Your picture only illustrates that your particular copy is OK but doesn't help OP because you are shooting with EPL1 which will result in higher sharpness output with settings in camera that are unknown.
The OP asked if this lens is sharp wide open or if his photo was representative. I've shown it's not. How could I shoot with his lens and not my own? The sharpness setting on my EPL-1 is -1, there are no sharpness artifacts, how much evidence do you need that this lens is sharp wide open?
I personally do not need evidence 20/1.7 is a sharp lens wide open, I have one and it is sharp, but that doesn't make your sample anything OP can use to conclude anything about his copy, there is a number of reasons one could debate why exactly, starting with fact images from EPL1 are crispier than ones from EP2 (and thus I assume EP3 too) regardless of what lens is used, even when EPL1 has sharpness set to -1.
Well based on your logic then no-one can help the OP as only he owns that particular copy, so what exactly is your point and how do you propose that we overcome this particular hurdle? He has asked if the 20mm F1.7 is sharp and whether his picture is representative of how sharp it can be. Well the answer to the first question is clearly yes on most people's version of this lens. The answer to the second question can only be answered by EP-3 owners and will depend on the strength of the AA filter on this camera.
Sorry for pointing out that your post is useless to him. I should have guessed that will not fly too well with your sensitive side.
That's all well and good, but it doesn't square with what you posted earlier:
ZoranC , by your definition, how would you be able to do an "apples to apples" comparison without the OP's lens and yours in hand? Even if you used a different E-P3 with the same settings, any results you obtained without testing the OP's lens would seem just as "useless" as Tony's post, again, using your definition. Heck, the OP's camera may have a faulty AA filter or something, so they better ship it to you with the 20, right?
Your comments to Tony did nothing to help the OP, and put your argumentative nature on display. In a perfect world, we would get the specific lenses and bodies together and do lab grade testing, but that's not going to happen, and it's not necessary. Tony answered the OP's question, and as I suggested earlier, the OP could do some home tests to see if there's an equipment problem.
I believe the 12 will focus faster than the 20, but I'm not sure if it's more accurate. I think that's going to at least partially be a function of the subject matter. Also, the 12 is a newer design, so that may be a factor as well.
I am at a loss to understand the point of your posts or the need for you to "regulate" other people when they are trying to help the OP. When someone asks "is this lens sharp wide open?" and I take the trouble to post an image to demonstrate that my copy most definitely is, I'm failing to see what you don't get about that? If the OP's camera has a heavier AA filter than the EPL-1 then no lens will appear as sharp as it will on the EPL-1. That's a obviously given. My point still stands, the 20mm F1.7, assuming you have a reasonable copy, is clearly sharp wide open. If the OP's copy is not, then he is in possession of a less than optimal copy, he is not familiar with the output of his camera or he has not focused correctly.
Thank you for increasing my hit count which is already amazing considering my modest abilities, some 60,000 hits.Do you have anything that would help OP with his question? Or you are today just in mood to be an ...?HCB never needed such sharp lenses or emulsion to make interesting images.
Fixation with sharpness is the trademark of nitwits and madmen. Should I go on?
Please post interesting images. Then we might resume the talk
BTW, based on your flickr photostream you are no HCB and photo OP posted is more interesting than yours so, by token of your own logic an attitude, please take some interesting images before you resume to talk, much less lecture others.
Very simple, by showing shot of similar layout (subject and distance) taken with same settings by camera that is practically identical. Apples to apples does not have to be of AR kind but that doesn't mean one should not make them as close as possible and is free to introduce variable that generates big skew (EPL1).
Saying your "contribution" is worthless is not regulating you, it is a comment on the "value" of it. But when somebody tells others to button it, that is a perfect example of morron attempting to control people (in this case you trying to control me).
So you are very sensitive to yourself?
Considering I have seen blogs of absolute trolls have 500,000 hits I wouldn't call 60,000 amazing.
Clearly. Looking forward to the results once you enroll. Keep us posted, please.
I've looked at comparison test shots between the PENs and haven't seen the kind of difference ("big skew" - hardly) you imply. Tony's shot was simply illustrating that the 20mm lens is capable of delivering a sharp image. While differences in bodies does have some impact, photos from any m43 body with a properly working and properly used 20mm lens would be enough to illustrate that the 20mm delivers sharp photos. It's up to the OP to take it from there and do their own tests if they feel the need.
Unless you had taken test shots the OP could easily replicate, I'd be amazed if you or anyone else had photos similar enough to any of the OP's to make any direct comparison significant enough that sensor differences would be the determining factor. Unless comparing true test shots, there's simply too many variables, even if using the exact same camera and lens. Again, Tony's photo was as good an indicator of possible sharpness as any in this instance. Failing to acknowledge this simple fact reveals just how stubborn you can be. The OP has several suggestions to follow up on, and I think that's sufficient to answer their questions.
I would be happy with that level of sharpness at the center of the image, but I'm not nearly as picky as some.Here's a sharp shot I was able to get of a subject similar to papillon_65. I think it's close in sharpness. Good enough for me (after sharpening).
Maybe the lens is slightly softer at a distance?
The only worthless contribution to this thread has been yours. I'm not attempting to control you, just giving you some sound advice.
I'd say that anyone who believes that you have to exactly replicate a shot to demonstrate a lens' sharpness has ticked the idiot box quite nicely.
Going OT, I know video is important to you.
