, rather than the expensive 20mm f 1.7.

Tedolph

tedolf said:

Most u 4/3 photographers would be much better served by picking up a cheap, fast 50mm legacy lens as their second lens, rather than the expensive 20mm f 1.7.

Click to expand...

Beg to differ. A second lens for portraits maybe, with that 100mm FOV. Otherwise, I find little use for my 50's.

tedolf said:

20mm f 1.7 lens is low light photography. A secondary purpose is to make an e-pl1/2 or Panny GF2 compact, but that can be achieved at a lower price with the Oly 17mm pancake lens. If you are not doing a lot of avialable light photography you are not going to see much advantage with this lens over the kit lens. Unfortunatley, there has been so much hype about this lens (particularly on this forum) that people have unrealistic expectations about what it is good for. Most u 4/3 photographers would be much better served by picking up a cheap, fast 50mm legacy lens as their second lens, rather than the expensive 20mm f 1.7.

Click to expand...

Indeed. I have the PL1 with 17mm in one pocket, and an Industar 61 55/2.8, almost as small, in the other. One for street and people, the other for still lifes.

Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

It's a great value, IMO. The lens is incredibly small, fast, very sharp, has decent AF ... really, I can't imagine how anyone could NOT like it, unless they got a bad copy. It has better IQ wide open than comparable lenses I have from Canon and Sigma, and it's 1/2 - 1/3 the size and weight. What's not to like?

AFAIK there is no comparable lens from Canon or Nikon period. While the Canon 50/1.8 is a good value, it's a completely different lens. WA are harder to make and generally more expensive than normal lenses.

It's not a fair comparison, in my opinion. The 20/1.7 is optimized for wide open shooting. At f/8 it's right at the end of it's useful aperture range. In comparison, at 18mm the Oly lens is slow (f/5.6 max aperture) and f/8 is it's best aperture.

Can we see a side-by-side at f/1.7?

Apples and oranges. A 50mm is a short telephoto on a MFT camera, whereas 20mm is a wide/normal -- totally different purposes. A 20mm lens is much more versatile.

But I do agree that the 20/1.7 is most useful for available light.

That Sony NEX 16mm yields pathetic pictures compared to the 20mm Pana. It is the saving grace for m4/3.

ThingsAbove said:

I don't like it...

It costs too much for what you get. You can buy a "Standard" Canon brand fixed 50mm f/1.8 for $125. That's what a standard, fixed, non-professional autofocus lens should cost. It's just pure markup. If everybody would just stop paying the exorbitant price for these lenses for 6 months the price would come down to what it should be.

Click to expand...

Disagree... I'd rather compare 20/1.7 to similar Pentax pancake
--
MFT in progress

Can't imagine not liking this lens. It defines and validates the entire m43 system. It's small, light, high quality built, pro quality sharpness and very versatile focal range which will work perfectly for most people especially those upgrading from P&S. If you are on a budget and only have money for one lens, sell your kit lens and get pana 20mm. It will serve you much better in low light. Upon arrival, I immidiately sold my E-PL2 kit lens as it wasn't even close in build quality, low light performance and sharpness (at f3.5) compared to pana 20mm at f1.7. If you don't have this lens you simply miss out on m43 experience. I doubt I wouldnt even be in m43 if not for this versatile lens. By the way, I used to have Pana 14-45mm lens which I found to be just as sharp as pana 20mm at all settings but that lens was much bulkier, heavier and a lot worse in low light so was not a keeper for me. If you really dislike 20mm focal range, the only alternative IMO is pana 14mm f2.5 lens which is even smaller and lighter. I also own that lens since recently. It is still very sharp lens wide open at f2.5 and renders more contrasty images. I use it primarily for landscapes as I found it's not very good for photographing people, some sort of unnatural distortion occurs, looks kinda off.

--
E-PL2+20mm 1.7

amalric said:

tedolf said:

20mm f 1.7 lens is low light photography. A secondary purpose is to make an e-pl1/2 or Panny GF2 compact, but that can be achieved at a lower price with the Oly 17mm pancake lens. If you are not doing a lot of avialable light photography you are not going to see much advantage with this lens over the kit lens. Unfortunatley, there has been so much hype about this lens (particularly on this forum) that people have unrealistic expectations about what it is good for. Most u 4/3 photographers would be much better served by picking up a cheap, fast 50mm legacy lens as their second lens, rather than the expensive 20mm f 1.7.

