Anyone not like the Panasonic 20 1.7 ?

jbzspace · Apr 7, 2011

I have both the Pany 20 1.7 and Oly 17 2.8. I like both on my EP-1 and EPL-1...for different reasons.
The fast Pany 20 1.7 is great in low light....on the street at night.

The Oly 17 2.8 is a nice, wider landscape lens...very sharp with excellent color rendition....maybe better than the Pany.
The Pany being black is less flashy..stealthier.. than the silver Oly.

The Oly works better in video. The Pany tends to be a noisy focus hunter. The Oly...steady and quiet.

bryanbrun · Apr 7, 2011

There are rooms in my house where my 50mm 1.8 on my e-pl1 literally cannot be used. The 100mm focal length is too much.

If you only get one legacy lens (or want to try one out before getting a 50mm) then get a 28mm 2.8.

crif · Apr 8, 2011

cameron2 said:
The 20mm is a fine lens, but it is slow (to focus) and noisy (sound) relative to the other Pany lenses.

I agree - pictures from the lens is sharp, and the focal length is very versatille. On my E-PL2 the colors are great!

The downsides: price (expensive but not prohibitively so), and i do find that the AF is a bit noisy, where the whiring sound makes it seem like the lens is broke (I HOPE THAT'S NOT THE CASE WITH MINE???). and yes - the manual focus ring is quite annoying as i haven't gotten used to it.

so for me - the advantages are all picture-related, while the disads are more mechanical...

conclusion: i don't think i'd like my E-PL2 as much if i didn't have this lens! (now if you ask me about the body, then that's a whole new thread!)

GarageBoy · Apr 10, 2011

I personally use either wides or teles, so the 40mm equivalent is not that interesting to me

I don't understand why it's presented as God's gift to the M4/3 role though

It's small, but not Pentax 40 small (IIRC), it's fast, but all normal lenses are f/2 or faster
It is kinda expensive for what it is (a moderately fast normal lens)

Is this a retrofocus design? If not, it should be even cheaper than the Pentax

Also, why does everyone insist on comparing this to the 16mm NEX lens or the 14 Panasonic, those are wide angles, you're going to get some distortion/lower sharpness in the corners

BillHinge · Apr 10, 2011

I think its only natural competitor (autofocusing/metering) in m43 is the PL25 which is 2 or 3 times the price and several times bigger. The 25mm is overall better but not by huge night and day standards. If I had to keep one it would be the 25mm but I have the luxury of both and they serve different purposes, ie use the 20mm on the EP1 or on Gh2 for a smaller combo (but I like the 25mm more)

Jay Gloab630253 · Apr 10, 2011

I have used it a great deal since picking it up last Thanksgiving, because I really value the bright aperture, and I don't have any legacy lenses and have not had much interest in them to this point.

But it's not ideal for me. The focal length is kind of neither here nor there; not really wide, but too wide to match most of what I want to do.

Also, as noted, it's a bit slow and noisy focusing.
--
-Jay

http://flickr.com/photos/48504267@N00/

Anders W · Apr 10, 2011

GarageBoy said:
I personally use either wides or teles, so the 40mm equivalent is not that interesting to me

I don't understand why it's presented as God's gift to the M4/3 role though

It's small, but not Pentax 40 small (IIRC), it's fast, but all normal lenses are f/2 or faster
It is kinda expensive for what it is (a moderately fast normal lens)

No, not all normal lenses are f/2 or faster. The Pentax 40 is only f/2.8. ;-) That's the primary reason why the Pentax is even smaller. And although I agree that the 20/1.7 could be a bit less expensive, the Pentax is certainly a worse sinner from that point of view. About 500 USD for a slow normal lens is hardly a bargain.

GarageBoy said:
Is this a retrofocus design? If not, it should be even cheaper than the Pentax

Both are by definition weakly retrofocus since the focal length is in both cases approximately the same as the flange distance. But the Panasonic has a slightly more complex design (7 elements versus 5 for the Pentax), probably due to its greater speed more than anything else.

