25mm f1.7 comparison shots...disappointed

A couple of centre crops at 100% from shots taken with the 25/1.7 at f/5.6 and the 12-32/3.5-5.6 at 25mm f/5.6. The second looks distinctly sharper to me although both shots were processed in exactly the same way from raw files with only default sharpening applied.

I think the 25/1.7 suffers from a lack of contrast in the fine detail which makes the image look slightly fuzzy in comparison to the second image.

25mm f/1.7 lens at f/5.6

12-32mm lens at 25mm f/5.6

Fair enough. I tend to like it as an indoor portrait lens for the grandchildren where the 45mm is just too tight. Sharpness at the edges is probably not an issue under these circumstances and I find it OK.

It is very difficult to do these comparison tests and I never mind people just giving an opinion on a lens. My main problem with the lens is its size and I just find nothing comes near to the Samsung NX 30mm for size and sharpness in my price range just based on the buzz of a picture rather than pixel peeping.

MatsP wrote:

It delivers f1.7 which my other lenses do not. I think the sharpness thing rather misses the point of a fast lens avoiding high ISO's which lead to smudging and worst of all colour contrast loss. Of course if you can afford a more expensive lens it may perform better but that hardly needs discussion.

MatsP wrote:

..now I know I don't need that lens. It's definitely cheap, but a cheap lens that doesn't deliver is just disappointing. Like the Sigma 19/2.8 was to me to take another example.

True, if I shot in bad light regularly I would have considered it. But I don't do that very much. I was close to get the lens, which is about 2500 SEK here, near 300 USD, but this thread gave me a feeling that's too much for this lens. If I get a 25 mm prime I want it at least as sharp as my 12-40 otherwise I don't think I would use it much.

Fair enough. I tend to like it as an indoor portrait lens for the grandchildren where the 45mm is just too tight. Sharpness at the edges is probably not an issue under these circumstances and I find it OK.

It is very difficult to do these comparison tests and I never mind people just giving an opinion on a lens. My main problem with the lens is its size and I just find nothing comes near to the Samsung NX 30mm for size and sharpness in my price range just based on the buzz of a picture rather than pixel peeping.

MatsP wrote:

It delivers f1.7 which my other lenses do not. I think the sharpness thing rather misses the point of a fast lens avoiding high ISO's which lead to smudging and worst of all colour contrast loss. Of course if you can afford a more expensive lens it may perform better but that hardly needs discussion.

MatsP wrote:

..now I know I don't need that lens. It's definitely cheap, but a cheap lens that doesn't deliver is just disappointing. Like the Sigma 19/2.8 was to me to take another example.

True, if I shot in bad light regularly I would have considered it. But I don't do that very much. I was close to get the lens, which is about 2500 SEK here, near 300 USD, but this thread gave me a feeling that's too much for this lens. If I get a 25 mm prime I want it at least as sharp as my 12-40 otherwise I don't think I would use it much.

That is the same reason I bought the lens and for that it's fine . I would prefer a smaller lens. If this lens isn't as sharp as the OP's kit lens there is something wrong. He may have a bad copy. I'd return ASAP. My copy is very even across the frame .
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/90891174@N04/

It is possible it's sample variation. There is a link on anither thread concerning tests Lenstip conducted on various lenses to determine sample variation. It was very surprising at least for me. I'm not doubting the OP but I agree that the price influenced people's perception. I think the was a lot of impulse buying involved with this lens. I was on the fence about this lens when I first got it. I have used it so far about 95% indoors at f1.7 and the results are very good.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/90891174@N04/

Hen3ry wrote:

But then, I can't download those full frame files. how about posting a 100% crop or three after you have done a somewhat more valid test. Base ISO, brighter light (with a bit of contrast in it).

I like the test subject, actually, but it needs to have cross lighting on it.

The 14-42 II is a very, very good lens, by the way.

Here are few more shots in differing light, a few with center crops in bright side light, Henry.

All were shot as OOC JPG at 200 ISO, Standard Photo Style with no additional mods other than setting NR to minimum -5 (at which it's always set for minimum NR in camera.  I prefer, when needed, to use other software for NR.)  The camera was on a tripod.  No software mods of any kind were applied other than cropping and re-saving as compressed JPG.  (Nikon Capture NX-2)

My take so far:  The 25mm 1.7 lacks the center sharpness I'd hoped to see, although I agree it holds the same level of sharpness across the frame.  The faster aperture does aid in low light focusing and lowers ISO and it appears to be as sharp wide open as stopped down, though again, sharpness isn't it's long suit.  It's a larger lens than one would think it needed to be when comparing it to the Panny 20mm or Olympus 25mm f1.8.  I've found mine to slightly miss focus with AF more often than my other lenses as well, which is why I've shot at least 3-4 shots each time, refocusing after each shot and picking the best one.  Personally, I think it's related to the fact the center sharpness of the lens isn't quite to the standard of the other tested lenses.

In summary:  It's well worth the price paid during Black Friday, however, at full list price, I'd be inclined to purchase the Olympus model, even if slightly more expensive.  It's smaller, has an  insignificant difference in max aperture.  Or, the Panny 20mm f1.7 which has a great rep for sharpness and is very compact.  (In fact, that may be the way I'll go.  I do like that focal length for general shooting.)

The photos are posted only for information for others who may be interested in this lens.  My opinion is only that....an opinion....which each of us has.  Remember, this is only one example and may be on the lower end of the spectrum regarding sharpness.  Nevertheless, at print sizes under 11"x14" the difference is most probably not visible, and, at the price for which it's been available, nothing else (new) comes close with that max aperture.  I'll be keeping it.

25mm @ f2.8

14-42 Kit Zoom wide open (f5.3) @ 25mm

Sigma 30mm wide open @ f2.8

center crop 14-42II kit zoom wide open

Center crop 25mm f1.7

Center crop 25mm f3.2

Center crop Sigma 30mm wide open @ f2.8

May your next year be an enjoyable one!

Warren

Lol. You're trying to tell me you can see a difference in sharpness on your phone, with images compressed to the size of a postage stamp? Pull the other one

Yes that's exactly what I did. Your answer indicates that I was right, doesn't it? Look at the bike tyre. It's a huge difference, also on my small Samsung A3 screen.

Sorry, but if you're seeing "huge" differences when viewing postage stamp sized images on a phone, then the issues aren't with the lens being used. Bit of a reality check required I think. And in the same vein. I take pictures to view as a whole. Not obsess over tiny portions viewed at 200% Do you sit a foot away from your big screen TV and pick every tiny fault? It's all about the big picture. Pun intended

PS there are differences between lenses. No argument. But are they large enough to consign one to the cheap rubbish category? Not from what I'm seeing

Bok7h wrote:

The major difference between your pics and Big D in SP pics is here :

Settings of Big D in SP 's camera :

Contrast : Normal

Saturation : Normal

Sharpness : Normal

Settings of your camera :

Contrast : High

Saturation : High

Sharpness : Hard

Try another tests with "normal" settings for the real world

Ahhhhh...............No. All photos were shot in raw. Converted to dng as none of my photo software will open GX8  raw. Pretty sure dng wipes all manufacturer specific embedded profiles/settings from the raw files. Not 100% sure, could quite likely be wrong. Then all photos were adjusted with pretty much the same settings in LR, & resized. Maybe a tiny bit more or less shadow/highlight tweaks, depending on the direction of the light. As I do with every lens I own. That's it. No special treatment for a particular lens. They are my "normal" settings.  I'm pretty sure even the in camera jpeg engine applies different settings with different lenses, even if you use the same in camera settings with each lens. Going by what the dngs from my 14 2.5 look like compared to others.

John King wrote:

Warren, a couple of real world shots that show the de-centred lens output (or not, as the case may be ... ).

Left and right sides obviously different in sharpness:

Both sides look OK, in original as well as in the uploaded, re-sized image:

In almost all shots, this de-centring cannot be noticed.

Not enough to give me concern, but it would if it were a far more expensive lens, for a different purpose and where this mattered.

Boy, John, I really like the second shot.  Very creative.  As for the decentering caused softness, it's very, very difficult to see in these images because of the subjects.  Looking intently at the extreme left and right sides, I MAY be able to notice a very slight softening...or not.  It certainly doesn't have any negative impact on the photo.

Thanks for your response and the images, John.

Some old sailing friends of my wife have been in Melbourne recently celebrating the memory of an old Australian sailing buddy who recently passed away after a long fight with ALS.  He lived in the Caribbean for many years but returned last year for medical care in the final months of his life.  They all have nothing but great respect for Aussies and Australia.

You must be in the New Year already, so let me wish you a Happy 2016.

Warren

Mine is about as sharp in the center as my Panny 14-45 at F 5.6 and for practical purposes about as sharp as my Sigma 19 which isn't too bad as far as can be seen so far, add to that a greater ability to control DOF, and to shoot in lower light and I'm a happy camper. Testing at ISO 1600 isn't the best, and it does seem that there is some variation among the same products. Mine seems to do better at ISO 1600 even on my pitiful 12mp sensor than these pics show. Curious is the NR is turned all the way up? forgetting if the OP's are from Raw or Jpg. The only thing I find lacking with mine is some contrast, which is easily cured in post...and maybe some glow with strong side lighting at wider apertures even with the hood, but haven't tried enough shots like that to be sure, since all it's done is rain or snow here.