Panasonic 20mm 1.7 Mark I or Mark II?

LMNCT wrote:

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.

Yep, this vould be true. Had them on the E-PL3, the E-M5 and the E-M1 but gave the last copy away before I purchased the GH4.

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.

The lens is fine if you can live with slow focus in low light and if you have a E-M5 you often get some banding in the shadows at ISO 1600 and up.

Personally I just ordered a 25mm f/1.7 at $99. If I'm happy with that llens my 20mm will probably be history in my photo bag.

hmzppz wrote:

hmzppz wrote:

Utter nonsense.

If facts are utter nonsense, than so be it.

Those are not "facts" -- not even close.

Yes they are. Had three of them - the first in the early days of µFT - and they all the three were just not worth the money. Save a little longer and get yourself the PanaLeica 25 1.4 or the m.Zuiko 17 1.8 and you will be a happy camper. But forget the 20 1.7. As long as sharpness isn't your only criterion, that is.

DonParrot wrote:

Yes they are. Had three of them - the first in the early days of µFT - and they all the three were just not worth the money. Save a little longer and get yourself the PanaLeica 25 1.4 or the m.Zuiko 17 1.8 and you will be a happy camper. But forget the 20 1.7. As long as sharpness isn't your only criterion, that is.

Why are you fixated with this topic ..

It is a good lens  and yes it has flaws .. but it does the job well

Ger Horgan wrote:

DonParrot wrote:

Yes they are. Had three of them - the first in the early days of µFT - and they all the three were just not worth the money. Save a little longer and get yourself the PanaLeica 25 1.4 or the m.Zuiko 17 1.8 and you will be a happy camper. But forget the 20 1.7. As long as sharpness isn't your only criterion, that is.

Why are you fixated with this topic ..

It is a good lens and yes it has flaws .. but it does the job well

Well that's easy: if I spend the money for a prime, I want prime quality.

DonParrot wrote:

Well that's easy: if I spend the money for a prime, I want prime quality.

can we see any photos you took with a so call prime quality lens ?

Ger Horgan wrote:

DonParrot wrote:

Well that's easy: if I spend the money for a prime, I want prime quality.

can we see any photos you took with a so call prime quality lens ?

Unfortuntely not. I use them virtually solely for people photography and in Germany, publishing pictures of persons without their written agreement is forbidden and can result in high fines. That's why I only show my action pics. Sorry.

Ger Horgan wrote:

DonParrot wrote:

Well that's easy: if I spend the money for a prime, I want prime quality.

can we see any photos you took with a so call prime quality lens ?

Well, I don't exactly know what this will give to you but I just remembered that I wanted to test the C-AF perfomance of the GH 4 with my 75 1.8, in 2014. This burst was just a C-AF test and doesn't say anything about the IQ that can be achieved with this outstanding lens but as I've got the impression that you seem to believe that I haven't got the lenses I'm talking about...

GH4 eith m.Zuiko 75 1.8

Here you are...

DonParrot wrote:

Ger Horgan wrote:

DonParrot wrote:

Well that's easy: if I spend the money for a prime, I want prime quality.

can we see any photos you took with a so call prime quality lens ?

Unfortuntely not. I use them virtually solely for people photography and in Germany, publishing pictures of persons without their written agreement is forbidden and can result in high fines. That's why I only show my action pics. Sorry.

Sorry to be cynical but you seem fixated with the Pana 20mm and its limitat5ions yet have no evidence to back up your claims while on the other hand I do in its defense and are you telling me you never took photos of buildings / sunsets with your GH4 - EM1 - EM5  / prime quality lens  etc ?

Any comment about this photo taken with a sub standard Pana 20mm lens and a EM10 ?

Ger Horgan wrote:

DonParrot wrote:

Ger Horgan wrote:

DonParrot wrote:

Well that's easy: if I spend the money for a prime, I want prime quality.

can we see any photos you took with a so call prime quality lens ?

Unfortuntely not. I use them virtually solely for people photography and in Germany, publishing pictures of persons without their written agreement is forbidden and can result in high fines. That's why I only show my action pics. Sorry.

Sorry to be cynical but you seem fixated with the Pana 20mm and its limitat5ions yet have no evidence to back up your claims while on the other hand I do in its defense and are you telling me you never took photos of buildings / sunsets with your GH4 - EM1 - EM5 / prime quality lens etc ?

Any comment about this photo taken with a sub standard Pana 20mm lens and a EM10 ?

