The Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 has horrific flare characteristics

I thought I'd mention this because I read several reviews before picking this lens up and none of them mentioned the flare on this lens. This is kind of a big deal because this is an ideal lens for night time shooting in cities or indoors where you'll find a lot of high contrast scenes with point light sources (fairy lights, neons, bright bulbs in dark areas etc).

Overall I'm happy with the lens but you need to be very careful when using it around bright light sources. Here's a couple of examples from my first night using the lens.

Note the flared halos around each light.

This picture was overexposed so it's my fault but note the big green flare on the customer's back.

Because of the simple construction you don't tend to get flares that move across the frame when pointed at high-contrast lights, but those halos can be a bit of a deal breaker in some pictures.

Like I said I'm happy with the lens but I was surprised no one mentioned this flaring in the reviews I read.

Horrific? Really? How about some mature language.

I've taken a number of nigh shots with tiny lights in them and have not seen anything like this.  Do you have a filter on it?  Are the front and rear elements clean?  Is you sensor clean?

I think this lens just not for you. Get rid of it.

s_grins wrote:

I think this lens just not for you. Get rid of it.

Agreed

Also, no exif data doesn't help matters any....

As someone ese already asked: do you have a filter on your 20 mm? I get the same green flare you showed when I have a protective UV filter on my 20 mm. I get very little, if any, flare without a filter. Do other lenses really do much better in handling point light sources indoors? I am very happy with my 20 mm, but my standards may be lower than yours.

Drusus

I agree.

It used to be a pretty good lens. Now it's just rubbish.

And it is slow to focus, and it searches in low light, and it's fat and ugly and mean as a snake.

Please send me yours,

Krugman

And it strongly depends in which camera it is used...

The 1,7/20mm is my favorite lens, but yes, it does flare. I never saw anything like in your first picture, but a lot like in the second.

After spoiling some very promising pictures by not keeping the sinking sun out of the frame, I bought a shade for the lens. It looks great, and I hope it has at least some use. Most of the time it helps to just change the perspective a little.

And it is noisy and AF is not very fast - but it is sharp and fast (F1,7) and focuses down to 0,2m and bokeh is ok and has a nice FL (a little wider would be better, but I would lose most of it's other endearing characteristics with the current MFT lens line up.)

Peter.

HornOUBet wrote:

s_grins wrote:

I think this lens just not for you. Get rid of it.

Agreed

Agreed

krugman wrote:

Evaluating this lens may depend on whom you trust.

I trust Roger Cicala of Lens Rentals. His review of a number of wide angle m4/3 lenses shows the Panasonic 20mm to be absolutely outstanding in sharpness, measured quantitatively with great expertise and great equipment..

I also trust SLRGear. Their review of the Pana 20mm by 17 people produced the following: (We don't know who the 17 were but I have found the SLRGears reviews to be very thorugh and knowledgeable):

94% recommended this lens.

Quality of construction: 8.94 out of 10

Image Quality: 9.47 out of 10.

Reviewers' overall rating: 9.41 out of 10.

Mu-4/3 is a highly respected forum, no trolls and lots og good photographers. Amin Sabet, well respected, chaired a review of the Pana 20mm. There were some complaints about speed of focusing, or noise, but the general tenor of the review was highly enthusiastic. People said it was the lens that attracted them to m4/3. Others said they have trouble taking it off the camera, it is that good.

Here are the urls:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/05/wide-angle-micro-43-imatest-results

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1295/cat/68

http://www.mu-43.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=11&title=panasonic-lumix-g-20mm-f17-asph&cat=6

I have trouble seeing why we can always find something to be unhappy about in our lenses and in our cameras, and talk about it in long long treads like this one. I don't hear much of the joy and delight one might expect from these fine cameras and lenses, I hear what sounds like perfectionism, and obsessional doubting, and maybe buyer's remorse.

Krugman

Thank for posting that good information.

For a while here,  I thought that my standards were dismally low as I've always been very pleased with my 20/1.7 pancakes.  I got my first one with a GF1, when I decided to "get serious" with photography.

I loved that lens, and the camera.  One of my granddaughters now has that combo which she uses a lot.  I got another 20/1.7 when I got a GH2 which I still have. Yeah, it is a bit slow to AF until good technique is developed and it is a bit noisy (audible noise).  Now I put it on the GX7 and take it to indoor events ... where a lot of good "record" shots are made, shared and appreciated.

While I read some anecdotal "evaluations" of gear here I wouldn't make serious decisions informed  by them since most are very subjective and not particularly reproducible.   But there are several contributors to this forum who are not only very knowledgeable but carry the authority of rigor in their tests and experiments.  I admire them for their knowledge and patience in coping with some folks who have made judgements based on a paucity of data, and who have fragile egos (or something) which prevents them from learning from good data.  Fortunately, most of the time, the provision of authoritative data sorts out and clarifies the issue for the rest of us.

So thank you for your very helpful contributions.

Tom

eques wrote:

The 1,7/20mm is my favorite lens, but yes, it does flare. I never saw anything like in your first picture, but a lot like in the second.

After spoiling some very promising pictures by not keeping the sinking sun out of the frame, I bought a shade for the lens. It looks great, and I hope it has at least some use. Most of the time it helps to just change the perspective a little.

And it is noisy and AF is not very fast - but it is sharp and fast (F1,7) and focuses down to 0,2m and bokeh is ok and has a nice FL (a little wider would be better, but I would lose most of it's other endearing characteristics with the current MFT lens line up.)

Peter.

I wasn't afraid to keep sinking sun in the frame, even in the middle of the frame. I like flare

Henry Richardson wrote:

I like, or would like, this lens a lot too if it didn't cause banding with my E-M5 (also on several other m4/3 bodies). Did all those reviews mention that? If not then I suppose one must take *everyone's* review with a bit of salt since all reviews miss some things or choose not to mention them.

I trust professional reviews, and I'm very critical to all these "findings" and "apparent issues" here, on the forum.

Banding of 1.7/20 is a .. well... myth, non-existing issue. Sure, you have all your rights to think differently, but. please, use your own experience.

The 20mm mounted on the GF1 was mu first step into mFT and to me it sums up mFT , very small, very light yet capable of great results.