Panasonic 14mm f2.5?

BluenoseNS wrote:

aliasfox wrote:

The 14/2.5 is a fine lens for what it is - an inexpensive, tiny lens. It won't win any awards for its rendering, but I've never had any concerns going out with mounted on any of my bodies. If I had to say something about the rendering, I'd venture that the lens isn't super contrast-y, and you have to work a bit more in post to get your images to pop.

If you're looking strictly for the smallest autofocusing lens you can get, I'd grab one - if you mount it on an E-PL or a GX850 you end up with a camera with similar photographic chops to a Fuji X70, in only a slightly bigger package.

If you're looking for better rendition, I'd look at either the PL 15/1.7 or the Oly 17/1.8 instead. These are both bigger and heavier lenses - about twice as big as the 14/2.5 - but are definitely better. By reputation, the 15/1.7 is sharper than the 17/1.8, but between my 17 and my wife's 15, there isn't anything between them. I personally prefer the rendering of the 17, though I may be biased (I prefer 24mm and 35mm perspectives, don't like 28mm as much).

The PL15 still commands a relatively steep price, but I've started seeing used prices on the 17/1.8 fall a bit (probably due to pressure from the PL15), and while it's more than the Panasonic 14/2.5, it's not extravagantly so if you're lucky.

One lens I would personally avoid for street shooting and family gatherings is the Panasonic 20/1.7. It's a very sharp lens and quite compact, but the AF performance leaves much to be desired. The 15 and 17 are quick with the AF (the 17 is lightning fast), and the 20 could be judiciously called "leisurely." However, it makes for a great still-life lens (museums, posed pictures of family/friends), so may be worth collecting at some point.

Thanks for all of your thoughts. I may look into a used 17mm f1.8...

Look for a 15mm f1.7.
Optically, It easily beats all the other lenses mentioned in this thread.

I plan on selling my 14mm f2.5 and 20mm f1.7 for a 15mm.

Samuel Dilworth wrote:

carlgorski wrote:

Sold mine. Not very good.

Not very good at what?

The lens is tiny and weighs hardly anything (mine is 51.3 g on a calibrated balance). That alone makes it good at something.

It has a strong tendency to flare and ghost. The ghosting is so strong that overall contrast is reduced even when visible ghosts are not present, as if a thousand ghosts were distributed evenly across the frame – which they are, of course. Light sources in the frame lose their hard edges, as with old Leica rangefinder lenses. There they called it character. This lens has character.

There’s also strong chromatic aberration in the corners, only partly fixable in software.

Looks very sharp on-axis even wide open but falls off toward the corners. The corners clean up a lot by stopping down. I’ll know better when I get back from holiday and can look at photos in a familiar viewing environment.

Thanks for this. An actual descriptive post that just described it neutrally.

Interesting about the whole light sources losing their edges.

Thatnsounds like it could be used artistically

I have one and the GWC1 that makes it about 10.5mm. I carry it in my LowPro Top loader with my G9 and Pl100-400. Bought it used and got the GWC1 when B&H was closing them out. It is a good and useful combination and the 14 on my gx85 make for a great point and shoot.

At used prices now it is a good lens and I would not part with mine.

I found mine in good light (outdoors is where I image) at f4 it is sharp, and that is compared to my 12-35 f2.8.

jeffharris wrote:

Look for a 15mm f1.7.
Optically, It easily beats all the other lenses mentioned in this thread.

I plan on selling my 14mm f2.5 and 20mm f1.7 for a 15mm.

You are going to miss the 20/1.7.  Despite its short comings it consistantly provides my most memorable photos.

I have all of these lenses and the 14 has the best form factor, but it doesn't really offer a lumix shooter much advantage over the 12-32 (except easier manual focusing).  I would suggest that the OP get the 20/1.7 as its a HUGE leap in performance over the 14 and the 17.

I treat the 20 as a manual lens and use it that way.  I don't miss the autofocus performance because i rarely use it.

OP try out the 20...  you won't regret it.

jhunna wrote:

jeffharris wrote:

Look for a 15mm f1.7.
Optically, It easily beats all the other lenses mentioned in this thread.

I plan on selling my 14mm f2.5 and 20mm f1.7 for a 15mm.

