Pany 42.5mm f/1.2 vs Oly 25mm f/1.2

I was wondering if anybody has experience with both of these lenses. I know they're different focal lengths but I'm wondering which has the advantage, strictly judging on sharpness. Would be using either on my Lumix G7. Video and stills. I've seen great reviews on both, but neither seem to come out as a superior lens.

Thanks guys.

BeardedPixelPeeper wrote:

I was wondering if anybody has experience with both of these lenses. I know they're different focal lengths but I'm wondering which has the advantage, strictly judging on sharpness. Would be using either on my Lumix G7. Video and stills. I've seen great reviews on both, but neither seem to come out as a superior lens.

Thanks guys.

Theyre both great lenses optiically. (i only have the 25).

But I feel the 25 FL is more useful, but that depends on how you shoot and what other lenses you have.

Personally 25. 1.2 should be cheaper and I would use 1.2 on a 25 more often.

On the 42.5 I would be stopping down alot (depends on what you shoot) so perhaps you can get buy with a 1.7/1.8 portrait lense instead and have both it and the 25 1.2 for the same price as the Nocticron.

I don't know why you would be tossing up between these two lenses. They're quite different. And both optically amazing. 25mm is a much more useful focal length for general photography. It's one of my favorite focal lengths. 42.5 is more a specialist lens for portraits, etc., and you will find less uses for it than 25mm.

I have both. The Panasonic 42.5 is a whole lot sharper than the Olympus 25 Pro.

The Olympus 25 has ok sharpness at f/1.2 but does not improve much by stopping down. It is not good at infinity focus either. I think the Olympus 25 is my worst landscape lens as all my other lenses (m43) seems sharper stopped down at infinity focus.

The 25 Pro is a disappointment. It has low contrast and is not particularly sharp.
It does have nice rendering and build quality, but you would expect so considering the price.

Wide open, the M.Zuiko 25mm is very sharp in the center of the image but a little soft on the sides. From F/2,0 it’s sharp all over.

When the lens was new to me, I’ve tried it under many different situations but at the end, it became my favorite prime at museums: at F/2,0 for paintings and F/1,2 for close-ups of sculptures.

I also like it for nighttime photography, as a automatic-focusing substitute for the Voigtländer 25mm F/0,95.

Here are some shots published mostly with that lens (beware: in the lot, there might be some taken with different 25mm lenses):
https://jpmartel.quebec/?s=25mm (skip the French text)

The Lumix-Leica 42,5mm is a totally different beast. For close-up photography, it doesn’t have to be as close to the subject as the M.Zuiko 25mm F/1,2.

Moreover, it’s bokeh is unique. I just love it.

It’s my favourite lens for close-ups of relatively small flowers:
https://jpmartel.quebec/?s=42%2C5mm (skip the French text)

BeardedPixelPeeper wrote:

I was wondering if anybody has experience with both of these lenses. I know they're different focal lengths but I'm wondering which has the advantage, strictly judging on sharpness. Would be using either on my Lumix G7. Video and stills. I've seen great reviews on both, but neither seem to come out as a superior lens.

Thanks guys.

In terms of focal length, you'd go 25 when you don't have the luxury of changing lenses or carrying 2 bodies. Kinda like a zoom that doesn't zoom.

In terms of image quality, you'd go Noct if you want to capture a lot of details (tack sharp) , M.Zuiko if you take a lot of portraits (it's flatteringly sharp, sort of like softly sharp, it's still very sharp lens trust me). It's just you don't want to show too much natural imperfections in portraits IMO.

Check out Red35 Photography

If you go by those tests that measure sharpness, the Nocticron is sharper than the 25mm f/1.2.  However, it's worth mentioning that the Olympus 45mm f/1.2 out-resolves even the Nocticron, and currently has the distinction of being the sharpest lens on the system (with the second-sharpest being the Panasonic 200mm f/2.8).  Again, this is all based strictly on measurements.

I don't own the Nocticron on the 45mm f/1.2, but I do own the 25mm f/1.2  It's not critically sharp; I can usually tell it apart from my 12-100mm f/4 by sharpness, and indeed, lens testing shows that the 12-100mm has better resolving power, which is pretty surprising.  I also own the 17mm f/1.2 and I -think- it's sharper, but sometimes it's less clear to me.  I considered selling the 25mm f/1.2 after getting the 17mm f/1.2 but there's something special about the way images appear; I really like it, and some of my favorite family photos were taken with that lens.  As people often like to say, there's more to an image than how closely you can pixel-peep, and so I continue to keep and use my 25mm f/1.2.

But if Olympus ever remade it and gave it the sharpness boost people expect, I'd be very tempted to sell mine and purchase the new version.

I use the 25 mostly between 1.2 and 2.8 I very rarely use it at F4 or higher, because I usually take portraits of people/kids in small groups 1-3.

The lens is very sharp @ 1.2 - (not record breaking) but only a fool could fault its sharpness. Its not the clinical type of sharpness you find on the other Olympus lenses - there is a different somewhat very natural looking sharpness, zoomed in 100% you can really see its very sharp. It does improve slightly up to 1.8/ F2 but I think from F2 onwards sharpness improvement is probably negligible, perhaps only in the corners.

But thats just my version and how I perceive it - there are obviously websites which test this sort of thing. The Imaging resource review mirrors my experience with it:

"Sharpness
The lens does not disappoint: it is very sharp right out of the gate at ƒ/1.2 and offers tack-sharp edge-to-edge sharpness by ƒ/2. You can stop down further if you want, but it doesn't garner substantially more image sharpness."

Sigma is known for excellent sharpness, but sharpness sometimes comes at a cost of "character" i.e. very clinical. I feel sometimes that my Olympus 45 1.8 is sometimes like this, and other olympus lenses are known for this.

In my opinion the idea of sharpness can be overrated. Call me crazy - but sometimes I prefer a softer overall image to a very sharp one. Some of my fav images are from my voigt 17 @ F0.95 -- and no the image background is not a blurry mess, infact very recognisable - but the overall softness of the image including the subject adds a very dramatic, cinematic quality.

Of course it depends on the images you make - there are times where absolute sharpness is critical, like a large group photo with lots of small faces. But for my type of shooting it i will consider the overall "look" and quality the lens produces, sharpness I think once it reaches an acceptable level loses its importance.

P.S. a 25 is not the most ideal FL for large group photos you have to backup quite a bit...

P.S. a 25 is not the most ideal FL for large group photos you have to backup quite a bit...

My rule of thumb for ordinary social settings, where you are taking photos of people facing you at a "normal" distance:

45mm will do 1 person well

25mm will do 2-3 people well

20mm will do 4-8 well  - my favorite

12mm will do 20 well

I think the lack of sharpness in the smaller apertures is a compromise to achieve the beautiful back ground blur and wide open performance. We know Olympus can make super sharp lenses, this lens uses a different philosophy. That being said it's still a very sharp lens at all FL but I guess doesn't improve exponentially as other lenses do when stopped down. Also I think the lower contrast adds to the the illusion it may be less sharp than it is. But I like the less contrasty images, if you post process many prefer a flatter image to work with, and contrast is easily fixed post or even in camera while shooting. I find my self reducing contrast in alot of images after applying the Olympus profiles in Lightroom.

rueil wrote:

I have both. The Panasonic 42.5 is a whole lot sharper than the Olympus 25 Pro.

The Olympus 25 has ok sharpness at f/1.2 but does not improve much by stopping down. It is not good at infinity focus either. I think the Olympus 25 is my worst landscape lens as all my other lenses (m43) seems sharper stopped down at infinity focus.

The 25 Pro is a disappointment. It has low contrast and is not particularly sharp.
It does have nice rendering and build quality, but you would expect so considering the price.

Okay. My error. I’ve since used the Olympus 25 Pro more and started to love it. In fact, is my most used lens this year. My mistake was comparing it in sharpness to the likes of other 50mm primes I’ve had experience with. My point about sharpness at infinity (landscapes) and poor contrast in back lit situations still stands as it can not compare to the likes of other brands top 50mm and even other lenses within the MFT system.

But the rendering and close up sharpness for environmental portraits is very good. The out of focus transitions with smooth bokeh gives to very pleasing images. It really is a beauty within the MFT system.

BeardedPixelPeeper wrote:

I was wondering if anybody has experience with both of these lenses. I know they're different focal lengths but I'm wondering which has the advantage, strictly judging on sharpness. Would be using either on my Lumix G7. Video and stills. I've seen great reviews on both, but neither seem to come out as a superior lens.

Thanks guys

I have both of these lenses use them for portraits and events and weddings..Both are especially great for producing smooth bokeh esp in HSS photos....You really Know how a lens performs when photographing weddings when you are continually switching from one camera to the other with these two lenses on them... Both lenses are equally exceptional in sharpness, responsiveness with beautiful bokeh...I don't really shot much video but for photography if you can add both to your collection..DO IT

BeardedPixelPeeper wrote:

I was wondering if anybody has experience with both of these lenses. I know they're different focal lengths but I'm wondering which has the advantage, strictly judging on sharpness. Would be using either on my Lumix G7. Video and stills. I've seen great reviews on both, but neither seem to come out as a superior lens.

Thanks guys.

Both of them are so damn sharp that sharpness is a complete non-factor. The large FL difference is a huge factor. Are you shopping for a lens to use for photography?