Nice "pop" to this lens

M43Hero wrote:

Here's another example:

PL 15mm, not so 3d pop

P14mm, more 3d pop

In this case I think the difference is more attributable to composition than lens choice. However the bokeh is slightly smoother in the 14mm lens, which I think might contribute a little bit to 3d effect.

Again both images  are not very sharp . Maybe it is user error because now both lenses have mediocre sharpness

I think what you call pop is the fact that most of your image is out of focus . it almost looks like one of those "miniature" filter where only a thin stripe in the center is kept in focus

it is not easy to know if the issue is with the lens design or something else

if someone thinks that 14mm is sharp at full aperture maybe they should take a test picture with a flat subject and letters or something to see if the lens is really that bad 

M43Hero wrote:

Harold66 wrote:

M43Hero wrote:

Here's another example:

PL 15mm, not so 3d pop

P14mm, more 3d pop

In this case I think the difference is more attributable to composition than lens choice. However the bokeh is slightly smoother in the 14mm lens, which I think might contribute a little bit to 3d effect.

Again both images are not very sharp . Maybe it is user error because now both lenses have mediocre sharpness

I think what you call pop is the fact that most of your image is out of focus . it almost looks like one of those "miniature" filter where only a thin stripe in the center is kept in focus

it is not easy to know if the issue is with the lens design or something else

if someone thinks that 14mm is sharp at full aperture maybe they should take a test picture with a flat subject and letters or something to see if the lens is really that bad

Hmm, I agree the pics are not super sharp, but that's not the subject of this thread. The 14mm in particular isn't super sharp wide open.

I think we do not have the same definition of the word 3d pop. for me pop is related to sharpness . the word pop means that the sharpness is so high that the focus area seem to pop to the eye and gives the image a three dimensional look

I think it could be a subjective thing, so some people might see it and some don't. Personally I can see it in some pics/compositions/lens.

In terms of sharpness the criteria to determine how sharp an image is or is not are objective ones imo

I've seen some explanations along the lines of: 3D pop appears in pictures that render similar to how the human eye sees things in real life, that is, when you focus your eyes on a subject the field of sharpness is limited to certain radius and the rest slowly blurs away in a very natural way.

"I think what you call pop is the fact that most of your image is out of focus . it almost looks like one of those "miniature" filter where only a thin stripe in the center is kept in focus"

I think some 3D pop compositions (like the horse closeup above) tend to have that look, but the first and second samples posted by me in this thread show a substantial area of the picture in focus.

Could you share an example of a pic you think has 3D pop, or are you saying you don't believe in "3D pop"?

Luke Forrest wrote:

Harold66 wrote:

Hello

This is soooo weird . None of the images posted in the last 4 replies seem very sharp. As a matter of fact , I noticed something which is very bad

Unless the images were postprocessed , several images including the one with the mushrooms are only somewhat sharp in the center and everything else is unsharp .

There are many lenses out there which are less sharp in the corners at full aperture , especially the ones which rely a lot on autocorrection for vignetting

but here we are not talking about corners , just off center

Hopefully someone can post better examples because here the pics shown would indicate really poor results for that lens

Harold

There are many review sites which actually test the lens if you're interested in sharpness. According to lenstip, it has excellent centre sharpness but so so corner sharpness. The lens is only 55g and is relatively cheap especially used, about the same price as a used kit lens. It's hard to complain about this lens, it's a budget lens that has decent performance. I'd recommend this over a kit lens for something like street photography. For landscape a 12-32mm might be better.

https://www.lenstip.com/273.4-Lens_review-Panasonic_G_14_mm_f_2.5_ASPH._Image_resolution.html

In regards to 'pop', I'd argue that light is more important than any lens characteristic.

Don't forget the subject, framing and composition.

IMO, the way your eye is guided into the picture matters much more than the lens performance.

As for me, I have both the 12-32 and the 14.

Zoomed in at 14mm, the 12-32 maximum aperture is f3.7.

My personal experience is that when shooting at matching apertures, there is not much corner sharpness difference between these lenses.