Click to expand...

Indeed. I have the PL1 with 17mm in one pocket, and an Industar 61 55/2.8, almost as small, in the other. One for street and people, the other for still lifes.

Am.

Click to expand...

Teodolf your comment is astute, but suggesting a 50mm rather than 17 or 20, assumes that the photographer wants to build his kit around the 14-42. The reason for the 20m or the 17mm is to base your photography on a prime lens in the normal range--and then build complementing primes from there, like a good 50, you're right.

Americ, I have the Industar 61 also. What do you do about flare and vignetting? I've been shooting now with an OM 50/1.8 and I seem to be getting much better results than the Industar, albeit at the cost of portability . . . unfortunately.

Not sure about vignetting, didn't notice it yet. If you go to Ken Rockwell site, perhaps you'll notice it shooting a blank wall. But in real life I can't see it.

Flare? That lens flares only if hit directly by the Sun, which almost any lens does. OTH perhaps you have an older version than mine, not coated.

Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

Alexsfo said:

Can't imagine not liking this lens. It defines and validates the entire m43 system. It's small, light, high quality built, pro quality sharpness and very versatile focal range which will work perfectly for most people especially those upgrading from P&S. If you are on a budget and only have money for one lens, sell your kit lens and get pana 20mm. It will serve you much better in low light. Upon arrival, I immidiately sold my E-PL2 kit lens as it wasn't even close in build quality, low light performance and sharpness (at f3.5) compared to pana 20mm at f1.7. If you don't have this lens you simply miss out on m43 experience. . . . If you really dislike 20mm focal range, the only alternative IMO is pana 14mm f2.5 lens which is even smaller and lighter. I also own that lens since recently. It is still very sharp lens wide open at f2.5 and renders more contrasty images. I use it primarily for landscapes as I found it's not very good for photographing people, some sort of unnatural distortion occurs, looks kinda off.

Click to expand...

I like your enthusiasm for shooting with a prime lens! Maybe you miss the point a little in that the Olympus 17mm is a pretty good little lens as well . . . but be that as it may, may I ask a question? What did you manage to get for the 14-42 when you sold it? Of course, you were selling the mark II version. I am sitting with my mark I version wondering if I should bother to try to sell it, or just keep it. I almost never use it.

amalric said:

Not sure about vignetting, didn't notice it yet. If you go to Ken Rockwell site, perhaps you'll notice it shooting a blank wall. But in real life I can't see it.

Flare? That lens flares only if hit directly by the Sun, which almost any lens does. OTH perhaps you have an older version than mine, not coated.

Am.

Click to expand...

Hi Amalric, Maybe I send you a couple of samples by e-mail to look over? Mine is the 61 L/D 55mm f/2.8, serial number 8417365, if that means anything to you.

It's a pretty little lens; I very much like the "Tessar" design, but the ergonomics leave much to be desired. The f. stops are o.k.; ok, the ring is a bit stiff but it functions well enough. The focusing ring performs very poorly, indeed: you turn it and it kind of "sticks" . . . almost; then it lets go and turns too freely. Makes focusing somewhat difficult. I guess I should have sent it back. Well it was only $20. Is it possible to take these apart and service them oneself?

traveler_101 said:

amalric said:

Not sure about vignetting, didn't notice it yet. If you go to Ken Rockwell site, perhaps you'll notice it shooting a blank wall. But in real life I can't see it.

Flare? That lens flares only if hit directly by the Sun, which almost any lens does. OTH perhaps you have an older version than mine, not coated.

Am.

Click to expand...

Hi Amalric, Maybe I send you a couple of samples by e-mail to look over? Mine is the 61 L/D 55mm f/2.8, serial number 8417365, if that means anything to you.

It's a pretty little lens; I very much like the "Tessar" design, but the ergonomics leave much to be desired. The f. stops are o.k.; ok, the ring is a bit stiff but it functions well enough. The focusing ring performs very poorly, indeed: you turn it and it kind of "sticks" . . . almost; then it lets go and turns too freely. Makes focusing somewhat difficult. I guess I should have sent it back. Well it was only $20. Is it possible to take these apart and service them oneself?

Click to expand...

Yes, the ring is stiff because old grease has coaalesced in the helicoid. You can replace it by unscrewing the mount, and there are pictures online:

http://www.mattdentonphoto.com/cameras/industar_relubing/index.html

However one must be very careful not to force or break old screws. So I used a motorcycle spray from Saratoga. By spraying through the circular fissure at the base of the lens, it melted the stuck grease, without any need to take the lens apart.

Now the focus ring rotates freely as it should, and I don't loose shots anymore. Boy was I happy! If you choose that method, remember to use very small quantities of the product so that you don't get it on the diaphragm blades.

Am.

--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

amalric said:

Not sure about vignetting, didn't notice it yet. If you go to Ken Rockwell site, perhaps you'll notice it shooting a blank wall. But in real life I can't see it.

Flare? That lens flares only if hit directly by the Sun, which almost any lens does. OTH perhaps you have an older version than mine, not coated.

Click to expand...

Here are some shots taken with the Industar 61. What accounts for this white film on some of the shots? Perhaps most apparent on the last shot . . .

baxters said:

tedolf said:

Most u 4/3 photographers would be much better served by picking up a cheap, fast 50mm legacy lens as their second lens, rather than the expensive 20mm f 1.7.

Click to expand...

Beg to differ. A second lens for portraits maybe, with that 100mm FOV. Otherwise, I find little use for my 50's.

Click to expand...

I agree with you here. The 50mm's are great for portraits but that is a big part of photography for a lot of people, especially those moving up from point n shoots as those cameras are really handicapped in that area.

I think the 50mm's make a great first "second" lens because, i) they are cheap, ii) they are usable as a low light lens, and iii) because they are manual they actually force people to learn about managing DOF, relationship between aperture and shutter speed, hyperfocal technique, etc. and iv) a 100mm f 1.4 lens is just a fabulous portrait lens!

Tedolph

Tedolph

traveler_101 said:

amalric said:

tedolf said:

20mm f 1.7 lens is low light photography. A secondary purpose is to make an e-pl1/2 or Panny GF2 compact, but that can be achieved at a lower price with the Oly 17mm pancake lens. If you are not doing a lot of avialable light photography you are not going to see much advantage with this lens over the kit lens. Unfortunatley, there has been so much hype about this lens (particularly on this forum) that people have unrealistic expectations about what it is good for. Most u 4/3 photographers would be much better served by picking up a cheap, fast 50mm legacy lens as their second lens, rather than the expensive 20mm f 1.7.

Click to expand...

Indeed. I have the PL1 with 17mm in one pocket, and an Industar 61 55/2.8, almost as small, in the other. One for street and people, the other for still lifes.

Am.

Click to expand...

Teodolf your comment is astute, but suggesting a 50mm rather than 17 or 20, assumes that the photographer wants to build his kit around the 14-42. The reason for the 20m or the 17mm is to base your photography on a prime lens in the normal range--and then build complementing primes from there, like a good 50, you're right.

Americ, I have the Industar 61 also. What do you do about flare and vignetting? I've been shooting now with an OM 50/1.8 and I seem to be getting much better results than the Industar, albeit at the cost of portability . . . unfortunately.

Click to expand...

quite correct. I presume the photographer uses the 14-42mm as the basis for his system. If you want to go all primes the 20mm f 1.7 is probably a necessity.

Tedolph

photo perzon said:

That Sony NEX 16mm yields pathetic pictures compared to the 20mm Pana. It is the saving grace for m4/3.

Click to expand...

NEX comment, but the u 4/3 comment is very narrow minded. The world of legacy lenses (and IBIS) is the savings grace of u 4/3. A nod to Panasonic, video is the saving grace of u 4/3 also.

Tedolph

iamatrix said:

I bought this lens as an upgrade to the Olympus kit lens on my EPL1. It's sharper and faster (aperture wise) on the camera, that being said after a week of use I think i prefer the kit lenses because of the overall rendering (such as color and contrast).

It's possible I am completely wrong here, your thoughts ? Is is possible that Olympus produces a better image out of the box with it's own lenses.

Click to expand...

The 20mm is a fine lens, but it is slow (to focus) and noisy (sound) relative to the other Pany lenses.