My final test of the Pany 42.5mm F/1.7

WARNING:  THESE FULL SIZE IMAGES MAY LOAD SLOWLY

For landscapes I wanted to know if my new Panasonic 42.5mm F1.7 lens is noticeably sharper than my 3 year old Panasonic 14-45mm 3.5-5.6 ASPH lens at 43mm.  I tested the new Pany at F2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, and 8.  F5.6 was the sharpest.  I used my Oly E-PL5 camera, ISO 200, tripod, and 2 second delay with anti-shock.  These full size images have no sharpening, just auto contrast adjustment, and both are at F5.6.  They are posted full size for the few of you who do landscape prints and might be interested in this lens.

Here is my method of testing.  I first focus on the center of the image, then lock the focus.  I then take a strip of landscape across the very top edge, then rotate the camera up a bit to take a second image with the same landscape strip across the center, then rotate it up a bit more to take a third image with the strip across the bottom edge.  In Photoshop I then cut and paste the strips to one image.  This method reveals the corner, edge, and center sharpness in one combined image.  This method also assures that everything is at infinity.

For my 30"x20" prints I do not think the slight, but definite sharpness and contrast improvement is sufficient to be noticed by viewer, but you may have a different conclusion.

Panasonic 42.5mm F1.7 lens at F5.6

Panasonic 14-45mm 3.5-5.6 ASPH lens at F5.6

I'd love to have the OIS but I bought a new Oly 45 for only $250, and the first pictures I took with it impressed me such that I believe it's the sharpest lens I have. Besides, I think to get the most out of m43, I'll need a camera with IBIS - which will open up more usage possibilities for lenses lacking OIS. It's a shame Panasonic doesn't seem to embrace this aspect - while neither competing as well with Olympus on price and discounts.

Betarover wrote:

WARNING: THESE FULL SIZE IMAGES MAY LOAD SLOWLY

For landscapes I wanted to know if my new Panasonic 42.5mm F1.7 lens is noticeably sharper than my 3 year old Panasonic 14-45mm 3.5-5.6 ASPH lens at 43mm. I tested the new Pany at F2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, and 8. F5.6 was the sharpest. I used my Oly E-PL5 camera, ISO 200, tripod, and 2 second delay with anti-shock. These full size images have no sharpening, just auto contrast adjustment, and both are at F5.6. They are posted full size for the few of you who do landscape prints and might be interested in this lens.

Here is my method of testing. I first focus on the center of the image, then lock the focus. I then take a strip of landscape across the very top edge, then rotate the camera up a bit to take a second image with the same landscape strip across the center, then rotate it up a bit more to take a third image with the strip across the bottom edge. In Photoshop I then cut and paste the strips to one image. This method reveals the corner, edge, and center sharpness in one combined image. This method also assures that everything is at infinity.

For my 30"x20" prints I do not think the slight, but definite sharpness and contrast improvement is sufficient to be noticed by viewer, but you may have a different conclusion.

Panasonic 42.5mm F1.7 lens at F5.6

Panasonic 14-45mm 3.5-5.6 ASPH lens at F5.6

Are these OOC Jpegs? They look totally oversharpened which makes any difference in lense performance hardly visible. I would never print something like these with that kind of exaggerated sharpening.

Interesting that you are testing a Panasonic lens on an Olympus body and only at 5.6?

Betarover wrote:

Rave review by cameralabs.com compared to the Oly 45mm,

You are going to get trolled for this.

Betarover wrote:

What is an OOC JPEG?

"Out Of Camera," i.e., no post processing adjustments.

That is not so surprising. The 14-45 is an extremely sharp lens, in my experience, almost on par with my best primes stopped down. You can't get much better than that is terms of sharpness.
The 42.5 is not all about sharpness, it's about shallow dof and rendering.

photofan1986 wrote:

That is not so surprising. The 14-45 is an extremely sharp lens, in my experience, almost on par with my best primes stopped down. You can't get much better than that is terms of sharpness.
The 42.5 is not all about sharpness, it's about shallow dof and rendering.