You are going to miss the 20/1.7. Despite its short comings it consistantly provides my most memorable photos.

I have all of these lenses and the 14 has the best form factor, but it doesn't really offer a lumix shooter much advantage over the 12-32 (except easier manual focusing). I would suggest that the OP get the 20/1.7 as its a HUGE leap in performance over the 14 and the 17.

I treat the 20 as a manual lens and use it that way. I don't miss the autofocus performance because i rarely use it.

OP try out the 20... you won't regret it.

Agree re:    Lumix 20mm f/17.  
Slowish AF, and a bit noisy.  But mine is very sharp, and a nice compact/pancake all around semi-wide FL.  works for me for family and travel.  
Used on Pen F.  
Got mine for $100.  NIB.

Good luck whatever you decide.

It's my very first prime lens when I bought my EM10.i  few years ago.  I bought a (used) 17/2.8 soon after that but we didn't get along much.  It flares whenever there's any hint of direct sunlight and in California.  I sold the 17/2.8 after a few months as a kit lens together with the EM10.i

Today, the 14/2.5 is wed to a filter-screw-on 0.76x wide converter giving me a 10.6/2.5 UWA lens.  It's staying with me as I like its warm colors as much as I like the 28mm(efl) .  The 15/1.7 complements it and that has become my most used lens.

For daytime street photography, my GM1 + 14 (+- 0.76x WC) is all I need when I wander around San Francisco.

jhunna wrote:

jeffharris wrote:

Look for a 15mm f1.7.
Optically, It easily beats all the other lenses mentioned in this thread.

I plan on selling my 14mm f2.5 and 20mm f1.7 for a 15mm.

You are going to miss the 20/1.7. Despite its short comings it consistantly provides my most memorable photos.

Not really. It was one of the first M4/3 lenses I bought and never really liked the angle of view or it’s tendency to hunt for focus. Or simply refuse to focus, even in daylight.

The 14mm is better, in terms of just plain working when I want it to work.

There’s just something I never really liked about both of those lenses. So, they sit unused. What’s the point of that?

I have all of these lenses and the 14 has the best form factor, but it doesn't really offer a lumix shooter much advantage over the 12-32 (except easier manual focusing). I would suggest that the OP get the 20/1.7 as its a HUGE leap in performance over the 14 and the 17.

I treat the 20 as a manual lens and use it that way. I don't miss the autofocus performance because i rarely use it.

I prefer real manual lenses to the tedium of trying to use focus by wire with electronic lenses. Having a real mechanical aperture ring is also a major thing for me.

jeffharris wrote:

jhunna wrote:

You are going to miss the 20/1.7. Despite its short comings it consistantly provides my most memorable photos.

Not really. It was one of the first M4/3 lenses I bought and never really liked the angle of view or it’s tendency to hunt for focus. Or simply refuse to focus, even in daylight.

I get that and yes if I was dependent upon the autofocus or didn't like the focal length I would also drop it.

The 14mm is better, in terms of just plain working when I want it to work.

Agree 100%.  The 15 is even better.

There’s just something I never really liked about both of those lenses. So, they sit unused. What’s the point of that?

Understood.  I find my 15 is the one that sits the most as it doesn't fit nicely in my bag.  I always come back to the 12-32, 14 and the 20 because they keep a fairly flat camera.  The handling of the 15 is superior, followed by the 14 and the 20 brings up the rear.

I have all of these lenses and the 14 has the best form factor, but it doesn't really offer a lumix shooter much advantage over the 12-32 (except easier manual focusing). I would suggest that the OP get the 20/1.7 as its a HUGE leap in performance over the 14 and the 17.

I treat the 20 as a manual lens and use it that way. I don't miss the autofocus performance because i rarely use it.

I prefer real manual lenses to the tedium of trying to use focus by wire with electronic lenses. Having a real mechanical aperture ring is also a major thing for me.

Again I agree.  I wish the 20 handled better, but after shooting with it so much I just accept and work around its short comings.  The rendering and pictures it produces at 1.7 are so satisfying to me.  I also rarely wish for another lens when I have it on the camera.  I can't say that about to many other lenses.  My perfect lens would be a 20/1.4 OR 17.5/1.4 that renders like the 20 but fits into the 14/2.5 form factor.

