Crazy test - Pansonic 20mm f/1.7 vs. Olympus 14-35mm f/2

Got to use the lens on E-PL3, all shots were shot in RAW using Photoshop to convert using same settings and WB (although it doesn't seem like that).

Photoshop corrects for m43 distortion which is significant on Panasonic 20mm 1.7





So, here's the test, using same exposure and aperture values, same processing, no CA correction.

100% crops are below the original image, left for 20mm, right for 14-35mm.
Top crops are from the center and bottom crops are side/corner.

f/2.8





f/4





f/5





f/4





f/2.8





f/4





Overall, results were pretty much what I had expected.

20mm performs quite well for such a small and compact lens but I don't like it's slow AF which wouldn't be a problem with a phase detect AF, but with contrast detect AF, even if the lens is focused it will search for focus while PDAF lens will "know" it's focused well and you'll be able to take the shot instantly.

However, the main problem of the lens is that it's neither here nor there.
Yes, IQ is pretty good (for a m43), but not wide open (except in the center).

This, along with harsh bokeh and quite deep DoF (for some reason much more DoF than on 14-35mm) makes is a bit weird.

Bokeh comparison - while perspecitve might be slightly different, the angle of view is almost the same so it's quite comparable.









--
Cheers,
Marin

Some pretty bad purple fringing (CA) on the left hand side pics.

Can you please post a shot of the 20mm f1.7 fitted to your E-PL3... and, you guessed it the ZD 14-35mm f2 fitted to your E-PL3 also

I'll do the same when my E-M5 arrives

Cheers

Brian
--
Join our free worldwide support network here :
http://www.ukphotosafari.org/join-the-ukpsg/
UK, Peak District Local Olympus Safari Group : http://snipurl.com/bqtd7-ukpsg
Keep up with me here : http://twitter.com/alert_bri

Oops, I didn't mention - 14-35mm was used on the E-5, 20mm on the E-PL3, no cross-lensing thank you

Brian Mosley said:

Can you please post a shot of the 20mm f1.7 fitted to your E-PL3... and, you guessed it the ZD 14-35mm f2 fitted to your E-PL3 also

I'll do the same when my E-M5 arrives

Cheers

Brian
--
Join our free worldwide support network here :
http://www.ukphotosafari.org/join-the-ukpsg/
UK, Peak District Local Olympus Safari Group : http://snipurl.com/bqtd7-ukpsg
Keep up with me here : http://twitter.com/alert_bri

Click to expand...

--
Cheers,
Marin

msusic said:

IQ is pretty good (for a m43)

Click to expand...

Can you please explain? Given same MP m43 IQ in general is worse because of smaller sensor compared to ASP-C? What aspects besides DOF and how much if traget is web viewing or A3 max prints?

--
http://pbase.com/klopus

e-5 has a less aggressive anti aliasing filter so you really can't compare the sharpness differences.

--
Cheers,
Marin

Thanks for the info!

Recently I saw this comparison between the 12-60 and the 12/2, 20/1.7 and the 45/1.8.

http://www.pekkapotka.com/journal/2011/12/30/olympus-mzuiko-12-50mm-f35-63-in-comparison.html

The more I see comparisons between 4/3 and m4/3 lenses, the less I appreciate the m4/3 glass. The compactness and focus speed are great but the corner performance and the high CA level are not on a par with high grade SLR lenses (even compared to zoom ones). Hopefully the next OM-D models will have fast PDAF support and open more options.

could you compare sharpness at f2 too?

well the problem is that 14-35 is probably one of the best lenses on 4/3 and all DSLR (imagine if olympus had a FF lens those would be the reference). m43 are quite good compared with canon and nikon kit lens... and the lumix 20mm f1.7 is sharper wide open than normal lenses from canikon... and is a sharp a lens just not one of the sharpest ever!

msusic said:

Got to use the lens on E-PL3, all shots were shot in RAW using Photoshop to convert using same settings and WB (although it doesn't seem like that).

Photoshop corrects for m43 distortion which is significant on Panasonic 20mm 1.7

Click to expand...

Hi, Marin! I don't know why your 20/1.7 to exhibits such enormous barrel distortion. I use the 20/1.7 on my Olympus e-pl2, which doesn't correct for distortion, and have been impressed at how little distortion it exhibits sooc. Here's an example, taken at f/3.5.