I agree.  I've used the 14-45 for landscapes for over three years now.  Not only is it "sharp enough" (I say it that way because there are other zooms that are sharper, at least in the centers), but it has another quality which is very important for landscapes: it's sharpness is consistent across the frame at all settings.  Of course the corners are slightly softer but not by much, and it's consistent across the FL/Aperture settings.  If you look at other zooms with the slrgear.com interactive resolution widget, you always find certain combinations of Focal Length/Aperture where the corners are VERY soft compared to the center.  I have used other lenses and found that those differences will show in a print (my largest prints are 11x14).  This means that those settings must be remembered and avoided.  Not fun.

When I first got the 14-45 I thought the heavens had opened and given me a huge blessing. Not only were the inconsistencies of the previous lens removed, I really like the way the 14-45 renders the scenes.  It's a very "comfortable" lens to use, in that I have confidence in it and it never surprises me with something weird.  I place high value on that consistency and rendering.

Like the OP in this thread, I compared it with some primes (20/1.7 and 45/1.8) and in every case the slightly better sharpness was not apparent in prints and the slight difference could easily be matched with careful sharpening in Photoshop - but most of the time it's not necessary and I often don't add any sharpening at all.  I've had the same results comparing the Lumix 45-150 (an excellent companion to the 14-45) with the Oly 75/1.8.  I now use those fast primes exclusively for low light and/or portrait work.

The 14-45, while not high in cost, is a high value lens.

Regards,
Clayton

I-Trak 3.0   http://www.cjcom.net/itrak.htm

…for four reasons.

1) As others have observed, the 14-45 is an excellent lens; unmatched over its range until the Oly 14-42 II came out (and then the Panny 14-42 second edition I believe, although I have not used it) -- I reckon they were about as good. Why bother taking f5.6 pictures with a fast prime to compare with it?

2) You are looking at distant features on a sunny day. Thermals in the atmosphere will degrade detail in the pix so you can forget looking at sharpness in pix taken with either lens.

3) You have auto sharpening set at "Standard" so you are looking at JPEGs which have been sharpened in the camera. To compare the sharpness of the lenses, you need to set auto sharpening at "off".

4) I bought and (still) use the 45 primarily as a portrait lens when I want the best quality portrait file, although I do use it in general shooting too. The reason I bought my Oly f1.8 45 lens several years ago while I was using the 14-45 and later the Oly 14-42 was that those two lenses could not do what it could do -- open up three stops wider at 45 to give me narrower depth of field and more out of focus backgrounds in brightish light and open up three stops wider for pictures in lower light. It also focuses much faster in lower light. Your 42.5 goes a further stop wider. Great.

In use, I also feel that as excellent as the two zooms mentioned are, the f1.8 45mm has an edge on them in sharpness -- maybe higher micro contrast only but I am calling it as I see it.

Note: background added.

Betarover wrote:

I bought the Pany lens because of multiple advantages:

Rave review by cameralabs.com compared to the Oly 45mm,

An apparent corner and edge lack of sharpness for the Oly 45mm per camerlabs (some on this forum claim he got at least two bad copies of the Oly),

the inclusion of an extra lens element must surely contribute positively to the len's performance relative to the Oly,

a lens hood included,

and much closer focusing.

All for the same price as the Oly with a US warranty.

And yes, as stated in my post, I tested it at all F stops and F/5.6 is the sharpest with F/4 close. F2 is too soft (a disappointment). Being sharpest at F/5.6 rather than wider open is fine for my purposes of landscapes taken on a tripod.

At this point of my evaluation I am not sure I will keep this lens.

Have you returned the lens ?
Im about to return it, my copy is not very good below F2.5. The Samsung 45mm or the Lumix 20mm, for example, are far better.

Thanks, I have the 14-45 too and the 45 f1.8. I mainly shoot landscapes too and came to the same conclusions as you. The 45 is slightly sharper then the 14-45 @45mm but only at f5.6 and f8. Wide open and up to f2.8 it renders very nicely but not sharp edge to edge. At f4 it is about equal to the 14-45. I am not sure I remember correctly but the 14-45@45 is best at f8.

Thanks for the test, it is much appreciated!