Panasonic 20mm 1.7 Mark I or Mark II?

I'm looking for a fast lens for my Olympus E-M10 Mk 1, and these Panasonic 20mms look perfect for me.

I don't have a big budget, hence the lens options. I'm looking around at used lenses, and it looks like the mark 2 is about $50-$100 more than its predecessor. What advantages does it have, if any? Should I spend the extra cash? Also, these lenses will work fine on my Olympus camera, right?

Thanks.

I wouldn't buy this lens. It's sharp but that was that. The picture rendition is poor with pale colours, unpleasant bokeh and a somehow flat picture impression. And it focuses slowly. So yes it's cheap but not well-priced. The only reason for its still good reputation is the fact that it was the first fast prime in µFT land. Look for a used 25 1.4 or 17 1.7 or 17 1.8. All these lenses will give you far more pleasure.

EarthQuake wrote:

danielhep wrote:

I'm looking for a fast lens for my Olympus E-M10 Mk 1, and these Panasonic 20mms look perfect for me.

I don't have a big budget, hence the lens options. I'm looking around at used lenses, and it looks like the mark 2 is about $50-$100 more than its predecessor. What advantages does it have, if any? Should I spend the extra cash? Also, these lenses will work fine on my Olympus camera, right?

Thanks.

No difference between I and II other than cosmetics. This lens is fully compatible with Olympus M43 camera bodies. Get the MK1 if it's cheaper.

Saying that, unless the ~40mm equiv FOV or small size are the main reasons you're looking at this lens, I would go with one of the 25mm lenses instead, because the 20/1.7 hunts quite a bit when focusing in low light on Olympus bodies, and causes banding on bodies with the 16MP sony sensor, which is most of of the current gen olys.

Okay, but then I'm looking at $300-$350, at which point I may as well go for the Olympus 17mm 1.8.

You may have a bad copy. Your description doesn't resemble mine.

F.

FrankS009 wrote:

You may have a bad copy. Your description doesn't resemble mine.

F.

Had three of them before I gave up. Of course, you can compensate for most of the lenses deficits if you shoot raw and push the buttons until the result is to your liking but why should I ourchase a prime at all if it forces me to do so?

as you can see already, the 20 Panny inspires a lot of love vs. hate.  Me, I am in the love it category.  I urge you to read up on it and not make a hasty decision one way or the other -- search the forum and you will find lots of threads that flesh out the issues.  In any event, I have one and have used it on an E-Pl2 and on my current E-M10.  The lens is sharp.  Really sharp. Ridiculously sharp.   As for its demerits, read up on the banding issue -- it is limited to certain shooting parameters that you may never fall within when shooting.  I have had mine for 3 years and have NEVER experienced the banding issue because I don't shoot within the parameters where the issue has been found.  Same with the AF issue.  The 20 is a bit slower to focus than more recent vintage m4/3 lenses due to its design but again, whether that will handicap you is dependent on how or what you intend to shoot with the lens.  Here is a handheld shot in low light.

No focus issue with this shot -- and the light was pretty miserable. I shot in the Smithsonian A and S Museum with this lens exclusively for several hours, frequently in some of the darker galleries like the one above.

I will agree that the rendering of out of focus areas can be a weak point for this lens.  But if you like the efl 40mm frame for your shooting (I prefer it to the efl 50mm or efl 35mm), then you should give strong consideration to the Panny 20.

DonParrot wrote:

I wouldn't buy this lens. It's sharp but that was that. The picture rendition is poor with pale colours, unpleasant bokeh and a somehow flat picture impression. And it focuses slowly. So yes it's cheap but not well-priced. The only reason for its still good reputation is the fact that it was the first fast prime in µFT land. Look for a used 25 1.4 or 17 1.7 or 17 1.8. All these lenses will give you far more pleasure.

WOW, is that ever a harsh characterization !

There's almost no way the lens would have made it to Mark II if that was anywhere near true.

DonParrot wrote:

I wouldn't buy this lens. It's sharp but that was that. The picture rendition is poor with pale colours, unpleasant bokeh and a somehow flat picture impression.

