Is the Lumix 42.5 f/1.7 "better" than the 25 f/1.7 (or 45 f/1.8)?

I have the Panasonic 25 f/1.7 for my G85 and don't particularly like it. The autofocus can be unreliable and is slower than my 12-25 f/2.8 (my go-to lens). The contrast can be muddy, though that can be corrected in post.

I'm thinking of buying a 42.5 f/1.7 for a short portrait lens. I get that it's a totally different focal length. In fact I already have an Olympus 45 f/1.8--which I also don't love--that I would likely "trade in" for it. I'm hoping the 42.5 f/1.7 will have superior AF because of DFD.

The question: if I don't like the 25 f/1.7, will I also dislike the 42.5 f/1.7? Is this a case where I just need to spend more and get something like the 42.5 f/1.2 (which can be had very reasonably these days)? My experience with the M43 cheap primes is that you kinda get what you pay for.

PS: yes, I'm aware that shallow DoF can be challenging. Missed focus isn't my only complaint though.

The P42.5f1.7 lens I once had was noticeably "better" than the Oly45f1.8 I also once had. Never even considered the P25f1.7 due to the focal length.

--
"True craftsmen never blame their tools, but strive to use them properly"

chrohrs said:

I have the Panasonic 25 f/1.7 for my G85 and don't particularly like it. The autofocus can be unreliable and is slower than my 12-25 f/2.8 (my go-to lens). The contrast can be muddy, though that can be corrected in post.

Click to expand...

There should not be any auto focus issues with either 25mm f/1.7 or 45mm f/1.7, unless you are using continuous auto focus. I know this is not what you asked, but I recommend using AF-S whenever you can.

I have never had any focus problems using the 25/1.7. It is one of my most like lens for the G9.

I think 50mm is OK for waist up portraits. I didn’t get on with the 25mm f1.7 a perfectly good lens, my first Prime in the digital era, and sold it, plus the two free ones that subsequently came with Panasonic offers on new camera bodies. I then bought the 20mm f1.7, super compact, great for travel. I did buy the 42.5mm f1.7 and love it, used primarily for my granddaughter and most used on the GM1 with touch and shoot enabled on the touch screen. Toddlers move quickly, so I’ve no doubt the focus speed is quick. As you mention, a Portrait focal length and f1.7, means the DOF is shallow compared to most lenses. I don’t post images of my granddaughter, at the request of her parents. Plenty of other examples here - https://www.flickr.com/photos/dieselgolfer/albums/72157690660973971

The Olympus 45mm is well regarded but I’ve no experience of it. The absence of IS may not be an issue if used on bodies with IBIS.

Sigma 56/1.4

Hated the 25mm f1.7. Ugly, muddy, murky output. Used it a couple of times, put it away, tried it again a few months later, ugh again. Sold it.

Had the 45mm f1.8. Very sharp. Crunchy, almost, sort of very "digital" looking output. Minimum focus distance too long for my liking. Had it for a couple of years, rarely used it. Sold it.

Bought the 42.5mm f1.7 last year. Much nicer lens than either of the other two. Lovely bokeh. Minimum focus distance nice and close, so you can fill the frame with your subject. I would recommend this one as a better option than either of the two you have, especially if you do not care for either one of those lenses.

Note: Think carefully about whether this is a focal length you actually use a lot. I rarely use it myself, as I don't do a lot of portrait work. However, because the 42.5mm does have a nice, short, minimum focus distance, it is more useful in indoor settings than the Oly 45mm f1.8, as you don't need a lot of space in between you and your subject; something that can be an issue in a close-in setting with the Oly.

-J

chrohrs said:

The question: if I don't like the 25 f/1.7, will I also dislike the 42.5 f/1.7? Is this a case where I just need to spend more and get something like the 42.5 f/1.2 (which can be had very reasonably these days)? My experience with the M43 cheap primes is that you kinda get what you pay for.

Click to expand...

I have both the Panasonic 25/1.7 and 42.5/1.7 lenses. I've found both to be good quality in terms of build and autofocus operation.

However the 42.5mm seems to be better quality to my eye in terms of sharpness and contrast. The sharpness may be due to the fact that it provides dual-IS2 on my camera body. As for contrast, I have no way to measure that. The images just look better to me, a bit more "pop". The 25/1.7 is fine but I'd describe the output as a bit more flat.

They are quite different focal lengths. So first off, which one do you want?

If you like the 25mm focal length, consider the Olympus 25mm f1.8. It's very sharp, great bokeh, outstanding and silent AF. Really a flawless lens, IMO. I solely used it on Panasonic bodies and it's great.

If you like the 42/45mm focal length. 42.5mm f1.7 is probably the best of the small/cheap options. Really compact, sharper than the 45mm f1.8. Accurate and quick AF. Nice close focus ability.

A bit longer focal length still in the portrait length range is the Sigma 56mm f1.4. That is truly an incredible lens. It gives portrait bokeh like you have a larger sensor. Focus is fast. It's sharp even from f1.4. Great bokeh.

I think the biggest problem with the 25mm f1.7 is focus shift. It can give soft results even though the lens itself isn't soft. Google it. It's an oft reported issue.

The 45mm f1.8 is a good lens, but I also had focus inconsistencies near wide open. It presented as soft photos, but then sometimes it would be very sharp. None of the above recommended lenses had any of these issues and were very consistent for me.

I have the 42.5mm f/1.7 and I think it's a VERY good lens at a bargain price. It's small, light, cute even. And it is sharp, produces good color, and is the right focal length for a good portrait lens.

I have both lenses and also find myself never using the 25 f1.7, something about it just doesn't work for me and I never quite like the photos that come out of it. It's possible I got a bad lens (it happens) as I believe I bought it used. But for all the talk of how great value it is, I never took to it. The 42.5 f1.7 on the other hand, I use all the time and I love. It's very sharp and quick to focus. I would also look at the Sigma's however, as those are very well-regarded from my understanding and a bit faster.

chrohrs said:

I have the Panasonic 25 f/1.7 for my G85 and don't particularly like it. The autofocus can be unreliable and is slower than my 12-25 f/2.8 (my go-to lens). The contrast can be muddy, though that can be corrected in post.

I'm thinking of buying a 42.5 f/1.7 for a short portrait lens. I get that it's a totally different focal length. In fact I already have an Olympus 45 f/1.8--which I also don't love

Click to expand...

Why? I like mine. AF is pretty quick, if not as lightning-fast as some Panasonic lenses on my GX8 & GX9. I've used it a lot to shoot slow-moving subjects in my low-light event work and never felt it was slow.

chrohrs said:

--that I would likely "trade in" for it. I'm hoping the 42.5 f/1.7 will have superior AF because of DFD.

Click to expand...

I've never used this lens. Was tempted to trade my 45/1.8 for it because the 42.5/1.7 has unusually close focus capability, which lets it play a secondary role as a kind of quasi-macro. Seems handy. I kept the 45/1.8, though, because reviews indicated OOF highlights are a bit harsher with the 42.5/1.7, and I shoot indoor events where there are often light sources within the frame.

chrohrs said:

The question: if I don't like the 25 f/1.7, will I also dislike the 42.5 f/1.7? Is this a case where I just need to spend more and get something like the 42.5 f/1.2 (which can be had very reasonably these days)? My experience with the M43 cheap primes is that you kinda get what you pay for.

PS: yes, I'm aware that shallow DoF can be challenging. Missed focus isn't my only complaint though.

Click to expand...

P.S.: I use AF-S almost exclusively.

--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

chrohrs said:

I have the Panasonic 25 f/1.7 for my G85 and don't particularly like it. The autofocus can be unreliable and is slower than my 12-25 f/2.8 (my go-to lens). The contrast can be muddy, though that can be corrected in post.

I'm thinking of buying a 42.5 f/1.7 for a short portrait lens. I get that it's a totally different focal length. In fact I already have an Olympus 45 f/1.8--which I also don't love--that I would likely "trade in" for it. I'm hoping the 42.5 f/1.7 will have superior AF because of DFD.

The question: if I don't like the 25 f/1.7, will I also dislike the 42.5 f/1.7? Is this a case where I just need to spend more and get something like the 42.5 f/1.2 (which can be had very reasonably these days)? My experience with the M43 cheap primes is that you kinda get what you pay for.

Click to expand...

You will like the 42.5 it is a fine lens and uses dual AF . Even though they share the same body style, it seems to be better glass. It will have better stability than the other 2 primes, but I am not sure if you get a better AF performance.

I would say that 42.5 1.7 is the better choice for g85 owners over the other 2 primes.

You may do better with the 1.2 version, but you need about 500-700 more to spend on the lens.

If the OP is willing to consider a stop or two of light less, then the Panasonic 30mm 2.8 could also be a consideration for his purposes. It's tack sharp like the 42.5, quick and accurate to focus, has O.I.S and renders very nicely. It's good for short portraits and a bunch of other things too, including close-ups of insects and flowers.

jalywol said:

Hated the 25mm f1.7. Ugly, muddy, murky output. Used it a couple of times, put it away, tried it again a few months later, ugh again. Sold it.

Had the 45mm f1.8. Very sharp. Crunchy, almost, sort of very "digital" looking output. Minimum focus distance too long for my liking. Had it for a couple of years, rarely used it. Sold it.

Bought the 42.5mm f1.7 last year. Much nicer lens than either of the other two. Lovely bokeh. Minimum focus distance nice and close, so you can fill the frame with your subject. I would recommend this one as a better option than either of the two you have, especially if you do not care for either one of those lenses.

Note: Think carefully about whether this is a focal length you actually use a lot. I rarely use it myself, as I don't do a lot of portrait work. However, because the 42.5mm does have a nice, short, minimum focus distance, it is more useful in indoor settings than the Oly 45mm f1.8, as you don't need a lot of space in between you and your subject; something that can be an issue in a close-in setting with the Oly.