With the 14, f2.5 gives me 1EV more light, very useful if needed, and is always ready to shoot,  whereas the 12-32 needs to be extended, and then becomes much bigger, calling people's attention.

Shooting landscapes around f5.6/f8, there is no visible difference in corner sharpness, and the 14 delivers more contrast and clarity, requiring less post processing in difficult light.

I will go with the 12-32 for general purpose when I don't know what I will be shooting, and will mount the 14 for street shooting or low light on moving targets.

When I know I will be mostly shooting landscapes, I will rather mount the 12-60 f3.5-5.6 on my GX8, and bring the 20mm f1.7 as my second lens.

My GM5 + 14 f2.5 is to me kinda  Ricoh GR, with an EVF.:-)

Tatouzou wrote:

Luke Forrest wrote:

Harold66 wrote:

Hello

This is soooo weird . None of the images posted in the last 4 replies seem very sharp. As a matter of fact , I noticed something which is very bad

Unless the images were postprocessed , several images including the one with the mushrooms are only somewhat sharp in the center and everything else is unsharp .

There are many lenses out there which are less sharp in the corners at full aperture , especially the ones which rely a lot on autocorrection for vignetting

but here we are not talking about corners , just off center

Hopefully someone can post better examples because here the pics shown would indicate really poor results for that lens

Harold

There are many review sites which actually test the lens if you're interested in sharpness. According to lenstip, it has excellent centre sharpness but so so corner sharpness. The lens is only 55g and is relatively cheap especially used, about the same price as a used kit lens. It's hard to complain about this lens, it's a budget lens that has decent performance. I'd recommend this over a kit lens for something like street photography. For landscape a 12-32mm might be better.

https://www.lenstip.com/273.4-Lens_review-Panasonic_G_14_mm_f_2.5_ASPH._Image_resolution.html

In regards to 'pop', I'd argue that light is more important than any lens characteristic.

Don't forget the subject, framing and composition.

My GM5 + 14 f2.5 is to me kinda Ricoh GR, with an EVF.:-)

Bonjour Tatouzou

The GR has a MUCH better lens than this 14mm . Not even close . The 14mm has the reputation of being a very average lens and what I have seen on this thread seems definitely to confirm this

H

Luke Forrest wrote:

Harold66 wrote:

Tatouzou wrote:

Luke Forrest wrote:

Harold66 wrote:

Hello

This is soooo weird . None of the images posted in the last 4 replies seem very sharp. As a matter of fact , I noticed something which is very bad

Unless the images were postprocessed , several images including the one with the mushrooms are only somewhat sharp in the center and everything else is unsharp .

There are many lenses out there which are less sharp in the corners at full aperture , especially the ones which rely a lot on autocorrection for vignetting

but here we are not talking about corners , just off center

Hopefully someone can post better examples because here the pics shown would indicate really poor results for that lens

Harold

There are many review sites which actually test the lens if you're interested in sharpness. According to lenstip, it has excellent centre sharpness but so so corner sharpness. The lens is only 55g and is relatively cheap especially used, about the same price as a used kit lens. It's hard to complain about this lens, it's a budget lens that has decent performance. I'd recommend this over a kit lens for something like street photography. For landscape a 12-32mm might be better.

https://www.lenstip.com/273.4-Lens_review-Panasonic_G_14_mm_f_2.5_ASPH._Image_resolution.html

In regards to 'pop', I'd argue that light is more important than any lens characteristic.

Don't forget the subject, framing and composition.

My GM5 + 14 f2.5 is to me kinda Ricoh GR, with an EVF.:-)

Bonjour Tatouzou

The GR has a MUCH better lens than this 14mm . Not even close . The 14mm has the reputation of being a very average lens and what I have seen on this thread seems definitely to confirm this

H

Is it? Most people would never notice any difference. But Im glad you're happy with your GR.

At full aperture on ANY size print I am sure they would

Harold66 wrote:

Luke Forrest wrote:

Harold66 wrote:

Tatouzou wrote:

Luke Forrest wrote:

Harold66 wrote:

Hello

This is soooo weird . None of the images posted in the last 4 replies seem very sharp. As a matter of fact , I noticed something which is very bad

Unless the images were postprocessed , several images including the one with the mushrooms are only somewhat sharp in the center and everything else is unsharp .