Gnine wrote:

jhunna wrote:

jeffharris wrote:

jhunna wrote:

You are going to miss the 20/1.7. Despite its short comings it consistantly provides my most memorable photos.

Not really. It was one of the first M4/3 lenses I bought and never really liked the angle of view or it’s tendency to hunt for focus. Or simply refuse to focus, even in daylight.

I get that and yes if I was dependent upon the autofocus or didn't like the focal length I would also drop it.

The 14mm is better, in terms of just plain working when I want it to work.

Agree 100%. The 15 is even better.

There’s just something I never really liked about both of those lenses. So, they sit unused. What’s the point of that?

Understood. I find my 15 is the one that sits the most as it doesn't fit nicely in my bag. I always come back to the 12-32, 14 and the 20 because they keep a fairly flat camera. The handling of the 15 is superior, followed by the 14 and the 20 brings up the rear.

I have all of these lenses and the 14 has the best form factor, but it doesn't really offer a lumix shooter much advantage over the 12-32 (except easier manual focusing). I would suggest that the OP get the 20/1.7 as its a HUGE leap in performance over the 14 and the 17.

I treat the 20 as a manual lens and use it that way. I don't miss the autofocus performance because i rarely use it.

I prefer real manual lenses to the tedium of trying to use focus by wire with electronic lenses. Having a real mechanical aperture ring is also a major thing for me.

Again I agree. I wish the 20 handled better, but after shooting with it so much I just accept and work around its short comings. The rendering and pictures it produces at 1.7 are so satisfying to me. I also rarely wish for another lens when I have it on the camera. I can't say that about to many other lenses. My perfect lens would be a 20/1.4 OR 17.5/1.4 that renders like the 20 but fits into the 14/2.5 form factor.

It's funny, I really liked 40mm on my full frame camera, but not so much (20mm) on m4/3 No idea why. And the opposite with 50mm. Never really got on with it on full frame, love 25mm on m4/3. Strange. Only thing I can put it down to, is the aspect ratio. 28mm was a favourite on FF, yet I'm very happy with either 14 or 15mm. I could easily get rid of my 20 pancake, if I had the inclination to sell something

Probably the 4:3 vs 3:2 aspect ratio.

jeffharris wrote:

Gnine wrote:

It's funny, I really liked 40mm on my full frame camera, but not so much (20mm) on m4/3 No idea why. And the opposite with 50mm. Never really got on with it on full frame, love 25mm on m4/3. Strange. Only thing I can put it down to, is the aspect ratio. 28mm was a favourite on FF, yet I'm very happy with either 14 or 15mm. I could easily get rid of my 20 pancake, if I had the inclination to sell something

Probably the 4:3 vs 3:2 aspect ratio.

Really good point Jeff.  I have only been seriously shooting with M43 since I have returned to photography and don't notice things like that.  But its something to be mindful of if I switch formats.

Gnine wrote:

jeffharris wrote:

Gnine wrote:

jhunna wrote:

jeffharris wrote:

jhunna wrote:

You are going to miss the 20/1.7. Despite its short comings it consistantly provides my most memorable photos.

Not really. It was one of the first M4/3 lenses I bought and never really liked the angle of view or it’s tendency to hunt for focus. Or simply refuse to focus, even in daylight.

I get that and yes if I was dependent upon the autofocus or didn't like the focal length I would also drop it.

The 14mm is better, in terms of just plain working when I want it to work.

Agree 100%. The 15 is even better.

There’s just something I never really liked about both of those lenses. So, they sit unused. What’s the point of that?

Understood. I find my 15 is the one that sits the most as it doesn't fit nicely in my bag. I always come back to the 12-32, 14 and the 20 because they keep a fairly flat camera. The handling of the 15 is superior, followed by the 14 and the 20 brings up the rear.

I have all of these lenses and the 14 has the best form factor, but it doesn't really offer a lumix shooter much advantage over the 12-32 (except easier manual focusing). I would suggest that the OP get the 20/1.7 as its a HUGE leap in performance over the 14 and the 17.

