Panasonic 20mm 1.7 Mark I or Mark II?

jeffharris wrote:

jim stirling wrote:

Ulfric M Douglas wrote:

Blimey! I just read the rest of the thread

and it seems to be all about Don Parrot's outlandish denigration of the colours and rendering of the 20mm.

Strange stuff.

If you really want to upset Don , mention how enjoyable 4k video and photography are

Just breathing would get the same result.

That's an interesting hypothesis.

jeffharris wrote:

Ulfric M Douglas 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.

The Lumix 20mm is the only bright pancake for m4/3rds.

My personal 20mm works a lot better than those with reported slow, noisy focus,

The 20mm focuses faster on Panasonic bodies. And surprisingly well in low light.

but even so

if you don't need a pancake the newer bright wideish primes would be a faster tool.

Lumix 15mm, 25mm, Zuiko 17mm, 25mm ...

If I were choosing today, I'd probably get a 15mm, but the 20mm is really quite unique in terms of size and optical performance. It's really that good… contrary to some deluded fixations.

I'd recommend to not get personal. But probably this recommendation will be in vain.

Peter Mathews wrote:

I've tried the 25/1.4 and the 25/1.8 and for sure, the 1.4 ain't worth the money...

Say no more. That's arguably why it is generally regarded as the third-best µFT prime behind the Nocticron 42.5 1.2 and the m.Zuiko 75 1.8.

That Budd car runs from Sudbury Ontario up the Canadian Pacific line to White River above Lake Superior, serving small communities that don't have roads. I want to take the trip to the end of the line and back, shooting all the way, while it still exists. Lots of lakes and rocks and trees, and rocks and trees, and.........

I also remember taking a Budd car from Toronto to Waterloo Ontario about 30 years ago.

Am glad the photo provided some good memories.

F.

FrankS009 wrote:

That Budd car runs from Sudbury Ontario up the Canadian Pacific line to White River above Lake Superior, serving small communities that don't have roads. I want to take the trip to the end of the line and back, shooting all the way, while it still exists. Lots of lakes and rocks and trees, and rocks and trees, and.........

Yeah, I drove along the North shore of Lake Superior years ago. It's amazingly beautiful. Rocks, pine trees and water. It's a bit like the Maine coast.

I also remember taking a Budd car from Toronto to Waterloo Ontario about 30 years ago.

Am glad the photo provided some good memories.

Yep! Thanks!

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.

I'm late to the party, as is often the case. Being the one who's review is linked below, I can say definitively that there are very noticeable differences between the Lumix 20mm f/1.7 MkI and MkII lenses beyond cosmetics.

Contrast and flare control are vastly improved on the MkII for one, and a slight performance bump regarding CA as well. The center sharpness might just edge toward the v2 lens, although the v1 is very sharp there too.  In the corners, it is the one place I found the v1 to outperform the v2, but again, by a remarkably small increment.  I would consider both versions to be very, very sharp.

The AF speed "issue" in my opinion is hugely overstated, and really the only problems I've ever had with this lens is in very low contrast situations, which I also see the Oly 75mm, the Oly 45mm and just about every other native m4/3 lens struggle.  One area I feel the 20mm has outperformed the O45 and 75's is that often times, I find that (again, in very low contrast/dark conditions) the Oly lenses will rack back and forth and never achieve focus while the 20mm may take 3 seconds, but gets there.  This is quite possibly down to a wider field of view, but a situational setup where we can state that one lens or another is a "slow AF" lens.  See the linked video showing the AF speed in the article to see what I mean.

Oly body vs Pana body, well, I've shot these lenses on both, and while there is certainly a more harmonious mating with the Pana bodies, it isn't a huge difference, outside the banding issue that became very prevalent on the first of the Sony sensors in the EM5 generation.  That was a bit messy, and really the only thing I'd say would deter me if I shot at or above ISO 3200+ with this lens a lot.

If you can find a v1 in good shape for $100 or so less than a v2, go for it, but I'd make sure it was in good working order.  Otherwise, I do think that the going rate for the v2 is well worth it, and in my opinion, is one of the budget gems that this system has to offer (along with the Lumix 14/2.5 and the Oly 45/1.8) making for a great, compact, lightweight setup.

Here's my review article, originally linked below if interested.

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

Thank you for your input.  I've definitely referenced your article when making my decision to get version II.  I've noticed the higher contrast of version II on flickr photos too, when looking at sample photos from v.I and v.II.  It's definitely there.  My v.II us very contrasty with a nice color punch and very sharp in the center.  Corner performance is still uncertain as I've not yet had much time with it outdoors photographing landscape type stuff.

I always found the v1 to be a little cool, especially when comparing it to the warmer, more contrasty and saturated files from the PanaLeica's (which can be a little too saturated I've found in cases, primarily when looking at certain skin).  The v2, however seems to have remedied that a little bit as well, as to my eye it isn't as flat, nor cool with its rendering.

I don't feel that the v2 is in anyway a cosmetic upgrade, myself.  Rather I do feel they slightly increased the performance in most every way on an already great little lens

Cheers,

t

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.

picture rendition is good with pale colours: use "vivid" setting on the camera. Beautiful renderings.

What I don't like - listening to it focus (ugh) and looking at it on my pretty camera (it's the ugly duckling lens )

Edit: I have mark I version.