There are many lenses out there which are less sharp in the corners at full aperture , especially the ones which rely a lot on autocorrection for vignetting

but here we are not talking about corners , just off center

Hopefully someone can post better examples because here the pics shown would indicate really poor results for that lens

Harold

There are many review sites which actually test the lens if you're interested in sharpness. According to lenstip, it has excellent centre sharpness but so so corner sharpness. The lens is only 55g and is relatively cheap especially used, about the same price as a used kit lens. It's hard to complain about this lens, it's a budget lens that has decent performance. I'd recommend this over a kit lens for something like street photography. For landscape a 12-32mm might be better.

https://www.lenstip.com/273.4-Lens_review-Panasonic_G_14_mm_f_2.5_ASPH._Image_resolution.html

In regards to 'pop', I'd argue that light is more important than any lens characteristic.

Don't forget the subject, framing and composition.

My GM5 + 14 f2.5 is to me kinda Ricoh GR, with an EVF.:-)

Bonjour Tatouzou

The GR has a MUCH better lens than this 14mm . Not even close . The 14mm has the reputation of being a very average lens and what I have seen on this thread seems definitely to confirm this

H

Is it? Most people would never notice any difference. But Im glad you're happy with your GR.

At full aperture on ANY size print I am sure they would

I can make some side-by-side photos, if you are interested. I have both.

Loga wrote:

Harold66 wrote:

Luke Forrest wrote:

Harold66 wrote:

Tatouzou wrote:

Luke Forrest wrote:

Harold66 wrote:

Hello

This is soooo weird . None of the images posted in the last 4 replies seem very sharp. As a matter of fact , I noticed something which is very bad

Unless the images were postprocessed , several images including the one with the mushrooms are only somewhat sharp in the center and everything else is unsharp .

There are many lenses out there which are less sharp in the corners at full aperture , especially the ones which rely a lot on autocorrection for vignetting

but here we are not talking about corners , just off center

Hopefully someone can post better examples because here the pics shown would indicate really poor results for that lens

Harold

There are many review sites which actually test the lens if you're interested in sharpness. According to lenstip, it has excellent centre sharpness but so so corner sharpness. The lens is only 55g and is relatively cheap especially used, about the same price as a used kit lens. It's hard to complain about this lens, it's a budget lens that has decent performance. I'd recommend this over a kit lens for something like street photography. For landscape a 12-32mm might be better.

https://www.lenstip.com/273.4-Lens_review-Panasonic_G_14_mm_f_2.5_ASPH._Image_resolution.html

In regards to 'pop', I'd argue that light is more important than any lens characteristic.

Don't forget the subject, framing and composition.

My GM5 + 14 f2.5 is to me kinda Ricoh GR, with an EVF.:-)

Bonjour Tatouzou

The GR has a MUCH better lens than this 14mm . Not even close . The 14mm has the reputation of being a very average lens and what I have seen on this thread seems definitely to confirm this

H

Is it? Most people would never notice any difference. But Im glad you're happy with your GR.

At full aperture on ANY size print I am sure they would

I can make some side-by-side photos, if you are interested. I have both.

sure why not ? better if you have a tripod or set in on a table to eliminate the variable induced by iS 

H

Harold66 wrote:

Loga wrote:

Harold66 wrote:

Luke Forrest wrote:

Harold66 wrote:

Tatouzou wrote:

Luke Forrest wrote:

Harold66 wrote:

Hello

This is soooo weird . None of the images posted in the last 4 replies seem very sharp. As a matter of fact , I noticed something which is very bad

Unless the images were postprocessed , several images including the one with the mushrooms are only somewhat sharp in the center and everything else is unsharp .

There are many lenses out there which are less sharp in the corners at full aperture , especially the ones which rely a lot on autocorrection for vignetting

but here we are not talking about corners , just off center

Hopefully someone can post better examples because here the pics shown would indicate really poor results for that lens

Harold

There are many review sites which actually test the lens if you're interested in sharpness. According to lenstip, it has excellent centre sharpness but so so corner sharpness. The lens is only 55g and is relatively cheap especially used, about the same price as a used kit lens. It's hard to complain about this lens, it's a budget lens that has decent performance. I'd recommend this over a kit lens for something like street photography. For landscape a 12-32mm might be better.

https://www.lenstip.com/273.4-Lens_review-Panasonic_G_14_mm_f_2.5_ASPH._Image_resolution.html

In regards to 'pop', I'd argue that light is more important than any lens characteristic.

Don't forget the subject, framing and composition.

My GM5 + 14 f2.5 is to me kinda Ricoh GR, with an EVF.:-)

Bonjour Tatouzou

The GR has a MUCH better lens than this 14mm . Not even close . The 14mm has the reputation of being a very average lens and what I have seen on this thread seems definitely to confirm this

H

Is it? Most people would never notice any difference. But Im glad you're happy with your GR.

At full aperture on ANY size print I am sure they would

I can make some side-by-side photos, if you are interested. I have both.

sure why not ? better if you have a tripod or set in on a table to eliminate the variable induced by iS

H

I do not have a tripod (I do, but it is not with me unfortunately) , but I have a G6, which is 16 MP like the GR, and has electronic shutter, so at least we can eliminate the possibility of shutter shock. When I will have time I will do a first round, and if you have further requests you may tell.

Thank you very much 

H

Harold66 wrote:

Tatouzou wrote:

Luke Forrest wrote:

Harold66 wrote:

Hello

This is soooo weird . None of the images posted in the last 4 replies seem very sharp. As a matter of fact , I noticed something which is very bad

Unless the images were postprocessed , several images including the one with the mushrooms are only somewhat sharp in the center and everything else is unsharp .

There are many lenses out there which are less sharp in the corners at full aperture , especially the ones which rely a lot on autocorrection for vignetting

but here we are not talking about corners , just off center

Hopefully someone can post better examples because here the pics shown would indicate really poor results for that lens

Harold

There are many review sites which actually test the lens if you're interested in sharpness. According to lenstip, it has excellent centre sharpness but so so corner sharpness. The lens is only 55g and is relatively cheap especially used, about the same price as a used kit lens. It's hard to complain about this lens, it's a budget lens that has decent performance. I'd recommend this over a kit lens for something like street photography. For landscape a 12-32mm might be better.

https://www.lenstip.com/273.4-Lens_review-Panasonic_G_14_mm_f_2.5_ASPH._Image_resolution.html

In regards to 'pop', I'd argue that light is more important than any lens characteristic.

Don't forget the subject, framing and composition.

My GM5 + 14 f2.5 is to me kinda Ricoh GR, with an EVF.:-)

Bonjour Tatouzou

The GR has a MUCH better lens than this 14mm . Not even close . The 14mm has the reputation of being a very average lens and what I have seen on this thread seems definitely to confirm this

H

Maybe, but I value usability over performance. My GM5 + 14 f2.5 fits my requirements for a very small high IQ  responsive street camera.

The IQ the 14mm delivers is more than I expected, and I can use it on any of my three M43 bodies.

A GR3 would cost me three times the price of the 14 f2.5 alone (I have the GM5 since 2017), and would not bring more usability.

By the way, not everybody agrees with your low rating of this lens. Check Imaging resource for instance.

Tatouzou wrote:

Harold66 wrote:

Tatouzou wrote:

Luke Forrest wrote:

Harold66 wrote:

Hello

This is soooo weird . None of the images posted in the last 4 replies seem very sharp. As a matter of fact , I noticed something which is very bad

Unless the images were postprocessed , several images including the one with the mushrooms are only somewhat sharp in the center and everything else is unsharp .

