Reading mode: Light Dark

20mm 1.7 sharpness wide open

Go to last post
The image is not overexposed, the compensation is required by the subject matter. However the extreme brightness challenges the pana's ability to hold contrast, which is not as good as even an OK olympus (I have 9-18 m43 in mind). The effect is stronger wide open. What you see as softness is probably reduced contrast, a weakness of that lens. It is otherwise a superb performer when you understand its characteristics.
 
Looks fine to me. I've got a Canon 35 f/1.4L and a 24 f/1.4L and the tiny Panasonic is just as good as the $1000 L's; its an amazing little lens.
 
s_grins said:
Why such a big one?
Click to expand...
Because thats what was required in this situation, his exposure is spot on, the subject is perfectly exposed

Exposure compensation is supposed to compensate for incorrect readings by the sensor which assumes the subject it is looking at is a mid tone. Reflected sunlight on water is far from that. The same happens with snow.
s_grins said:
--
MFT in progress
Click to expand...
--
Z5 V10 F11 F70 F200 S6500 S100 EX1 D40
 
These are 100% crops of the best I've been able to get at F1.7 and F2. Straight from RAW:







 
Those look pretty good to me- as I suspected the difference with your original post is mostly better contrast, while the sharpness at f/2 is better than at f/1.7. If you want to struggle with the focussing and weight issues of Oly HG glass you can get better results out of the m43 sensor, but among native 43 lenses that's about what you can expect. Remember that a full frame at 100% is equivalent to about 100 x 75 centimeters on a typical monitor.
 
I think the softness you are seeing around the edges is nothing but the result of the shallow DoF. You can test that by taking a picture of a flat surface (a brick wall will work). That way you can try different aperture settings and compare sharpness. Obviously as mentioned previously, as you stop down, the sharpness increases.
 
amalric said:
HCB never needed such sharp lenses or emulsion to make interesting images.

Fixation with sharpness is the trademark of nitwits and madmen. Should I go on?
Please post interesting images. Then we might resume the talk :)
Click to expand...
Do you have anything that would help OP with his question? Or you are today just in mood to be an ...?

BTW, based on your flickr photostream you are no HCB and photo OP posted is more interesting than yours so, by token of your own logic an attitude, please take some interesting images before you resume to talk, much less lecture others.
 
jimboyvr said:
both your photos look very very similar in sharpness. Not sure what you think you are seeing?

12mm costs $800, 20mm costs $350 used . NEW

Seems like a waste of money if sharpness is your goal...field of view..thats a diff story.
Click to expand...
Fixed it for you. B&H, Adorama and Amazon all have the 20 / 1.7 for $350 brand new, with free shipping.
 
I'm not sure why you think unprocessed, straight from raw is the proper way to evaluate the shaprness of the lens. Sharpening isn't something that's done to correct for bad images; sharpening is intrinsic to the digital process.

Read here:

http://bythom.com/sharpening.htm

This is old, but it's still applicable. Higher res sensors change the amount of sharpening required, but not that sharpening is required.

Or the "why is sharpening needed" section of this article:

http://ronbigelow.com/articles/sharpen1/sharpen1.htm
 
Bob Meyer said:
I'm not sure why you think unprocessed, straight from raw is the proper way to evaluate the shaprness of the lens. Sharpening isn't something that's done to correct for bad images; sharpening is intrinsic to the digital process.

Read here:

http://bythom.com/sharpening.htm

This is old, but it's still applicable. Higher res sensors change the amount of sharpening required, but not that sharpening is required.

Or the "why is sharpening needed" section of this article:

http://ronbigelow.com/articles/sharpen1/sharpen1.htm
Click to expand...
By providing unprocessed, straight from RAW conversions I don't contaminate the results with my own processing skills or lack thereof and will help others identify the problem (if any) easier.

BTW, I currently own the 20mm and am only evaluating if I have a bad copy and/or if the 25mm PL would be better in this regard.
 
agc1976 said:
BTW, I currently own the 20mm and am only evaluating if I have a bad copy and/or if the 25mm PL would be better in this regard.
Click to expand...
It is tough to judge from this distance and with reduced size but it does seem on soft side to me. If you could tell me which settings (picture mode & gradation) you used I will try to see if I can do "apples to apples".
 
ZoranC said:
It is tough to judge from this distance and with reduced size but it does seem on soft side to me. If you could tell me which settings (picture mode & gradation) you used I will try to see if I can do "apples to apples".
Click to expand...
It was shot in RAW and converted in Lightroom so any picture settings were ignored by the converter.
 
May be better to evaluate sharpness with a static subject and your camera on a tripod, although I do see that the shutter speeds you used meets the 2x FL formula for hand held shots. Still, in the shots you've posted subject motion may partly be responsible for softness.
 
But you're showing an image that has as much to do with the limitations of the camera as it does the limitations of the lens.
 
... for sharpness are just looking for trouble. And when they find some, they're distressed.

Easy cure for that is ... guess what?
--
http://www.pbase.com/morepix
 
morepix said:
... for sharpness are just looking for trouble. And when they find some, they're distressed.

Easy cure for that is ... guess what?
Click to expand...
Full Frame? ;)

agc1976 , you're worrying too much. Do a tripod test on some charts if you must, but I don't see the problem. It was suggested to me that a simple page of newsprint works well, too. Here's a whole slew of tests you can do:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/how-to-stress-a-camera-le.html
--
http://453c.smugmug.com/
 
n/t
 
One of the "problems" with shooting in P mode is that the camera keeps the lens wide open too much of the time. Given your shutter speed of 500 there is plenty of "room" to stop down the lens.

I have started using A mode with my 20mm f1.7 lens, especially in good light so that I'm using an aperture around f4 and let the speed and ISO adjust accordingly.
--
Jay S.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top