GarageBoy said:
Also, why does everyone insist on comparing this to the 16mm NEX lens or the 14 Panasonic, those are wide angles, you're going to get some distortion/lower sharpness in the corners

Yes but neither is an extreme wide angle and both are significantly slower than the 20/1.7. It is quite reasonable to expect lenses like these to do quite well in the corners, even wide open, and the 16 mm NEX lens certainly fails on that score. According to the tests I have seen, it does significantly worse from this point of view than you would expect from a decent zoom starting at about the same focal length and aperture, for example the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 or the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.0 OS.

xpda · Apr 10, 2011

gandalfII said:
I was intreuged by this thread and thought I'd do a brief test over lunch. One subject can't show everything but I think this tests color, contrast and flare pretty well. Vivid; sharpness +1, contrast and saturation -1, gradation normal.

I don't dispute the results, but I don't understand how it happens. How can a lens affect the saturation and color? It seems like the same amount of green light hits the different lenses the same way. Does the camera process it differently based on the lens?

Anders W · Apr 10, 2011

xpda said:
gandalfII said:

I was intreuged by this thread and thought I'd do a brief test over lunch. One subject can't show everything but I think this tests color, contrast and flare pretty well. Vivid; sharpness +1, contrast and saturation -1, gradation normal.

Click to expand...

I don't dispute the results, but I don't understand how it happens. How can a lens affect the saturation and color? It seems like the same amount of green light hits the different lenses the same way. Does the camera process it differently based on the lens?

It affects the color tone via the slight coloration of the glass due to the antireflective coating. It affects the saturation of the colors via the contrast, which is an important lens property. The higher the contrast, the more saturated the colors will be. Note that the saturation achieved through contrast is not the same as that achieved by means of the "saturation" setting on the camera. The latter will lead to unnatural colors if set to high. Saturation achieved by means of a contrasty lens will still look natural.

And no, a camera will not normally process images differently depending on the lens mounted, at least not as far as color and saturation are concerned. Some cameras may correct certain lens aberrations based on data about the individual lens. For example m43 cameras correct for distortion when an m43 lens is mounted. Panasonic m43 cameras also correct for lateral chromatic aberration if a Panasonic m43 lens is mounted. The latter sounds like it has to do with color, and it has, but not in the sense of tone or saturation.

fotofotogger · Apr 10, 2011

I love the 20mm for low light and when i want my camera to fit in my coat pocket. I like the 14-42mm kit lens when i want some zoom. I like the pictures from them both.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/snaps-alot

gandalfII · Apr 10, 2011

xpda said:
gandalfII said:

Vivid; sharpness +1, contrast and saturation -1, gradation normal.

Click to expand...

Those are the image settings I use; different setting might make the lenses compare differently. Ditto with Fstop, ISO etc but those display automatically.

BTW can anyone help me to spell intruige?

amalric · Apr 10, 2011

You have explained very well the differences. With the 20mm people were seduced by low light performance - shooting their toddlers without flash? After office hours?

But they never factored in that apart from the above qualities the 17mm plays also on IBIS, and with a faster focus than the Panny lens. So it can shoot deep into the evening anyway.

OTH performance in daylight is photographically v. good both in contrast and colour. I wouldn't sell it to get the 20mm.

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

Iansky · Apr 10, 2011

The Panasonic 20mm is a superb performer and I keep it on my GF1 all the time.

I have not been shooting this format as often as I should, but took it out recently for a couple of shoots and again, this combination makes me smile and can easily go unnoticed for street yet still be used for landscape abstracts etc.

I am now considering the 14mm f2.5 (when the price comes down).

Here are a some of my recent images with GF1+20mm:

--
http://www.Ianskyphotosite.blogspot.com

PC Wheeler · Apr 10, 2011

jbzspace said:
The Oly 17 2.8 is a nice, wider landscape lens...very sharp with excellent color rendition....maybe better than the Pany.

I wonder how the Panny 14 f/2.5 would compare to that Oly?

My preference is the 20 f/1.7 -- seems a good street shooter and is superb in low light situations. Had one in my first foray into m4/3 and have a replacement ordered.

That manual focus f/0.95 lens is intriguing, too -- but I think the price is about $1100, a bit rich for my blood in such a special use lens.

