25mm f1.7 comparison shots...disappointed

Big D in SP wrote:

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.

May your next year be an enjoyable one!

Warren -- that's terrific; everyone interested in this lens should be your friend. A great set of examples.

After I posted, I actually thought: "Hey, Geoffrey, what sort of a demanding smart a*se are you?" I was embarrassed and went back to delete the post. But unfortunately -- or fortunately a it turns out -- I was too late, someone had already looked at it.

The Sigma certainly has an edge but is some of that higher contrast in the sigma picture -- or slightly more exposure? The white is whiter; the light tones in the white are much fainter or not there at all. The Panny lens is very close at 3.2 though.

If I had this lens, I wonder whether this would be a continuing niggle for me. I do have this thing about quality tools within reason (i.e. the kind of reason that comes from my pocket!) but it is modified by the kind of use I expect to get from it.

For example: not quite as sharp? But is it within one step (whatever that is) of minimum PP sharpening to match the sharpness I would get from the Leica equivalent which would cost a month's rent? If I were specializing in landscape work with the lens, then maybe the Leica would be the go. But for just general shooting? Hmmm… Alternatively, would the 30mm of the Sigma narrow the FOV enough to rule it out? (That Sigma is actually an APS-C lens, I believe -- it must be a total killer in that format.)

The question of focus. I don't know whether you have ever tried this, but take a newspaper spread, stick it to the wall, rule a black line down it about 2/3rds of the way into one side, then photograph that at an angle of about 30-45 degrees from the plane of the wall. Focus on the black line. Look at the sharpness of the type each side of the line for front focusing or back focusing.

For longer distances, you have the perfect target there -- the picket fence. just add a target to one picket, then focus on that, shooting at an angle. Any focusing error will be obvious.

Once again, Warren, thank you for a very informative and well executed response to Mr Smartypants!

And the very best of New Year wishes to you.

although I wouldn't say it was huge, 2&3 look sharper. They also look richer in colour, the dents in the VW are better defined as well as the green stalks of grass vs the brown ones which look a little mushy.

speedync wrote:

Hen3ry wrote:

Once again, Warren, thank you for a very informative and well executed response to Mr Smartypants!

If you're going to make snide remarks about someone, at least have the decency to quote them, or address them directly/in a forthright manner. The only thing I did was point out that his testing method was rather flawed. In my experience. If you can't tolerate a bit of straight forward, direct input or discussion, don't resort to name calling.

Hey, Speedy, relax mate ...

The "Mr Smartypants" that Geoff was referring to was his own good self

speedync wrote:

harveysteeves wrote:

although I wouldn't say it was huge, 2&3 look sharper. They also look richer in colour, the dents in the VW are better defined as well as the green stalks of grass vs the brown ones which look a little mushy.

Yes, I agree with that too. But definitely not a "huge" difference. And certainly not visible on a phone screen at the size of a postage stamp.

I disagree. I looked at your pictures on my phone. I think the difference is clear in the first pair of photos. I didn't see a huge difference between the second two photos.

The fact that there's a noticeable difference at smart phone scale doesn't bode well for this lens. I have one ordered and I'll be comparing it with my Wesley 24mm cctv lens. If it's at least as good as the Wesley I'll keep it for the autofocus, but if it's not significantly better that'll be pretty disappointing.

You could probably get closer, if you processed each a little differently. Not so sure about the colour personally, but I think the contrast is a little better. A lot, or some of it could also be the light, or direction of light, and bumping the shadows up a tad more & losing a little bit of contrast.

I'm not one to take a million test shots of a brick wall, or test target, blow up to 200% & compare side by side. I'd much much rather go out shooting, & if there's any issues that come to light, look at how to work around them. However that may be. When going through my photo's, I've more often than not had to look at the exif to see what lens was used. Because I process them individually, not side by side making continuous comparisons. To me, that doesn't point towards a poor quality, rubbish lens that's worth 50 bucks or less. But that's just me.

speedync wrote:

John King wrote:

speedync wrote:

Hen3ry wrote:

Once again, Warren, thank you for a very informative and well executed response to Mr Smartypants!

If you're going to make snide remarks about someone, at least have the decency to quote them, or address them directly/in a forthright manner. The only thing I did was point out that his testing method was rather flawed. In my experience. If you can't tolerate a bit of straight forward, direct input or discussion, don't resort to name calling.

Hey, Speedy, relax mate ...

The "Mr Smartypants" that Geoff was referring to was his own good self

Ahhh. Okay then. If that's the case, then I apologize, and the mods should feel free to delete my post.

Yes, relax, speedy. You didn't take note of the first paragraph of my second post. But we're all good. Thanks forr clarifying it, John.

Henry Richardson wrote:

The lens is US$249.99 so not that cheap.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1182677-REG/panasonic_h_h025k_25mm_f_1_7_lens_for.html

Still.... not really expensive.

Here in the USA, Panasonic was blowing them out right before Christmas for $99, which had to qualify for "deal of the year" honors.

Now I notice a great many brand new copies on Ebay being resold for $175 or so. It looks like some folks spotted a business opportunity at that price.

someone selling NIB for $150.00.  Ad has been up for quite a while though.

nebulla wrote:

Big D in SP wrote:

I finally received the new Panasonic 25mm f1.7 lens yesterday afternoon. Initial shots with it were disappointing, so today I compared shots with various lenses on both my G7 and G6. At first, I wasn't sure the 25mm was focusing accurately since the images were visibly "unsharp" So, this afternoon I did some careful comparisons.

