Nice "pop" to this lens

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. 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

Thank you for the test.

Yet, IMO, it  looks like the 14 mm images are focused closer than the other, and also have less sharpening applied.

The closer tiled red roof looks sharper than the white wall, and the chimney on the green roof, which should be inside the depth of field, looks blurry.

Not to pretend that the 14 is sharper than the GR2, but it is difficult to compare the above samples.

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 don't have the GR.

My experience is that my GM5 starts almost instantly from off to first picture (shutter set to focus priority), and even faster from sleep mode by half press the shutter.

IMO, any lens that need some extension before use cannot be faster.

As regards back button focus, I reassigned the back fn1 button on GM5 to AF lock (instead of WiFi factory setting) and I then can use BBF in AF-C mode, though I mostly use AF-S with half press shutter.

On the bigger but yet compact G7, there is buttons galore.

I never used hyperfocal MF in M43. When I want to shoot fast snapshots, I rely either on f4 or closer aperture, fast enough shutter speed and auto ISO, or I-auto mode (which allows exposure compensation) with AF set to 23 zones (49 on G7 and GX8) or face detection.

Saving RAW+JPEG allows recovering in PP of any unwanted inaccurate exposure.

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

But I already have the 14mm

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

Tatouzou wrote:

Thank you for the test.

Yet, IMO, it looks like the 14 mm images are focused closer than the other, and also have less sharpening applied.

No sharpening was applied, Lightroom default for all the raw files.

The closer tiled red roof looks sharper than the white wall, and the chimney on the green roof, which should be inside the depth of field, looks blurry.

Indeed.

Not to pretend that the 14 is sharper than the GR2, but it is difficult to compare the above samples.

I can do a second run later. This time I will manual focus to somewhere (as precise as I can) to ensure same focus distance.

Tatouzou wrote:

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 don't have the GR.

My experience is that my GM5 starts almost instantly from off to first picture (shutter set to focus priority), and even faster from sleep mode by half press the shutter.

IMO, any lens that need some extension before use cannot be faster.

Hello

Not sure why you seem so desperate to try to make some useless points . I have not handled the GM5. if you tell me that it is instant start up I can believe you. But the GRII is also instantaneous wake up. In 7 years of heavy use of GR models I have NEVER missed a picture because of start up time

so maybe it is the same for the GM5 but honestly if they both that quick who cares which one might be a millisecond faster

As regards back button focus, I reassigned the back fn1 button on GM5 to AF lock (instead of WiFi factory setting) and I then can use BBF in AF-C mode, though I mostly use AF-S with half press shutter.

On the bigger but yet compact G7, there is buttons galore.

I never used hyperfocal MF in M43.

Good for you but snap mode is NOT the same as hyperfocus

what you describe may force you to use iso to high to get great IQ in some pictures

When I want to shoot fast snapshots, I rely either on f4 or closer aperture, fast enough shutter speed and auto ISO, or I-auto mode (which allows exposure compensation) with AF set to 23 zones (49 on G7 and GX8) or face detection.

Saving RAW+JPEG allows recovering in PP of any unwanted inaccurate exposure.

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.

again good for you . this thread  is not a comparison of the GR vs GM5 as street camera so does not matter here

You are obviously satisfied with your Gm5+14mm combo . that s great .

the subject of the thread was the iq of the 14mm, in case some forgot 

Harold

Hello Loga

I am not suggesting that you do more work but if you do a test , I think photographing a still subject with some letters or writing on it a few meters away on a flat surface would yield better results .. just saying 

anyway don t go out of your way for me . I was just curious to see if this 14mm pancake would allow better results than the results which were posted on this thread and which were quite horrendous in terms of sharpness\

H

All images were manually focused with focus peaking to get the same area highlighted.

First three images from the 14mm f2.5. This time I did not adjust anything, not even the WB:

And now the zoom:

Light is not ideal, as the scene, I know. But I think a general impression can be made based on these. I did not re-test the Ricoh, because I think it is obvious that it is much better than any of these lenses.

Focus was set on the blue fence next to the white building for both lenses.

If this isn't "pop" I don't know what is.  GM5 f4 1/320