I treat the 20 as a manual lens and use it that way. I don't miss the autofocus performance because i rarely use it.

I prefer real manual lenses to the tedium of trying to use focus by wire with electronic lenses. Having a real mechanical aperture ring is also a major thing for me.

Again I agree. I wish the 20 handled better, but after shooting with it so much I just accept and work around its short comings. The rendering and pictures it produces at 1.7 are so satisfying to me. I also rarely wish for another lens when I have it on the camera. I can't say that about to many other lenses. My perfect lens would be a 20/1.4 OR 17.5/1.4 that renders like the 20 but fits into the 14/2.5 form factor.

It's funny, I really liked 40mm on my full frame camera, but not so much (20mm) on m4/3 No idea why. And the opposite with 50mm. Never really got on with it on full frame, love 25mm on m4/3. Strange. Only thing I can put it down to, is the aspect ratio. 28mm was a favourite on FF, yet I'm very happy with either 14 or 15mm. I could easily get rid of my 20 pancake, if I had the inclination to sell something

Probably the 4:3 vs 3:2 aspect ratio.

Yeah, that’s all I can put it down to. I work in steel design/fabrication/machining, so am quite sensitive to geometry etc. I walk into peoples houses, & notice stuff like doors being not quite plumb, tiles or floorboards not quite running parallel, the scale of rooms being not quite right (to my eye) & that sort of thing So it could just be that tripping me up

I suffer from the same malady. 😥

I come from a fine arts background, had a design/build business (me doing most of the building) but now do architectural design, mainly interiors. So, I see all of it. Crooked this and that. Bad taping jobs. Clumpy caulking jobs. You name it. Drives me nuts!

Different aspect ratios don’t bother me at all.

jhunna wrote:

jeffharris wrote:

Look for a 15mm f1.7.
Optically, It easily beats all the other lenses mentioned in this thread.

I plan on selling my 14mm f2.5 and 20mm f1.7 for a 15mm.

You are going to miss the 20/1.7. Despite its short comings it consistantly provides my most memorable photos.

I have all of these lenses and the 14 has the best form factor, but it doesn't really offer a lumix shooter much advantage over the 12-32 (except easier manual focusing). I would suggest that the OP get the 20/1.7 as its a HUGE leap in performance over the 14 and the 17.

I treat the 20 as a manual lens and use it that way. I don't miss the autofocus performance because i rarely use it.

OP try out the 20... you won't regret it.

Well I am sure the 20 is great, however my fortunate problem is that I will be getting a 25 soon, and I want a wider lens than a 20.

BluenoseNS wrote:

jhunna wrote:

jeffharris wrote:

Look for a 15mm f1.7.
Optically, It easily beats all the other lenses mentioned in this thread.

I plan on selling my 14mm f2.5 and 20mm f1.7 for a 15mm.

You are going to miss the 20/1.7. Despite its short comings it consistantly provides my most memorable photos.

I have all of these lenses and the 14 has the best form factor, but it doesn't really offer a lumix shooter much advantage over the 12-32 (except easier manual focusing). I would suggest that the OP get the 20/1.7 as its a HUGE leap in performance over the 14 and the 17.

I treat the 20 as a manual lens and use it that way. I don't miss the autofocus performance because i rarely use it.

OP try out the 20... you won't regret it.

Well I am sure the 20 is great, however my fortunate problem is that I will be getting a 25 soon, and I want a wider lens than a 20.

Go for the 15mm. Or a 17.5mm.

So I went ahead and bought a refurbished 14mm f2.5 on eBay for $116 USD.

I figure at that price $154 Canadian, it was an excellent buy that I will for sure use heavily (my 17mm f2.8 is used heavily already as the better side angle option to my kit zoom lens)

Many people brought up good points about other options, but they are all considerably more than the 14mm f2.5.

In time perhaps the good 15mm will be for me.

I think OP should look into a refurbished option.

https://www.ebay.ca/itm/PANASONIC-LUMIX-G-14mm-F2-5-F-2-5-ASPH-AF-H-H014-LENS-Black-or-Silver/312798937453?epid=99731050&hash=item48d445016d:g:wp4AAOSwWvtdnfSC

rdited for the link