Panasonic 20mm 1.7 vs Panasonic 14-42 ii

Hi, My name is Tal and i am new to this forum and this is
my first writing here. (but i read a lot...).

A months ago i bought EPL5 to replace my EPL2 . After a shot session with the
new camera i was very disappointed. the photo looks just bad like something is
wrong about them. The photos from my epl2 looks much better. Since i saw many
great photos before i bought the camera i started searching what is the problem.
The lens on my EPL2 was Olympus 14-42 ii and with the EPL5 Olympus
14-42 ii r. After some reading i understand the the r version is not so good
and i bought Panasonic 14-42 ii ,that i found for 100$, and that make me
very happy with great photos. (maybe i got a bad copy of the oly 14-42 ii r).

Now i am thinking of buying the first version of the Panasonic 20mm 1.7 that
i can get for 260$ but i can not find any comparison between it and
the Panasonic 14-42 ii. will the photos from it will be much
better from the Panasonic 14-42 ii ?

Thanks.

Now i am thinking of buying the first version of the Panasonic 20mm 1.7 that

i can get for 260$ but i can not find any comparison between it and
the Panasonic 14-42 ii. will the photos from it will be much
better from the Panasonic 14-42 ii ?

First, $260 for the 20mm f1.7, is a good price if the lens is in good condition.

Second, as already stated, there is no comparison between the 14-42mm zoom, and the fixed lens, 20mm f1.7.

The 20mm is going to produce some very nice, sharp images, with nice background blur at its wider apertures.  It's a lot of fun to shoot with, but autofocus is problematic in low light, low contrast environments.  I have this lens and will keep it as long as I have my µ43's system.

Get this lens, it's perfect for the E-PL5!

Tom

Welcome to DP Review and to this Forum.  If you don't take too many of us too seriously, this is a great website.:-D

I own both the 14-42 first version Oly and the Panasonic 20 f1.7, first version, used mostly on an EPL-1.  IMO the 20 is one of the great lenses of all time, right up there with Leica 35 and 50 Summicrons.  Given their recent close collaboration for m43 lenses, it would not surprise me to learn that Leica had a hand in designing the 20; the images have that 3-D natural Leica 'look.'  The main complaint about the 20 is slow AF in low light.  While that is to some extent true, it is no reason to avoid this outstanding optic.

the other posters are right, it is hard to compare the 20 with the kit zoom.  but I can say that i had both (used on an E-Pl2) and for me the 20 outperformed the kit (at 20mm) consistently in sharpness at any aperture and in most lighting situations.  Plus it gave the advantage of the faster aperture.  Once I paired the 20 with the Oly 45, the kit zoom went into storage and never got used again -- ended up selling it with the E-Pl2 when I got the E-M10 (body only).

markintosh13 wrote:

There are two issues with the 20mm 1.7 that have caused me to all but abandon it.

1. The AF speed is something I have never been happy with.

2. The banding issue when used with a PL5.

Ever since buying the Oly 25mm 1.8, I have not used the 20mm 1.7

I second that opinion. The 20mm is a great lens in terms of sharpness and contrast at any aperture, but the Oly 25mm 1.8 is just as great in those aspects, but with a noticeably faster focusing mechanism (and no banding issues with the epl5). Both lenses are in the same price range and the Oly is only slightly bigger, so it's the one I'd recommend to get, if that's an option for the OP.

I sold my 20mm after getting the Oly 25mm.

If you are comparing the 20mm as a walk around vs the 14-42 at any FL, the 20 will be far sharper and faster as well, for when you need more light. I have owned both, have photos from both, and the 20mm wipes the floor with the zoom. The 14-42 isn't bad, it's ok for a kit lens, but the 20mm is exceptional even for a prime. Here is a wide open shot with the 20, and another at F4 for peak sharpness.

Both shots were cropped on the sides, pixel level detail is otherwise untouched, ie no downsampling.

"Run to the light, Carol Anne. Run as fast as you can!"

I don't have the 14-42 but have the 14-140 mk2. Recently I also got the 20mm/1.7 and have almost forgot the other lens. When I was reading here from much more experienced users that "it's all about the glass" I couldn't understand what they mean until I used the 20mm/1.7...

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54707072

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54685441

tald1 wrote:

Hi, My name is Tal and i am new to this forum and this is
my first writing here. (but i read a lot...).

A months ago i bought EPL5 to replace my EPL2 . After a shot session with the
new camera i was very disappointed. the photo looks just bad like something is
wrong about them. The photos from my epl2 looks much better. Since i saw many
great photos before i bought the camera i started searching what is the problem.
The lens on my EPL2 was Olympus 14-42 ii and with the EPL5 Olympus
14-42 ii r. After some reading i understand the the r version is not so good
and i bought Panasonic 14-42 ii ,that i found for 100$, and that make me
very happy with great photos. (maybe i got a bad copy of the oly 14-42 ii r).

Now i am thinking of buying the first version of the Panasonic 20mm 1.7 that
i can get for 260$ but i can not find any comparison between it and
the Panasonic 14-42 ii. will the photos from it will be much
better from the Panasonic 14-42 ii ?

The short answer is yes - the 20/1.7 is expected to be sharper at any comparable aperture. However, once you stop down the zoom lens, the difference is expected to be minor (assuming that both are good copies). The P 14-42 ii has received some very good reviews and it looks like a good zoom. The main reason to add the 20/1.7 is its wider aperture - f1.7. This will allow you to lower the ISO in low light situations and to get more subject isolation. Carrying a good zoom and 1-2 fast primes is a good idea in general.

Thanks.

Even if I were to abandon M4/3 for another format I will always keep my Panny 20 mounted to a M4/3 body.  I basically got into M4/3 because of the 20 f1.7, and I look for excuses to use it.

Avoid the kit lens 12-50 if you are looking for acute sharpness. The 12-50 practically oozes chromatic aberration, and that's bad news for a landscape photographer.  After you fix it in post you're left with blurred unsaturated edges. (critically speaking of course). I can't even give my 12-50 away for $150 (Canadian)

Outdoors in bright sunlight at say f/5.6, you won't see as much difference. The 20mm really comes into its own when used indoors with no flash. See samples that follow.

f/1.7, ISO 200, 1/50th sec

f/1.8, ISO 320, 1/50th sec

f/1.7, ISO 800, 1/50th sec

f/1.7, ISO 500, 1/60th sec

'

tald1 wrote:

Thanks for the reply. I know that these are very different lenses. what i wish
to know is what is the different in term or sharpness and clarity ?

I have the older and better zoom (14-45) and I have the original 20mm f1.7 from the day it became available. The 20mm lens is sharp and contrasty, even at full aperture. I have many prints at 19"x 13" (47x 32cm) which are fine. One judge thought that one print at full aperture "must be from a full frame camera"!

People complain that it is slow to focus, but it's just a bit slower than the latest lenses.

Highly recommended.

Mike

mh2000 wrote:

It's a really good lens, not saying it isn't, but it isn't as out-of-this-world-spectacular as some like to claim.

Yes, at 100% it's better than my 17/2.8, but on a print it's not that much better. Can't say in a general sense that it's *better* than my Oly 25 or 45... don't even know whether it's even that much better than the Sigma 30.

My girlfreind loves the FL and it's her most used lens. I much much much prefer a 25mm FL.

Buy a prime because it has a really great FL for *you*.

I bought the Oly 17/2.8 over the 20 and for me it was a way better choice.

In terms of FL the 20 is too wide for my preferred al'rounder walking lens/ landscape lens.  I often find myself resorting to panoramics using 3 or 4 images to achieve what a 14 or 17mm lens would otherwise see.  On paper (review sites with measurements), I see the 20 dominating the 17 f2.8 in measurements and conclusions rating IQ, price, and mechanical.  I guess I just found my joy spot with the 20, and I keep marveling about it.  Give me the same or better IQ in a 30mm equivalent focal length pancake and I might consider trading my 20.

Michael J Davis wrote:

tald1 wrote:

Thanks for the reply. I know that these are very different lenses. what i wish
to know is what is the different in term or sharpness and clarity ?

I have the older and better zoom (14-45) and I have the original 20mm f1.7 from the day it became available. The 20mm lens is sharp and contrasty, even at full aperture. I have many prints at 19"x 13" (47x 32cm) which are fine. One judge thought that one print at full aperture "must be from a full frame camera"!

People complain that it is slow to focus, but it's just a bit slower than the latest lenses.

Highly recommended.

Mike

The images on your flickr gallery are brilliant and rich.  I appreciate your work with the 12-40.  I haven't seen any of your images yet with the 20mm in the exif, but I'm still looking