Would you please show the unprocessed original? Thank you very much.

And no, I don't shoot sunsets, buildings or landscapes bevcause I'm not interested in any of these topics.
And I don't think that I have to justify my priorities. You may shoot what you want - and if you want with the mediocre 20 1.7 - and I will keep on sootting what I want with the lenses I prefer.

I believe the OP was asking about the relative merits of Mk1 20mm vs Mk2 20mm.

All these comments about 25mm/17mm alternatives and the denigration of the 20mm in general are irrelevant and OT.

DonParrot wrote:

Would you please show the unprocessed original? Thank you very much.

And no, I don't shoot sunsets, buildings or landscapes bevcause I'm not interested in any of these topics.
And I don't think that I have to justify my priorities. You may shoot what you want - and if you want with the mediocre 20 1.7 - and I will keep on sootting what I want with the lenses I prefer.

Lol why should I have to show you the unprocessed original? ..

Actually I am a photojournalist here in Dingle Co Kerry Ireland

and yes you are like a dog with a bone over the Panasonic 20mm .. to keep you happy here are some more examples with the fine lens ...

Washington DC Panasonic G3

Panasonic G3

stokey wrote:

I believe the OP was asking about the relative merits of Mk1 20mm vs Mk2 20mm.

All these comments about 25mm/17mm alternatives and the denigration of the 20mm in general are irrelevant and OT.

Excellent comment .. and opps I forgot to mention I have the Mk1 20mm ....

Ger Horgan wrote:

DonParrot wrote:

Would you please show the unprocessed original? Thank you very much.

And no, I don't shoot sunsets, buildings or landscapes bevcause I'm not interested in any of these topics.
And I don't think that I have to justify my priorities. You may shoot what you want - and if you want with the mediocre 20 1.7 - and I will keep on sootting what I want with the lenses I prefer.

Lol why should I have to show you the unprocessed original? ..

Becauae only the unprocessed original shows the numerous deficits of the lens. I diodn't know we were discussing you PP skills. But then...

stokey wrote:

I believe the OP was asking about the relative merits of Mk1 20mm vs Mk2 20mm.

All these comments about 25mm/17mm alternatives and the denigration of the 20mm in general are irrelevant and OT.

No there aren't. If somebody asks what lens to buy it always is appropriate to how him the best alternatives. If you like it or not.

DonParrot wrote:

Becauae only the unprocessed original shows the numerous deficits of the lens. I diodn't know we were discussing you PP skills. But then...

totally off topic and you know it .. I have posted how many photographs ? on this thread and not all are PP .. to keep you happy .. You do not like the lens - big deal ...

Hi Daniel,

Don't worry about the bickering, just get your lens. LOL.

Differences between mkI and mkII are merely sample variations and totally insignificant. I got my first one 6 years ago and it still is my fav lens. Tho it has to share its position with the mkII that came with my GX7 two years ago. For performance I really can't tell them apart, they both are simply wonderful. The slowness of the AF is much exaggerated. Yes, it's slower, but not by much, and once you get to know the lens, you'll find you can keep it from hunting etc.

I've had the 17mm and sold it because the 20mm is clearly sharper. I have the 14mm and don't use it much because I prefer the FL of the 20. For the same reason I even prefer it to the utterly wonderful 15mm that I also have.

Enjoy your m43 times!

Ger Horgan wrote:

DonParrot wrote:

Becauae only the unprocessed original shows the numerous deficits of the lens. I diodn't know we were discussing you PP skills. But then...

totally off topic and you know it .. I have posted how many photographs ? on this thread and not all are PP .. to keep you happy .. You do not like the lens - big deal ...

This shows exactly what I said, Unpleasant colours, a somewhat pale/flat picture rendition. Thank you very much.

DonParrot wrote:

Ger Horgan wrote:

DonParrot wrote:

Becauae only the unprocessed original shows the numerous deficits of the lens. I diodn't know we were discussing you PP skills. But then...

totally off topic and you know it .. I have posted how many photographs ? on this thread and not all are PP .. to keep you happy .. You do not like the lens - big deal ...

This shows exactly what I said, Unpleasant colours, a somewhat pale/flat picture rendition. Thank you very much.

LOL it was taken with a GX1 camera (in  low light on a summers evening) .. PS did I criticize your photos with a off topic lens ..

keep up  the good work with the GH4.. now I am ending this discussion .. your contributions to this thread are well inane

-- hide signature --

I wish I was an OLYgarch