--
Phil
Canon 7D: Canon 15-85 IS, 70-300L IS
Sony A55: Tamron 10-24, Sony CZ16-80, Sony 70-300G, Sigma 18-250OS
Panasonic GH2, 9-18, 14-140 OIS, 100-300 OIS

BillHinge · Apr 10, 2011

amalric said:
You have explained very well the differences. With the 20mm people were seduced by low light performance - shooting their toddlers without flash? After office hours?

But they never factored in that apart from the above qualities the 17mm plays also on IBIS, and with a faster focus than the Panny lens. So it can shoot deep into the evening anyway.

OTH performance in daylight is photographically v. good both in contrast and colour. I wouldn't sell it to get the 20mm.

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

I agree, the 17mm is very underrated, it isn't a bad lens

I had 17mm but I wanted the 20mm so I sold the 17mm the week after I got the 20mm to pay for it. I did a comparison of 17 vs 20 vs 25mm and there isn't much between the 17 and 20. I prefer the black styling of Lumix lenses though.

For some strange reason though the 20mm has a much higher resale value than the 17mm

bluevellet · Apr 10, 2011

Overpriced and I'd rather have a mechanical zoom ring.

Aside from that, it's one of the best lenses for m43.

HelenaN · Apr 10, 2011

I have E-PL2, 14-42II and the 20/1.7. The 20mm is tiny and f/1.7 is fun, so I really like it, but I too feel that the kit zoom gives a slightly more pleasing rendering. More "gentle" and warmer, but still almost as sharp. Also, the 20/1.7 focuses clearly slower. I haven't noticed any AF noise though.

~ Helena

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.

GarageBoy · Apr 10, 2011

Anders W said:
xpda said:

gandalfII said:

I was intreuged by this thread and thought I'd do a brief test over lunch. One subject can't show everything but I think this tests color, contrast and flare pretty well. Vivid; sharpness +1, contrast and saturation -1, gradation normal.

Click to expand...

I don't dispute the results, but I don't understand how it happens. How can a lens affect the saturation and color? It seems like the same amount of green light hits the different lenses the same way. Does the camera process it differently based on the lens?

Click to expand...

It affects the color tone via the slight coloration of the glass due to the antireflective coating. It affects the saturation of the colors via the contrast, which is an important lens property. The higher the contrast, the more saturated the colors will be. Note that the saturation achieved through contrast is not the same as that achieved by means of the "saturation" setting on the camera. The latter will lead to unnatural colors if set to high. Saturation achieved by means of a contrasty lens will still look natural.

And no, a camera will not normally process images differently depending on the lens mounted, at least not as far as color and saturation are concerned. Some cameras may correct certain lens aberrations based on data about the individual lens. For example m43 cameras correct for distortion when an m43 lens is mounted. Panasonic m43 cameras also correct for lateral chromatic aberration if a Panasonic m43 lens is mounted. The latter sounds like it has to do with color, and it has, but not in the sense of tone or saturation.

Yup, just ask any Schneider Large Format user
It's coating signature makes photos a tad unusually blue

Gerry Siegel · Apr 10, 2011

One of my favorite. Chacun a son gout. I use with the GH 2. A lot. And i got some good stuff to prove its merits....no one optic does it all. And no lens is perfect. I sometime feel that a lens hood would be helpful but so far no problemo. Ok to be picky though.

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=11735391

fermy · Apr 10, 2011

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.

Both agree and disagree with tedolph. Agree that if you don't shoot at night, you don't need 20mm f1.7. Disagree that it is overhyped. It is a fantastic lens at night.

50mm legacy lens is a good suggestion, but it's not going to replace 20mm in any shape or form, the field of view of 50mm is just too narrow for that.

The only case when I take 20mm during the daytime is when my pocket is too small for the kit lens. For the shallow DOF daytime work, I do carry around 50mm manual lens as suggested by several people. In my case it's usually a tiny Cosmicar 50mm f2.8 c-mount lens that weights next to nothing (maybe 30g).

In my experience 20mm does have slightly cooler rendering compared to Olympus kit. However, I would not say that the difference is huge. I don't see how Olympus kit has more pop either. Overall contrast on both lenses is about the same to my eyes, with 20mm being definitely sharper.

Anyone not like the Panasonic 20 1.7 ?

Well-known member

Leading Member

Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Active member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts