Nice little lens but beware...

+

• Small, light
• Bright f/1,7 aperture

-

• Copy to copy variations
• Autofocus is not the fastest
• Bokeh could have been smoother

A standard pancake lens is great to have for a small mirrorless camera system. Panasonic 20mm f/1,7 looks great on almost every camera body.

Autofocus is not the fastest. It's audible but not noisy. Other micro 4/3 lenses are better in this regard but still faster than, for example, Fujinon XF 35mm f/1,4 R...

However I'm not convinced about sharpness. The first one I had was very good even at f/1,7. A nice little lens. Reading the reviews, I thought there were all like this. 
Then I swapped for a stupid color reason and went throught 2 deceiving copies. They both had noticeable decentering and I needed to stop them down to f/4 to get decently sharp corners, definitely not better than the Olympus 17mm f/1,8. I gave up for v2, v1 might be sharper (?)

Bokeh is average. It's a f/1,7 lens which is bright for a pancake, but the background blur is not especially smooth. Rendering is pleasant thought. 
My advice if you're interested into this lens is to check carefully the sample you want to buy because they can be significant copy to copy variations !

Why are you reviewing a lens released in 2013 (reviewed lots of times, already), and why does a person who had one post a year ago, suddenly post six lens reviews in a day?

Just curious.

rjensen11 wrote:

Why are you reviewing a lens released in 2013 (reviewed lots of times, already), and why does a person who had one post a year ago, suddenly post six lens reviews in a day?

Just curious.

I have a guess - he's a new user, is just discovering he can post reviews on DPR and is enjoying catching up with his old lenses, but he doesn't realize that the reviews are also automatically cross-posted in the related DPR's discussion forum. He might want to hold onto his hat.

Regards,
Sterling
--
Lens Grit

So it's a very good lens unless you get a bad one.

In other news, bears sh** in the woods.

Yes, I have this lens for more than 7 years. Probably I have first version of this lens which is not different from the second.

What is special about this lens that it does not have stepping motor, it has a screw drive for focusing, and that is why:

it is so light, compact, and inexpensive.

it is a little audible

it is sometimes sluggish.

bokeh: i never comment on bokeh because still can not figure out what it is all about.

Also I'm lucky to have a nice copy of the lens, and I wish you the same.

Cheers

Replies are so negative. I guess mine will be too...

I had a copy of the 20mm f/1.7. I wanted to like it but it was decentered. Images looked soft towards the right side. After the Olympus 45/1.8 also being a decentered turd, I'm a little discussed now.

Not the damnation of faint praise. Welcome!

Re: the lens. Fast, small and inexpensive. With a good copy, you work to its strengths and within its limitations. I use the old "half press" approach with it and find that with anticipation, I got sharp images that reflected what I wanted.

The 20 and the 15/1.7 live mostly on my GM5. Obviously a qualitative difference, but the focal lengths are different enough for them to complement. Love my 20.

Richandhiscat wrote:

bokeh: i never comment on bokeh because still can not figure out what it is all about.

You're not the only one there....

But aren’t the descriptions like wine-tasting notes - cat’s eye, onion ring, nervous...

I’m never entirely comfortable if the background is so blurred you can’t see what it is.

Is there such a thing as bokeh angst?

Andrew

Valdai21 wrote:

+

• Small, light
• Bright f/1,7 aperture

-

• Copy to copy variations
• Autofocus is not the fastest
• Bokeh could have been smoother

A standard pancake lens is great to have for a small mirrorless camera system. Panasonic 20mm f/1,7 looks great on almost every camera body.

Autofocus is not the fastest. It's audible but not noisy. Other micro 4/3 lenses are better in this regard but still faster than, for example, Fujinon XF 35mm f/1,4 R...

However I'm not convinced about sharpness. The first one I had was very good even at f/1,7. A nice little lens. Reading the reviews, I thought there were all like this.
Then I swapped for a stupid color reason and went throught 2 deceiving copies. They both had noticeable decentering and I needed to stop them down to f/4 to get decently sharp corners, definitely not better than the Olympus 17mm f/1,8. I gave up for v2, v1 might be sharper (?)

Bokeh is average. It's a f/1,7 lens which is bright for a pancake, but the background blur is not especially smooth. Rendering is pleasant thought.
My advice if you're interested into this lens is to check carefully the sample you want to buy because they can be significant copy to copy variations !

Welcome aboard, Valdai!

Thanks for your thoughtful and honest review of this lens.

Unfortunately, some people in this forum can be very defensive if they feel m43 gear is being criticised in any way. They will criticise you in turn.

Try not to take it to heart and have a nice day!

Kind regards,

Scott

NZ Scott wrote:

Valdai21 wrote:

+

• Small, light
• Bright f/1,7 aperture

-

• Copy to copy variations
• Autofocus is not the fastest
• Bokeh could have been smoother

A standard pancake lens is great to have for a small mirrorless camera system. Panasonic 20mm f/1,7 looks great on almost every camera body.

Autofocus is not the fastest. It's audible but not noisy. Other micro 4/3 lenses are better in this regard but still faster than, for example, Fujinon XF 35mm f/1,4 R...

However I'm not convinced about sharpness. The first one I had was very good even at f/1,7. A nice little lens. Reading the reviews, I thought there were all like this.
Then I swapped for a stupid color reason and went throught 2 deceiving copies. They both had noticeable decentering and I needed to stop them down to f/4 to get decently sharp corners, definitely not better than the Olympus 17mm f/1,8. I gave up for v2, v1 might be sharper (?)

Bokeh is average. It's a f/1,7 lens which is bright for a pancake, but the background blur is not especially smooth. Rendering is pleasant thought.
My advice if you're interested into this lens is to check carefully the sample you want to buy because they can be significant copy to copy variations !

Welcome aboard, Valdai!

Thanks for your thoughtful and honest review of this lens.

Unfortunately, some people in this forum can be very defensive if they feel m43 gear is being criticised in any way. They will criticise you in turn.

Try not to take it to heart and have a nice day!

Kind regards,

Scott

👍

You're a true gentleman, Scott.

Well said, and I heartily second the welcome.

Valdai21 wrote:

rjensen11 wrote:

Why are you reviewing a lens released in 2013 (reviewed lots of times, already), and why does a person who had one post a year ago, suddenly post six lens reviews in a day?

Just curious.

Hello,
I'm new to this forum. I like taking pictures but also trying gear sometimes. So I went throught several systems and used to own quite a lot of lenses over years. I discovered DPR lens database and I wanted to contribute.
I didn't know it will pop out on top of the forum but even if it's a 2013 lens, some people might still be interested into it.

It's fine - welcome to the forum.

Valdai21 wrote:

Thank you for your comment.
This is just my experience, I'm not saying it's not a good lens.

Other people seems be luckier than me or I may be too picky, I don't know. Then if you got a good sample, just keep it

It's a very balanced review but lots of us have good copies.

Andrew

Hi There

Thank you for the review. I used to sell m4/3 gear secondhand (buy in HK sell in UK) and I always found the Pana 20mm to be very consistent copy to copy. The mk1 version especially. I think you have to be unlucky to get a bad one. Especially new out of the box (ie not damaged in use). The Oly 17mm and PanaL 15mm were far more variable, although if you get a good one all 3 are great lenses.

Horses for courses!

Berni

berni29 wrote:

Hi There

Thank you for the review. I used to sell m4/3 gear secondhand (buy in HK sell in UK) and I always found the Pana 20mm to be very consistent copy to copy. The mk1 version especially. I think you have to be unlucky to get a bad one. Especially new out of the box (ie not damaged in use). The Oly 17mm and PanaL 15mm were far more variable, although if you get a good one all 3 are great lenses.

It's interesting, because most people prefer the Pana 15 over the Oly 17, but I own both and much prefer the Oly.

My Oly is very sharp.

S

Horses for courses!

Berni