Long story short, the lens is, simply, only worth the $49 price it cost during the Adorama Black Friday Sale. The 14-42II kit zoom is sharper at 25mm at its widest available aperture than the 25mm stopped down to equivalent aperture. The Sigma 30mm, which is nice and sharp, though nowhere near the equal of the 60mm, is significantly sharper than the 25mm. I felt the lens would at least equal the Sigma. It doesn't.

Following are some comparison shots which display the difference for anyone who may be interested.

Of course, quality of product can vary. This may simply be a poor example, but it doesn't encourage me. I'd send it back but for fact it came as a package with the G7 and 14-140, neither of which is going back! They are both superb. Unfortunately, this lens is not.

Have a Happy New Year, everyone!
Warren

Hi Warren,

Having just received the Panny 25mm f1.7 myself today I was interested in doing some test to see how it performed.

I printed out two copies of the USAF 1951 resolution test chart (on an 8.5"x11",) pinned them against the wall 5 feet away, and shot images off a tripod with:

1. Panasonic 25mm f1.7
2. Olympus 25mm f1.8
3. Panasonic 20mm f1.7
4. Panasonic 14-42mm f3.5-5.6 (dialed in to 25mm focal)

I shot each at f1.8, f2.8, f3.5, and f4.5 (except for the Panasonic 14-42mm which I only shot at f4.6) and examined the area just right of center and about 1/3 of the way off the the left.

All shots were RAW and at 320 ISO!

This was an interesting and eye opening experience. At that distance, each lens was able to resolve as good or slightly better than my eye. I looked at the images at 1:1 on a 4K monitor and while not really a scientific test - I found the following (in summary)

A) At f1.8 , the resolution (without moving the tripod forward) of the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 was as good at the Panasonic 25mm f1.7

B) The Olympus 25mm f1.8 had better resolution near the center until 3.6 when the Panasonic 25mm f1.7 matched it for near center and off center resolution.

C) At f4.6 the Panasonic 14-42mm and Olympus 25mm f1.8 were resolving about the same near the center, but the Panasonic 25mm f1.7 was slightly better than both.

Overall, they were all pretty close except the Olympus 25mm at f2.8 where it's center resolution was about two chart steps better than my eye.

Conclusion: When I looked at some of the Dxo scores for the Panasonic 25mm f1.7 and the Sigma 30mm F2.8 I found it interesting that some they have the same resolving / sharpness (of 8Mpix) but the Panasonic 25mm has much more distortion but it's ability to transmit light is probably what's bumping it up in the overall score.

I do think that the contrast of the Panasonic 25mm is not as good as other lenses, and I also noticed that it seems a bit like the focal length is more like 27mm (or it could be the Olympus 25mm is a little wider than 25mm) either way one of them is off for sure.

If someone is buying the Panasonic 25mm for sharpness, that's really not what it's strong at (I think it's probably within the range of a lot of other lenses out there) but if one is looking for Depth of field, light transmission, or maybe it's Bokeh characteristics, then it's not a bad choice depending on what you expect to do with the output. I suppose someone that uses Lightroom regularly will get the best out of the lens.

The Panasonic 25mm f1.7 seems to be going for about $50 U.S. less than the Olympus 25mm f1.8 - but the center sharpness of the Olympus at a more useful f2.8 is probably worth more (or should I say the $50 discount on the Panasonic for a bit of softness where it would be expected to be sharper isn't the right trade-off).

most of the shots here were done with this lens

https://picasaweb.google.com/110955796927925538104/December2015

Well, if I could find my golf magazines that had  Michele and Alexis on the covers, I might be tempted to go outside in subfreezing temperatures to replicate that test with my 25mm, using my 20mm as the control lens. But the half dozen back issues I have  all contain boring cover photos, and nzimmers already has reported in.

I have this lens, thanks to learning about the  $99 sale. I enjoy using this lens and am happy with it.

baxters wrote:

Well, if I could find my golf magazines that had Michele and Alexis on the covers, I might be tempted to go outside in subfreezing temperatures to replicate that test with my 25mm, using my 20mm as the control lens. But the half dozen back issues I have all contain boring cover photos, and nzimmers already has reported in.

I have this lens, thanks to learning about the $99 sale. I enjoy using this lens and am happy with it.

Ummmm..... you totally need to find that magazine issue - FOR THE INTEREST OF SCIENCE !!

-NZ

Tony8232 wrote:

I agree with you, there is nothing wrong with the sharpness of the Panasonic 25 f/1.7. My copy is much better than the OP's. Contrast seems OK on my sample anyway. The biggest drawback of the lens for me is its size. I also noticed the focal length to be about 27mm..

This ~27mm focal length is something that really has me scratching my head and thinking....

My Theories:

a) Engineered that way as a couple of extra mm's of focal length helped straighten out some performance issues (maybe with CA or distortion) and Panasonic hoped no one would notice/care

b) Factory in China was rushing production to make a big shipment and skipped an adjustment step or something else was out of tolerance. QA caught the issue and two weeks went by while Panasonic considered options and finally determined 1) They would pay factory but at a fraction of the agreed cost due to the error and 2) Panasonic hoped no one would notice/care, especially since they would be selling it at a reduced price during the holidays, and 3) every sale of a Panasonic 25mm(~ish) means one less sale of an Olympus 25mm.

Honestly, could this not be something that would be addressed through warranty?