This is what a MFT lens should be

kentwosheds wrote:

Owned this lens for years now, and with my GX7 it’s an ideal walkabout lens.
...
A must have lens.

I've owned this lens for years too - and have never used it.

aukhawk wrote:

kentwosheds wrote:

Owned this lens for years now, and with my GX7 it’s an ideal walkabout lens.
...
A must have lens.

I've owned this lens for years too - and have never used it.

So it seems "must have" is not the same as "must use"

Osa25 wrote:

tomhongkong wrote:

Sranang Boi wrote:

I looked at the 20mm f1.7 but ended up keeping the 15mm f1.7 instead. Far faster in focusing, sharper, wider, bigger dynamic range. That's why I like using it after dawn.

It's a lens with a 'cult' following who cannot see the failings, slow to focus and not especially sharp. I bought an Oly 25/1.8 and could not believe the difference the Oly was so sharp, so posted several samples from the 20mm and ask if people though they were normal. I was reassured that they were.

I sold the 20mm and kept the 25 (I would not have done that if I thought I was selling a dud, without declaring it).

It's not the only lens which attracts unreasonably good or bad comments on this forum, based on a few vociferous contributors.

Other examples would be the Oly 40-150 (slow version) ...over-rated

Panny 45-200mm either version....under-rated

Now I will take cover!

tom

(there is no substitute for trying out a lens yourself!)

The 20mm is one of to top all time sellers on M43 by units sold. That’s no “cult” - it’s a proven product that’s extremely popular with customers. And without a Leica label either.

yet all criticism applies: It's a darn slow focuser and sharp but not 'extremely' sharp.

It has however a special rendering and I think what I really like the most is its FOV which is the closest to 'mine'. I also have the 17/1.8 from Olympus and the 25/1.7 from pânasonic.

I much prefer the 17/1.8 for its focusing speed, manual operation, feel and size, but the 20 has the fov that matches me, most likke the old Konica Hexanon 40/1.8 had (ans still does on my A7rii)

tedolf wrote:

Yeah, but what about the Panny 25mm f/1.7 ?

Compact, lite weight, sharp wide open and $99.00 usd when introduced.

Now THAT is why I call a m4/3 lens!

Tedolph

IT is the least used lens I have.

In the territory of the 20 and 17 I tend to use the 25 a lot less.

Not saying it's a bad lens. Just that FOV never really got me in..

Osa25 wrote:

Felice62 wrote:

Osa25 wrote:

tomhongkong wrote:

Sranang Boi wrote:

I looked at the 20mm f1.7 but ended up keeping the 15mm f1.7 instead. Far faster in focusing, sharper, wider, bigger dynamic range. That's why I like using it after dawn.

It's a lens with a 'cult' following who cannot see the failings, slow to focus and not especially sharp. I bought an Oly 25/1.8 and could not believe the difference the Oly was so sharp, so posted several samples from the 20mm and ask if people though they were normal. I was reassured that they were.

I sold the 20mm and kept the 25 (I would not have done that if I thought I was selling a dud, without declaring it).

It's not the only lens which attracts unreasonably good or bad comments on this forum, based on a few vociferous contributors.

Other examples would be the Oly 40-150 (slow version) ...over-rated

Panny 45-200mm either version....under-rated

Now I will take cover!

tom

(there is no substitute for trying out a lens yourself!)

The 20mm is one of to top all time sellers on M43 by units sold. That’s no “cult” - it’s a proven product that’s extremely popular with customers. And without a Leica label either.

yet all criticism applies: It's a darn slow focuser and sharp but not 'extremely' sharp.

It has however a special rendering and I think what I really like the most is its FOV which is the closest to 'mine'. I also have the 17/1.8 from Olympus and the 25/1.7 from pânasonic.

I much prefer the 17/1.8 for its focusing speed, manual operation, feel and size, but the 20 has the fov that matches me, most likke the old Konica Hexanon 40/1.8 had (ans still does on my A7rii)

“All criticism applies”? Why? Not necessarily. Mainly because they are overgeneralisations.

I dont find it to be soft at all. It’s more than sharp enough in most cases and in some it’s very sharp. There are objective tests of it on Lenstip and other sites. So that’s a weird comment.

Well I never said the lens is soft. Instead I said it's sharp but not overly so. THis is not a defect.

Truth is this lens is very close to having similar qualities to its 25mm f1.4 counterpart and I’d speculate that the design target was to make a Pana-Leica cobranded lens and this one just barely did not make the cut, mainly due to compromises necessary to achieve the compactness. But it’s a very good lens

As for the focusing there is a world of difference between “slower” and “slow”, much in the same way that the runners who didn’t win the Olympics finals are “slower” than the winner, yet hardly “slow”.

As for its slow focusing attitude. I regret to confirm it. I have quite a few mft lenses and 20/1.7 is definitely the slowest in my park. Sure it is much faster than my manual focus lenses but it remains slow in a comparative personal test.

Where it shines the most, and this is the reason for me to like it so much is its field of view.

As I also use the 17 mm from Olympus and very seldomly the 25mm from Panasonic, I constantly find the 20mm the better cope with my framing wills and this sells its usage to me.

Others' mileage will vary and that's fine with me.

If I can only have one lens then the 20mm f1.7 is it.  But I think there are other lenses that better demonstrate what an MFT lens should be...

12-32

35-100 f4-5.6

For the size, sharpness, IS, and speed, this pair is INCREDIBLE!

What you give up is wide apertures and handling.

After these two the any of the f1.7 and f1.8 do a fine job of representing the MFT ideal.

Osa25 wrote:

Again there is a difference between slow-er as in relative....and slow, as in functionally defective. Big difference. That is exactly what I mean by over-generalisation. The David Thorpe review does a great job of illustrating this and is much better than urban myth.

Similarly when you claim “not especially sharp” again by what standard. Not only does it objectively measure up in tests as sharp, have not seen anything meaningfully shaper at f1.8 in the 17-20mm range. So that’s again urban myth.

I agree with both of these.  The 20mm on a modern body focuses as fast as the Fuji X100f and no one is really complaining about its speed.

And its one of the sharpest lenses I have.  42.5 f1.7 may be sharper.  But if I can only use one lens the 20mm f1.7 is going to be it.

What's the point of putting up with slow autofocus?

I've had the original 20mm f/1.7 since 2010 (bought it with the GF1), and it's still one of my favorite lenses ever.  Even after I bought the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 I continue to use the 20mm for its small size and wider aperture.

I'm one of the many photographers who regard the 20mm f/1.7 as the lens that inspired them to buy their first m4/3 camera.

The 20mm was my first lens for MFT. And after a bunch of lenses brought and sold, I won't part with it, nor my 25mm f/1.4 PanLeica lens.

Its the Face of MFT and I'd wager probably the most purchased lens of the system.

I could get rid of my remaining 2 MFT bodies, but I'm keeping my 20mm. 40mm is my favorite focal length.