Uncle Frank said:

Hi, Marin! I don't know why your 20/1.7 to exhibits such enormous barrel distortion. I use the 20/1.7 on my Olympus e-pl2, which doesn't correct for distortion, and have been impressed at how little distortion it exhibits sooc.

Click to expand...

The E-PL2 corrects for distortion all right so no wonder you don't see much of it.

m43 glass (at least Pana ones) rely on in-camera correction of CA and distortion. That's in part what makes them compact. So it's not fair to compare m43 lens without considering particular body.

--
http://pbase.com/klopus

I spend too much time pixel peeping at lens tests and was also curious about these exact two lens. I have the 20/1.7 but not the 14-35. As a landscape nut, I am going to have to take a serious look at upgrading. Since my subjects don't move too fast, AF speed is secondary.

--
WarrenKK

PetPeeve: posting a 800x600 to show anything other
than how soft my lens is or why I need new glasses.

Anders W said:

Uncle Frank said:

Hi, Marin! I don't know why your 20/1.7 to exhibits such enormous barrel distortion. I use the 20/1.7 on my Olympus e-pl2, which doesn't correct for distortion, and have been impressed at how little distortion it exhibits sooc.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Anders W said:

The E-PL2 corrects for distortion all right so no wonder you don't see much of it.

Click to expand...

Oops, I was under the impression that that was only on Panasonic bodies. So has distortion correction turned off on the E-PL3, which Marin used for his test?

--
Warm regards, Frank

Galleries at fdrphoto.smugmug.com

There's a reason the 14-35 has been called "a bag full of primes".

That's also the reason some people would be overjoyed if m4/3 cameras would AF this as fast as a native 4/3 camera.

DonSantos said:

e-5 has a less aggressive anti aliasing filter so you really can't compare the sharpness differences.

Click to expand...

I agree, the DPR comparison tool does show differences between the cameras - I've heard it rumoured/proposed that DPR uses the same lens (ZD 50mm f2) for all 4/3 & m4/3 cameras though I'm not sure if that's true.

It's still a fascinating comparison and given that the 20mm costs around £290 vs £1840 for the acclaimed 14-35mm I reckon it does pretty well! I'm certainly happy with my copy of the 20mm.
--
I'm getting there...

Some points:

A. The images were taken in RAW format, so no in-camera software correction applies anyway. it would have made no difference if a Panasonic body was in use.

B. Olympus bodies correct lens distortion in-camera (in jpeg format). it is only CA that Olympus bodies don't correct.

C. As far as I know, the kind of CA in the images of the 20/1.7 is what is called longitudinal CA (purple fringing) and no gear or RAW converter attempt to correct that. My understanding of this is based on this post by Anders W - http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=40676508
So I guess that a Panasonic body won't make a difference also in this respect.

Is that Sibienik?

No doubt, this is a crazy test, but I really appreciate that someone has done it and that we can see the results.

If you happen to have the 4/3 to m4/3 lens adapter, please do a test of just one or two shots comparing the two lenses on the same body, due to AA filter differences.

I notice that a lot of people say that the 20mm doesn't compare to DSLR. In my experience, compared to many Canon and Nikon lenses the 20mm does outperform them (just the 14-35 outperforms them even more). And, it blows away my previous Canon 350D and 450D with kit lens setups, not to mention it being much sharper than the Canon 50mm f1.8 (previously owned) and 50mm f1.4 (previously borrowed) at anything close to wide open.

All that said, I don't think I could justify the cost or the weight of the better performing system in these tests. We are comparing a 4000 dollar setup to a 900 dollar one (based on MSRP), that is greater than 4 time the cost (although you get better image quality and focal length coverage). The same can be said of the weight approx 1.8kg for the E5 setup vs one third of a kilo for the EPM1 (approximately one fifth the weight). Then again, if I didn't mind the weight or the cost, or if I was doing professional work, I would definitely consider using a DSLR setup and high end lenses based on your results

E5 MSRP 1700 US dollars
14-35mm MSRP 2300 US dollars
EPM1 (with kit lens) MSRP 500 US dollars
20mm MSRP 400 US dollars
E5 weight 892g
14-35 weight 915g
EPM1 weight 265g
20mm weight 100g

Kevdog said:

There's a reason the 14-35 has been called "a bag full of primes".

That's also the reason some people would be overjoyed if m4/3 cameras would AF this as fast as a native 4/3 camera.

Click to expand...

They might be less overjoyed when they looked at the prices. And the size. Even on the E-5, the 14-35/2 is a bit oversized. On a GH2 it is positively gigantic.

--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey