-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Panasonic 15mm f1.7 thoughts
- Thread starter kodachromed
- Start date
L
Lupata
Guest
It a great lens doesn't need a heap of post processing unless converting to monochrome
Last edited:
unhappymeal
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,174
- Reaction score
- 4,677
It’s a great lens. I wish it had a brighter aperture, but that’s why the 17mm f/1.2 exists.
unhappymeal
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,174
- Reaction score
- 4,677
The f/1.2 Pro lenses are weird in that they have nice spherical aberration, which means tasty bokeh wide open, but get bitingly sharp when stopped down a bit. Canon, Sony and Nikon have since surpassed the f/1.2 trio, but they are more than double the price…They generally are both too expensive for my wallet, and too big and too heavy to carry for my tastes too
Within the small primes in m43, I feel like the 15/1.7 does have "some" microcontrast. But I do not think enough of it to compete with say the 17/1.2pro which you already own. The 15mm is just 115g, the 17/1.2 is a massive 390g. More than 3 times heavier, and 2x the price. For me way too much weight and $$ to justify the 5 or 10% better IQ.
Richard2Go
Well-known member
- Messages
- 197
- Reaction score
- 263
If I’m going out and I don’t want to take a camera bag and multiple lenses, I put the PL15 on my GX85 and I’m good for the day. The camera, lens and a cleaning cloth fit in a small Lowepro belt pouch, and I carry an extra battery in my pocket. When I’m not using the camera I don’t even know it’s there, and the PL15 offers amazing image quality along with the versatility of using it indoors without a flash. And going out with a single prime lens kind of keeps me honest, it forces me to think a little more about my images prior to clicking the shutter.
Cafe Racer
Senior Member
Raw.
Correct.
Thanks. I'm familiar with how a lens with good micro contrast plays out in an image. A good quality lens would be my preference over the reliance on software enhancement, but I can't downplay the usefulness of PP software for improving a photograph. That applies to photographs taken with good lenses too. Of course, it takes knowledge and skill to get good results regardless of the equipment. It's great to have a high quality lens but high quality post processing/editing can have a bigger impact on the final results; resolution competitions notwithstanding!Here are some examples:
I happened to accidentally have the 40-150/2.8 and R with me one day, so took some test shots with identical settings. It was a rather dull scene but ideal for the purpose in terms of features.
Here is the scene
Crop with the Pro lens
Crop with the R lens
These images were processed from RAW using C1 with identical settings.
Crop with the R lens processed to suit
The second crop from the R lens had more contrast and some Clarity and Structure (micro-contrast). I might have added a bit of extra sharpening too.
That looks better, but still not quite as good as the Pro lens. Pushing the settings further made it look over processed. I played around quite a bit because Tedolf was on my case.
Although the Pro tele zoom is an excellent lens it has less micro contrast than the best primes and the OM1 is only 20Mpix. You could do a tiny bit better with a lot more expensive gear.
Here is an image with the R on an EM1 mk1.
Classic flat RAW with C1 default neutral settings
Adjusted tone curve, added sharpening, clarity and structure (and vertical) in C1
Processed in PhotoLab with DxO defauly inexpert user settings - ie not flat
Processed in PhotoLab with more aggressive settings
The EM1 mk i has noticeably worse IQ than the OM1, more than you would expect from the difference in sensor resolution.
On the day, the mast was incredibly crisp, so the weak outline is not due to haze. For me the image loses impact because the mast is not that crisp, although resolution is reasonable. You can see details but the contrast is low.
Would the OM1 and 40-150/2.8 have done better? In my view, yes.
Hope that was of interest.
Last edited:
cba_melbourne
Veteran Member
No, just no!
If that was indeed as you claim, then in 2023 there would be no IQ related reasons to prefer an ILC over a modern flagship phone for FL's under say 100mm/FF.
Don't believe everything the PP software industry claims. Consider that they sell PP licenses to phone camera users too, not only to ILC owners. Many of the novel features are aimed at them. There are almost a 100 times more phone photographers than ILC photographers, and THAT is where all the growth potential for PP software makers is. The smaller the lens and sensor, and the smaller the viewing screen, the more effective and useful the new a.i. PP tools like a.i. de-noise and a.i. sharpening and a.i. de-haze are. And vice versa.
With these software tools phones can catch up in IQ to ILC cameras, but only as long as the output format is very small. Of course ILC owners can use these tools too to widen the gap again - but each ILC owner has to decide for himself if the downsides are worth doing it. Me personally I am perfectly happy with resolution and noise of m43. If I was not, then I would rather switch to FF or MF, than accept those fake software enhancement artifacts.
Last edited:
Cafe Racer
Senior Member
Yes, just yes.
CAN have a bigger IMPACT, not DOES have a bigger impact. There's a distinction there and it's related to artistic talent accompanied by advanced processing/editing skills. This can have a significant impact on the final photograph.
High quality gear doesn't come bundled with talent and skill. That's separate from the IQ capabilities of gear.
Last edited:
in many ways my sample of the PL 15 was like the P 20: small, light weight, not wheather resistant, sharp.
However, resolution is not up there with the best (O 12-40, 12-100 or others), so I see no reason, why one should be afraid of "clinical" sharpness.
Where the PL 15 is much better than the P 20 is focus speed, focus is fast and near noiseless. Some people love the aperture ring on the PL 15, I didn't need or even use it.
So it is a nice lens, I would use it as one lens solution for situations, where weight matters - I myself sent it back, but I used the 20mm as only lens for hiking.
Peter
However, resolution is not up there with the best (O 12-40, 12-100 or others), so I see no reason, why one should be afraid of "clinical" sharpness.
Where the PL 15 is much better than the P 20 is focus speed, focus is fast and near noiseless. Some people love the aperture ring on the PL 15, I didn't need or even use it.
So it is a nice lens, I would use it as one lens solution for situations, where weight matters - I myself sent it back, but I used the 20mm as only lens for hiking.
Peter
Chris Noble
Veteran Member
I only buy a piece of gear once every 5 years or so, but this thread has convinced me to get this lens for my GM5 and GX9. Thanks all.
brentbrent
Veteran Member
Ah, this forum's highest calling, to tip folks over the edge into buying more gear! :-D
I have the 15 and, like you, the 20 and the 25 f/1.4. All good lenses and each has its place, but the 15 is my most-used and most-liked of the three. Enjoy!
JosephScha
Veteran Member
I have to reply to this thread. I bought the 15mm f/1.7 when I was tasked with taking pictures at a Journal Dinner event. I knew I would need to take table pictures from not very far away. The 15mm f/1.7 did fabulously, even though I shot at f/1.7 which I wouldn't do now. I was extremely pleased. Looking at these pictures now, I should have either manually focused or pressed the far focus button. In the first picture the flowers seem to be in best focus.
I also brought the 25mm f/1.4 and 42.5mm f/1.7 and used them too, but I could not have taken the table pictures without the 15mm f/1.7.
Here are two:
Notice how the leftmost woman is leaning in, thinking I wouldn't get her in the frame
And another one where everyone stood up behind each other, again thinking I didn't have a wide enough angle lens:
15mm f/1.7 is wide enough!
These images are not cropped. When published they were cropped somewhat, and the reproductions were not at 300ppi. Oh well.
It's kind of amazing to look back at these pictures from 2019 and note the people who have passed away since then.
This person is still with us:
She will turn 96 years old this summer. This last picture was shot with the 25mm lens.
--- Joseph S.
--
js
I also brought the 25mm f/1.4 and 42.5mm f/1.7 and used them too, but I could not have taken the table pictures without the 15mm f/1.7.
Here are two:
Notice how the leftmost woman is leaning in, thinking I wouldn't get her in the frame
And another one where everyone stood up behind each other, again thinking I didn't have a wide enough angle lens:
15mm f/1.7 is wide enough!
These images are not cropped. When published they were cropped somewhat, and the reproductions were not at 300ppi. Oh well.
It's kind of amazing to look back at these pictures from 2019 and note the people who have passed away since then.
This person is still with us:
She will turn 96 years old this summer. This last picture was shot with the 25mm lens.
--- Joseph S.
--
js
Last edited:
addlightness
Senior Member
A repost of mine - 1MB jpeg from original 6MB sooc jpeg. The 15/1.7 still shows good contrast even when downsampled.
It's my most used lens, usually on my GM1 and PEN-F
It's my most used lens, usually on my GM1 and PEN-F
Last edited:
Joseph that last image was wonderful. Captured the spirit so well of your subject.
JosephScha
Veteran Member
Thank you! She is amazing, really. I hope I am ALIVE at 96, but this woman is unstoppable. She gets called to speak at the local Holocaust museum (she is a survivor) and never says no.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum