Panasonic 20mm 1.7 vs Panasonic 14-42 ii

The irony of the selfie is that a longer FL will be more flattering to yourself, but at the same time it'll show off less of your surroundings which is often the entire point of taking it... I can manage one pretty well with the 20mm (with two people's faces in the frame) but I may just have longer arms, YMMV.

Even a fisheye can be kinda fun for that purpose tho. Flippy screen or Wi-Fi helps too. I've grown to like the 20mm FL a lot but part of the initial appeal of the 20mm for me was also it's size... It's pretty cool to be able to shoot all day with a pancake zoom, then reach into my pocket and swap for the 20mm indoors or at night, while not even carrying a camera bag.

Other systems just don't have that combination of decent collapsible/pancake zooms + a good prime. The AF is something you can work around of, but banding issues with Oly bodies might be another story. If you don't mind the tighter FL or slightly larger size, the 25/1.8 is absolutely worth considering IMO.

Prairie Pal wrote:

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

You are kind, Ivan!

Soory, I had a spell where the pp eliminated the EXIF data - I didn't bother because the picture was more important than the tools. I now realise that it's useful to others!

Do a search on '20mm' in text, and for ''Laureate" in text & tags and you'll see a few.

Mike

Impulses wrote:

The AF is something you can work around of, but banding issues with Oly bodies might be another story.

I almost forgot the banding issue. I've seen it only a few times but I pretty quickly got the Oly 17 after getting the Oly body. Is there is an explanation as to what is going on there? Why is there banding at all?

I don't know that anyone ever found a conclusive explanation, it's been theorized that it's due to interference on the sensor from the lens electronics or the AF motors but I dunno why the Sony sensors would be more susceptible or whatever...

Doesn't seem like the metal shell of the mark II version made a difference (another theory said it might), although I dunno if anyone has explicitly tested this. If anyone has an Oly body in sunny Puerto Rico I'll gladly loan you my 20/1.7 II for testing.

One reviewer mentioned version II is somewhat quieter during AF but that's about the only real difference I've heard of between both versions... Well, it's lighter too, FWIW. I have a feeling if I ever pick up an Oly body I might end up with a 25/1.8 and/or a 15/17 prime alongside it, not sure I'd sell the 20mm nonetheless.

I use E-pl5 with Panasonic 20 mm Ver2.

I can confirm some posterizing issues (dark sky) and CA in some cases. Obviously isnt corrected inside the body like for Olympus lens. But its very sharp. It make sense stitching panoramas.

Otherwise i used to have 14-42 r in the beggining, photos were good. But it would be sad not no put best lens on this camera, E-pl5 is very strong camera. I pair with Olympus 12-60 and 50-200 thru adapter.

I was wondering would it make sense to uprgade to Em1 at this expence ?

Petar Veliki wrote:

I use E-pl5 with Panasonic 20 mm Ver2.

I can confirm some posterizing issues (dark sky) and CA in some cases. Obviously isnt corrected inside the body like for Olympus lens. But its very sharp. It make sense stitching panoramas.

Otherwise i used to have 14-42 r in the beggining, photos were good. But it would be sad not no put best lens on this camera, E-pl5 is very strong camera. I pair with Olympus 12-60 and 50-200 thru adapter.

I was wondering would it make sense to uprgade to Em1 at this expence ?

May I clarify? Banding reported on the 20mm f1.7 when used on Oly bodies is something that I have noticed, but never been troubled with - but is in horizontal stripes in the deep shadows.

Posterising is an effect where changes between one shade and the next follow the contour of the intensity of the shading. It is usually seen when trying to pull up over- or under-exposed tones and more likely when processing in 8 bit (jpegs) rather than RAW.  It is rarely a lens problem.

Are you confusing the two? Or have I misunderstood?

Not at all. Posterizing would mathematically be subset of banding.

I had it in dark part of sky, OOC of course.

p.S. I also had banding, but posterization was more criticaly.

I croped small piece of sky, OOC image. Hope it will be visible.

I have the 20mm 1.7 II and he is incredibly sharp ! Significantly better than my 14-45 which is already very good. The downside of this lens is that it's not stabilized and the Af is slow.

Petar Veliki wrote:

Not at all. Posterizing would mathematically be subset of banding.

I had it in dark part of sky, OOC of course.

p.S. I also had banding, but posterization was more criticaly.

I croped small piece of sky, OOC image. Hope it will be visible.

All I can see is a slight brighter vertical line about 20% of the image from the left. The rest looks like random noise. It's possible that what I see has been 'modified' through DPR, and isn't therefore what you posted.

That's about as bad as I've seen it with 5 years of use on my work. In other words (for me) not serious!

Mike

tald1 wrote:

Thank you all guys for the replies and help.
I bought, this morning, the 20mm 1.7 first version.
I took just few shots in day light and focus is as fast
as the kit lens (very fast). did not try in low light yet.

I hope you'll be as happy with it as I have been for the past 5 years!

Mike

Mike try to see it from higher view...raise head some 20-30 cm to up. It will be seen more clearly.