-J

Click to expand...

I agree that the 45/1.8 minimum focus distance is somewhat frustrating.

Here, indoors, with the cat as our most frequent subject, we keep a Sigma 30/1.4 mounted all the time. Its minimum focus distance is much much better. It focuses quickly on an EM1 and quickly enough on a GX1 too.

And, the bokeh of the Sigma 30/1.4 is very nice. To get a more "artistic" bokeh, I'd have to use an old manual focus lens, such as 50/1.4 Pentax-M or S-M-C Takumar.

Outdoor, I often use the Olympus 45/1.8 -- its AF performance on the EM1 is good enough for street action (e.g. Harley Davidson bikes passing by). But, on the EM5, in low light, it would sometimes hesitate and, even, it could create an artistic picture full on bokeh balls (totally out of focus picture).

I was trying to keep on the topic of what the OP mentioned, and did not add any more lenses than the OP discussed.

I have heard good reports about the 30mm from panasonic, but I got the OLY version so I never got around to that lens.

Horses for courses, don’t go looking for something that is not there. I have the Olympus 45/1.8 and Panasonic 42.5/1.7 - there are both good lenses whose main attraction is that they are very compact and they are reasonably priced. The 42.5/1.7 has lens IS which can be useful on non-stabilised bodies such as the GM5.

The 42.5/1.2 Nocticron is in another league. It is physically much larger, image stabilised and an excellent performer that must set the standard by which the other two are judged. I don’t know the Olympus 45/1.2 as I probably have enough M4/3 mount lenses at that focal length.

I am surprised that you don’t like the 45.0/1.8 as I doubt that at the push versus shove level there is a lot of difference with this type - the Panasonic version might have the edge but “edge”it is.

I am also surprised that you can find a 42.5/1.2 that is affordable as it is a different league of lens.

Mine has been around for seven years now and I still respect it. It remains in first class condition and no way would I consider off-loading it - especially at an “affordable price”.

If you can get a good one at an affordable price then your luck is someone else’s misfortune.

--
Tom Caldwell

The 25mm f1.7 is soft wide open and the rendering is very flat compared to the PL 25mm f1.4. One of the worst M43 lens I had.


The 42.5mm f1.7 is small, very sharp even wide open, with good contrast, has OIS and nice MFD. However, I prefer the rendering of the Oly 45mm 1.8 (less sharp wide open but I find the lens less flat than the Lumix).
I think the Lumix 42.5mm is the best choice between the two for most people.


Both the Nocticron and the 45mm Pro are better if you value microcontrast and bokeh though.

jalywol said:

Hated the 25mm f1.7. Ugly, muddy, murky output. Used it a couple of times, put it away, tried it again a few months later, ugh again. Sold it.

Had the 45mm f1.8. Very sharp. Crunchy, almost, sort of very "digital" looking output. Minimum focus distance too long for my liking. Had it for a couple of years, rarely used it. Sold it.

Bought the 42.5mm f1.7 last year. Much nicer lens than either of the other two. Lovely bokeh. Minimum focus distance nice and close, so you can fill the frame with your subject. I would recommend this one as a better option than either of the two you have, especially if you do not care for either one of those lenses.

Note: Think carefully about whether this is a focal length you actually use a lot. I rarely use it myself, as I don't do a lot of portrait work. However, because the 42.5mm does have a nice, short, minimum focus distance, it is more useful in indoor settings than the Oly 45mm f1.8, as you don't need a lot of space in between you and your subject; something that can be an issue in a close-in setting with the Oly.

-J

Click to expand...

Interesting. I have quite another experience with the two lenses. The 42.5 a lot of contrast but a hard rendering.

The Oly 45mm just a little less contrast but a much smoother rendering (and not only in the corners). Sample variation? Either way I use them both in different situations.

chrohrs said:

I have the Panasonic 25 f/1.7 for my G85 and don't particularly like it. The autofocus can be unreliable and is slower than my 12-25 f/2.8 (my go-to lens). The contrast can be muddy, though that can be corrected in post.

I'm thinking of buying a 42.5 f/1.7 for a short portrait lens. I get that it's a totally different focal length. In fact I already have an Olympus 45 f/1.8--which I also don't love--that I would likely "trade in" for it. I'm hoping the 42.5 f/1.7 will have superior AF because of DFD.

The question: if I don't like the 25 f/1.7, will I also dislike the 42.5 f/1.7? Is this a case where I just need to spend more and get something like the 42.5 f/1.2 (which can be had very reasonably these days)? My experience with the M43 cheap primes is that you kinda get what you pay for.

PS: yes, I'm aware that shallow DoF can be challenging. Missed focus isn't my only complaint though.

Click to expand...

I've had both the 25/1.7 and the 42.5/1.7 and the later is extremely sharp, stopping down doesn't make a lot of visible difference in either the center or edges - the lens is just that good. I use mine between F1.7 and F2.2 regularly and am pleased with the images from it.