There are many lenses out there which are less sharp in the corners at full aperture , especially the ones which rely a lot on autocorrection for vignetting

but here we are not talking about corners , just off center

Hopefully someone can post better examples because here the pics shown would indicate really poor results for that lens

Harold

There are many review sites which actually test the lens if you're interested in sharpness. According to lenstip, it has excellent centre sharpness but so so corner sharpness. The lens is only 55g and is relatively cheap especially used, about the same price as a used kit lens. It's hard to complain about this lens, it's a budget lens that has decent performance. I'd recommend this over a kit lens for something like street photography. For landscape a 12-32mm might be better.

https://www.lenstip.com/273.4-Lens_review-Panasonic_G_14_mm_f_2.5_ASPH._Image_resolution.html

In regards to 'pop', I'd argue that light is more important than any lens characteristic.

Don't forget the subject, framing and composition.

My GM5 + 14 f2.5 is to me kinda Ricoh GR, with an EVF.:-)

Bonjour Tatouzou

The GR has a MUCH better lens than this 14mm . Not even close . The 14mm has the reputation of being a very average lens and what I have seen on this thread seems definitely to confirm this

H

Maybe, but I value usability over performance. My GM5 + 14 f2.5 fits my requirements for a very small high IQ responsive street camera.

Not sure what you have in mind when you mention usability. The GRII is VERY responsive, from start up to focusing time I would be very surprised if it is not at least as quick, and probably quicker than your combo

Not to mention the snap mode and the back focus button which are often decisive for street photography

The IQ the 14mm delivers is more than I expected, and I can use it on any of my three M43 bodies.

o,

A GR3 would cost me three times the price of the 14 f2.5 alone (I have the GM5 since 2017), and would not bring more usability.

a brand new gr2 is less than thedouble of your 14mm lens

By the way, not everybody agrees with your low rating of this lens. Check Imaging resource for instance.

I did and i saw the one on opticallimits. The fact is this is a 10 year old lens so-if the lens was reviewed today on a more modern sensor some of the comments would be different

anyway this lens relies heavily on auto correction for chromatic aberrations and distortions

yes the lens produces good results at f4 but that is not telling much

That being said, depending on owner’s use and expectations that maybe enough for lotsof users

H

Harold66 wrote:

Tatouzou wrote:

Harold66 wrote:

Tatouzou wrote:

Luke Forrest wrote:

Harold66 wrote:

Hello

This is soooo weird . None of the images posted in the last 4 replies seem very sharp. As a matter of fact , I noticed something which is very bad

Unless the images were postprocessed , several images including the one with the mushrooms are only somewhat sharp in the center and everything else is unsharp .

There are many lenses out there which are less sharp in the corners at full aperture , especially the ones which rely a lot on autocorrection for vignetting

but here we are not talking about corners , just off center

Hopefully someone can post better examples because here the pics shown would indicate really poor results for that lens

Harold

There are many review sites which actually test the lens if you're interested in sharpness. According to lenstip, it has excellent centre sharpness but so so corner sharpness. The lens is only 55g and is relatively cheap especially used, about the same price as a used kit lens. It's hard to complain about this lens, it's a budget lens that has decent performance. I'd recommend this over a kit lens for something like street photography. For landscape a 12-32mm might be better.

https://www.lenstip.com/273.4-Lens_review-Panasonic_G_14_mm_f_2.5_ASPH._Image_resolution.html

In regards to 'pop', I'd argue that light is more important than any lens characteristic.

Don't forget the subject, framing and composition.

My GM5 + 14 f2.5 is to me kinda Ricoh GR, with an EVF.:-)

Bonjour Tatouzou

The GR has a MUCH better lens than this 14mm . Not even close . The 14mm has the reputation of being a very average lens and what I have seen on this thread seems definitely to confirm this

H

Maybe, but I value usability over performance. My GM5 + 14 f2.5 fits my requirements for a very small high IQ responsive street camera.

Not sure what you have in mind when you mention usability. The GRII is VERY responsive, from start up to focusing time I would be very surprised if it is not at least as quick, and probably quicker than your combo

I am not sure about the GM5, but my GF2 with 14 f2.5 is on pair with my Ricoh GR II in terms of AF speed.