Heh, I'll join with those who urge you not to listen to DonParrot.  If you're on somewhat of a budget and buying used, get the 20.  The majority of users (based on my sense of years of comments here) think it's a great lens.  It's small, reasonably priced, very sharp, and fast.  It can be slow focusing if it has to hunt, but if you end up not liking it, you can probably sell it for what you pay for it.

As for v.1 versus v.2, the v.1 was my first MFT lens, I've always liked it.  I got a v.2 with a camera bundle, and it looked better and was quieter.  In my testing, though, I thought my v.1 might have better IQ.  Perhaps my imagination, but I knew and had confidence in the v.1 lens, so I kept that and sold the v.2 lens.  Maybe it was just sample variation.  I'd say go for the best deal.

Mark II has greater contrast. Review here for an example:

https://tysonrobichaudphotography.wordpress.com/2013/12/19/panasonic-lumix-2020-vision-v-1-vs-v-2/

I've also looked through flickr samples in a 20mm f/1.7 group, and I can see that on average v2 photos are more contrasty.

Hi

If you love the 40mm FOV them it is a fine lens that can focus slowly in poor light sometimes. If you prefer the 35mm FOV them the Oly 17mm 1.8 is a better and fine bet.

The Pana 20mm is truly great for across the table and is good for general walkaround use. When out and about I prefer the 35mm FOV though which is why I also have the Voight 17.5mm

I have the 20mm mkii and in general really enjoy using it and the results are usually very good, however I do know what Don Parrot is talking about as I have also seen a few (only one or two) shots like that from my 20mm.

One shot I took I thought I had the OMD on one of it's arty farty settings where you can dial in/out a specific colour, it was that bad, pity I deleted it...

I would still recommend this lens though as I use it a lot and am 99% impressed with it's rendering.

Then again, if you can still get the 25mm for $99 (and can live with that focal length and physical size) then it's probably the better option.

RedDog Steve wrote:

DonParrot wrote:

I wouldn't buy this lens. It's sharp but that was that. The picture rendition is poor with pale colours, unpleasant bokeh and a somehow flat picture impression. And it focuses slowly. So yes it's cheap but not well-priced. The only reason for its still good reputation is the fact that it was the first fast prime in µFT land. Look for a used 25 1.4 or 17 1.7 or 17 1.8. All these lenses will give you far more pleasure.

WOW, is that ever a harsh characterization !

There's almost no way the lens would have made it to Mark II if that was anywhere near true.

I suppose that's what living in a parallel universe gets you.

From what I've read the 20mm I is a bit sharper in the center, while version 2 is generally sharper across the frame. Version 2 is nicer looking, for what that's worth.

hmzppz wrote:

Utter nonsense.

If facts are utter nonsense, than so be it.

SidSnot wrote:

I have the 20mm mkii and in general really enjoy using it and the results are usually very good, however I do know what Don Parrot is talking about as I have also seen a few (only one or two) shots like that from my 20mm.

One shot I took I thought I had the OMD on one of it's arty farty settings where you can dial in/out a specific colour, it was that bad, pity I deleted it...

I would still recommend this lens though as I use it a lot and am 99% impressed with it's rendering.

Then again, if you can still get the 25mm for $99 (and can live with that focal length and physical size) then it's probably the better option.

I really hope that nobody is taking this reoly personal but this is a typical case of "I've git it so it must be could. Why would i have purchased an inferuir lens. 
But the truth is that there is/are just one - or possibly two - µFT primes than the Lumix 20 1.7: definitely the m.zuiko 17 2.8 pancake lens and possibly the Lumix 15 2.5.

Sharpness isn't the only factor that counts for a good picture. Far from it. Although everybody seems to believe it.

Is there a possibility that your experience might be the interaction of your camera body with the lens? I use Panasonic bodies, have four of them at the present time plus the original and the "Mark II" 20 1.7. It is faster to focus on the current bodies and I have never had a color issue with either lens. Still sharp and snappy.