If this lens can't get 5 stars I don't know what can

I posted the above review from GearShop, and then found that it was used to start a thread, in the Panasonic Compact Camera talk, which probably isn't even the correct forum. Should be Micro Four Thirds forum if any, but the point is, I didn't realize it was going to start a thread in any forum. I thought I was posting a review on GearShop.

--
js

I hear really great stuff about this lens. Unfortunately I already have the 20mm and 14mm so I can't afford to buy it.

The user reviews that show up on GearShop are carried over from DPR user reviews. I moved it to the M43 forum for you.

I got this Leica lens as soon as it became available in 2011. I agree with you that it tends to put most other lenses to shame, especially the m4/3 kit zooms. I spent seven weeks in southwest Florida this summer and 80% of my keeper images were from the Summilux 25mm. I also own the 12mm f/2 and 45mm f/1.8.

Now we have the M.Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 and Leica Nocticron 42.5mm f/1.2 coming. I'm very curious how they will stack up to this wonderful 25mm lens. If it's good, the Nocticron could be a perfect complement to the Summilux.

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA

I'm sure it's a good lens but for me, 50mm equivalent is not a useful focal length.

If it was 14mm equivalent or even 24mm equivalent I'd probably have it by now especially if it remained f1.4

but can't really see spending $500+ for the PL 25mm unless it's a massive improvement over the 20mm.

Cipher said:

Cipher wrote:

but can't really see spending $500+ for the PL 25mm unless it's a massive improvement over the 20mm.

Click to expand...

from what I've red, there are some improvements over the 20mm:

- silent AF (good for video and being unobtrusive, although i'm not sure how loud the apperture is)

- faster AF in low light

- more maximum light going through

depending on what you want to do with this lens, it may be worth paying the extra $200 or so. currently you can buy the 25mm at $530.

for daylight, though, the 20mm is probably a better value, unless you want to brag about "the Leica look".

have you tried macro shots with this lens? how well does it work hand held, not having OIS (I have a Panasonic camera)?

You're ahead of me! I recently bought macro rings that support communication with micro 4/3 lenses. I'm in the "experimenter" stage. First thing I learned the hard way is that if you have a 200mm focal length and you add 26mm of extension you don't get a whole lot of magnification. On the other hand a 25mm focal length and 26mm of extension does achieve true macro, larger than 1:1 on the sensor.

I told myself I'm going to try it but I haven't yet. I imagine that the distance from subject to front of lens might be unreasonably small. When I do it I'll let you know the results.

JosephScha said:

JosephScha wrote:

... The super sharp center area may be a bit wider stopped down one stop, but don't hesitate to use it at f/1.4, it's really excellent even wide open.

Not only that, but there is something about the richness of color produced by this lens that I don't think I can describe, except to say I like it a lot...

--
js

Click to expand...

This is the "pop", "specialness" or whatever you choose to call it that Leitz lenses are renowned for. I think image edge sharpness and contrast have a lot to do with it.This lens is manufactured by Panasonic to Leitz specs. At times the effect makes images seem almost three dimensional. I love mine on both my G5 and my OMD-M5.

Ditch the zooms and get some primes instead.

The Olympus 12mm f2, 45mm f1.8 and 75mm f1.8 are all simply amazing.

Day Hiker said:

James Pilcher wrote:

I got this Leica lens as soon as it became available in 2011. I agree with you that it tends to put most other lenses to shame, especially the m4/3 kit zooms. I spent seven weeks in southwest Florida this summer and 80% of my keeper images were from the Summilux 25mm. I also own the 12mm f/2 and 45mm f/1.8.

Click to expand...

It's a wonderful lens. Fully usable from wide open and truly excellent from F2-F4. However in this range it cannot be compared with any kit zoom as the kit zooms do not open as wide as F4 at 25mm. From about F5.6, which the kit zooms do have, the kit zooms have almost caught up. Centre is almost the same between the prime and the zooms. Interestingly, F8 and F11 on my kit zoom, the most un-fancied of all M43 zooms the first version of Panasonic 14-42, are actually marginally better than my PL25! A closer look at the aperture reveals that stopping down this far causes the PL25's aperture to become asymmetric and lose any pretence of being circular. Further stopped down there is no point comparing which one is better as they are all at best tolerable.

How to use the PL25 well? Keep it opened relatively wide and enjoy. If you find you are doing a scene with your kit zoom at stopped down apertures, don't bother swapping to the prime hoping to get some extra snap. You will likely lose a little snap.

The M43 kit zooms are amazingly good, within their limitations.

I have this lens but I felt and still feel it overhyped. It does its job, it does it well, but come on, its just a 50mm equv. fixed lens. And in m43 world it is quite big for what it is. I prefer the 20 1.7, especially the mk II. with the same coatings the 'Leica' has.

I does not have any special bokeh. It is not bad when the subject is close enough, but with fuzzy background the result looks almost similarly bad that the 20 1.7 produces. And in 4:3 format I also don't like its FOV (in 3:2 it is wider and for me more useful).

Honestly, I would prefer a smaller 25 1.8, or a faster AF 20 1.7.

JosephScha said:

JosephScha wrote:

When I bought this lens I discovered that my other lenses (14-42mm and 45-200mm) were not getting all the resolution that my camera (DMC-G10) could produce. In other words, I discovered the other lenses were soft. I had not known that, until I saw the amazing razor sharp in focus region against a beautifully out of focus background that this lens can produce wide open. The super sharp center area may be a bit wider stopped down one stop, but don't hesitate to use it at f/1.4, it's really excellent even wide open.

Not only that, but there is something about the richness of color produced by this lens that I don't think I can describe, except to say I like it a lot.

Comes with a matching lens hood, even.

--
js

Click to expand...

agentul said:

agentul wrote:

agentul said:

Cipher wrote:

but can't really see spending $500+ for the PL 25mm unless it's a massive improvement over the 20mm.

Click to expand...

from what I've red, there are some improvements over the 20mm:

- silent AF (good for video and being unobtrusive, although i'm not sure how loud the apperture is)

Click to expand...

It's very loud. I hear it loud and clear when shooting a few metres from a road on which heavy traffic was flowing. However when shooting video the camera tries not to change the aperture much or too often.

agentul said:

for daylight, though, the 20mm is probably a better value, unless you want to brag about "the Leica look".

Click to expand...

In daylight, the aperture is more likely to dance bringing extra delay and aperture noise into the shooting experience. So why not just take the 20mm indeed.

The lens operation suddenly becomes quiet and smooth when light levels fall to a certain level (indoors, evening, in the shades, etc.). Such a delight to use in the dark

By the way, compared with the 20mm, this lens is ultra cheap. In other lens lines, the 1.7/1.8 standard lenses are half price or less of the 1.4 versions. Here the 25 is much less than double the price of the 20. The conclusion has to be that the Leica name indicates a good deal.

Member said:

MPA1 wrote:

I'm sure it's a good lens but for me, 50mm equivalent is not a useful focal length.

If it was 14mm equivalent or even 24mm equivalent I'd probably have it by now especially if it remained f1.4

Click to expand...

Yes, I said that right here in these fora, 50mm eq or 28-80 zooms are a "damn boring focal length."

Now I've changed my tune and I eat some crow. I got the Leica as a complement to the 12mm f/2 and 45mm f/1.8. All three lenses were announced and generally available at the same time in 2011. When I compared them to the the truly awful kit zoom that came with my E-PL3, I put the zoom in a drawer and went into the world with three primes (four if you count my lovely Lumix 8mm f/3.5 fisheye). Over two years I've used all of my lenses extensively, and I find that I keep returning to, and get more keepers from, the Leica 25mm. I now "see" in that FOV and have come to the conclusion that if I were to be restricted to that lens alone, I would continue to make satisfying photos for years.

So, don't think 50mm eqv is not useful. I thought the same and proved myself wrong. It's very interesting what a good lens can do to your photography.

Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA

If weight and portability isn't an issue, it's big brother in the four thirds mount is better.

GBC said:

GBC wrote:

If weight and portability isn't an issue, it's big brother in the four thirds mount is better.

Click to expand...

and focus speed +1

It's a very nice lens, but I get some focusing problems on my OMD EM-5. When focusing on infinity, the lens often back focuses by a hair, hence losing quite a lot of contrast and fine detail. I think it's more of a compatibility issue than a problem with the lens itself, because I checked the lens centering and it's close to being perfect. Anyone noticed something similar on an Oly body? It's quite hard to tell actually, but when you mount the camera on a tripod, shoot a landscape at 2.8 (yeah, I know, not ideal, but it's clearly visible there), and shoot one pic in AF, and another in MF, you can clearly see a difference in sharpness.

Interestingly, the focus is perfect on close distances. My dad's 20 1.7 doesn't display the same problem.

I just ran a kind of kludgy experiment. I photographed a U.S. dime on an index card with 1/4 inch line spacing. The camera was on a tripod facing straight down. Light was sunlight through a screen door. These are not excellent macro shots. They are meant to show the magnification. The also show the razor thin focus you get when shooting macro.

First, here's closest focus, or very close to it, 25mm no extension tube. In this shot I think the my thumb nail is in focus, more than the dime.


25mm

10mm extension:



10mm extension

The left edge of the dime is in focus. It is slightly tilted to avoid the shadow of the lens. I had to take the lens shade off, of course.

16mm extension:


16mm extension

Even more tilted to get some light on it.

26mm extension:


25mm with 26mm of extension tubes

The light is from the left, the shad on the right is from the lens. I was VERY close to the front of the lens.

I think shooting down at this, and moving the subject by hand (my hand was resting on the chair's arm rest, for stability), was difficult. I'd much rather have a more vertical subject and be able to move the camera more easily relative to it.

These images are not cropped. The only "pp" I did was to adjust levels for better brightness.

--
js