Startup time of Panasonic cameras is generally very good. Again, I am not sure about the GM5, but my GF2 + 14 is a little bit faster for startup + first image than my GR II. But the difference is not big at all. This is how I feel about it; I did not do any measurements, not to mention a controlled one

(I saw that the GR III is faster in this regard with faster lens extension.)

Still, this kind of usability is better for the GR II IMHO, because it has the snap focus option, and I use that by default. So when I turn on the camera, I don't have to mess with focus, but can focus on how to compose quickly - or just grab the moment by a snap. Even if the Panas have the option of some kind of hyperfocal focus setting (Just turn them on in Manual focus mode, and it will set the lens to that), I prefer the GR implementation here.

My favourite use-case here is to use the GRII with an optical VF while the LCD is off, but the camera is on permanently. No startup time at all - like the old film cameras Of course you can do this with any Panasonic camera too.

But I also agree, that if someone has limited budget and would like to use more than one focal length, then an m43 body + 14mm (or a kit zoom) + let's say, a 45 f1.8 is a better option for about the same price as a GR II costs.

Not to mention the snap mode and the back focus button which are often decisive for street photography

The IQ the 14mm delivers is more than I expected, and I can use it on any of my three M43 bodies.

o,

A GR3 would cost me three times the price of the 14 f2.5 alone (I have the GM5 since 2017), and would not bring more usability.

a brand new gr2 is less than thedouble of your 14mm lens

By the way, not everybody agrees with your low rating of this lens. Check Imaging resource for instance.

I did and i saw the one on opticallimits. The fact is this is a 10 year old lens so-if the lens was reviewed today on a more modern sensor some of the comments would be different

anyway this lens relies heavily on auto correction for chromatic aberrations and distortions

Does the GR's not? I am asking, I don't know the answer.

yes the lens produces good results at f4 but that is not telling much

That being said, depending on owner’s use and expectations that maybe enough for lotsof users

H

Hi Harold,

I made a first attempt, but I barely think a second will be needed

My finding is that the lens of the GR (II) is indeed much sharper than the Panasonic 14 f2.5. The pictures below revealed that while center sharpness is comparable, towards the edges the Ricoh stays tack sharp. Even at f2.8 the Ricoh is sharper than the Pana at f5.6 or f8.0. The Ricoh at f8.0 is insanely sharp in the entire image.

Just for fun, I also put the Pana 14-42 mkII into the contest at 14mm wide open (f3.5) and at f5.6. You may compare it with the pancake. I would say I like this lens a lot.

This clarifies the question which lens is sharper. However, I am not sure it is the ultimate answer for the '3D-ness' of a lens. I tend to agree with another user here who considers other attributes. Whether the Pana 14mm f2.5 has it or not, I am not sure. One thing is sure, between certain circumstances I might feel that rendering too. But it's hard to prove it. Some says that lenses with low element count can produce this kind of rendering in contrast with the "more modern", high element count lenses. The Pana 14mm and 20mm are certainly low element count lenses.

Here are the images. They were imported in Lightroom, and I only adjusted the white balance and the exposure with very small adjustments in order to equalize the overall impression somewhat. Focus was always set on the edge of the white building. Sorry, Lightroom killed the exif data somehow.

First the two Ricoh:

f2.8

f8.0:

And now the Pana 14 f2.5:

f2.5

f5.6:

f8.0:

Finally the two from the 14-42 mkii zoom:

f3.5:

f5.6:

Cheers,

Loga

Loga wrote:

Hi Harold,

I made a first attempt, but I barely think a second will be needed

My finding is that the lens of the GR (II) is indeed much sharper than the Panasonic 14 f2.5.

Thank you for running the test and confirming this information 

The pictures below revealed that while center sharpness is comparable, towards the edges the Ricoh stays tack sharp. Even at f2.8 the Ricoh is sharper than the Pana at f5.6 or f8.0. The Ricoh at f8.0 is insanely sharp in the entire image.

I know that Ricoh has some samples variations but on the Three GRs app that I have , I always found out that the best iq on the overall image (not just the center sharpness) was obtained between f4.5 and f5.6 FYI

Harold