Field review: Panasonic Lumix G 25mm F1.7 ASPH - compact, affordable and capable

It was introduced several years ago at $99, yet the review tells us that it is "available now" for only $249...is this a positive move?

11 months agopermalink

Demon Cleaner

Does DPR reference "equivalent aperture" when reviewing medium format?

Sensor size alone is a sufficient indication of performance. Additionally applying it to aperture is unnecessary. And why are your picking on poor aperture again anyway? How about giving it a break for a change, and hitting shutter speed with your reductive equivalence hammer instead? After all, it's just a different way of looking at the same thing.

11 months agopermalink

I think the most prudent equivalence would be ISO, to stop using ISO numbers that are not equivalent performance in dynamic range and SNR. This would reveal the IQ advantage of larger sensors while stopping so many comparisons that don't make sense because there are not always equivalent lenses between formats, only hypothetical ones (e.g. there is no f/3.4 50mm prime this small and light for full frame--although this is more a problem for other focal lengths).

The only disadvantage there is the lack of depth of field comparisons, but that is honestly not that important to me under most conditions.

11 months agopermalink

Lars V

I have this lens, hardly ever used it. It doesn't seem sharp, and there is CA. I paid $107 for mine though. The lenses around that focal length I use more are 14f2.5, Leica 15f1.7, 30f2.8 macro.

11 months agopermalink

Olymore

There's a typo where it says that F5.6 and F8 is equivalent to Full Frame F11 and F22 (should of course be F16)

11 months ago*permalink

Olivier GALLEN

Thanks for reviewing this lens.
Lenses are actually the greatest strength of m43: a lot of small and excellent primes or zooms you can't find in larger formats. If you want to be able to change lens (most important item in photography) with portability, this is it.

May 29, 2021permalink

mmditter

So... is this a "good lens for the price," or a good lens, period? I've read this review a few times, and I'm still confused. I gather it's definitely not Leica good, but few lenses are that don't cost $8,000. So, is it still good? The wording of this review suggests that they're trying to avoid saying it's just kinda meh. I feel like this lens is just hot all that sharp. Did Panasonic go too cheap on this lens?

May 28, 2021permalink

timo

Seems odd not to compare it with the Lumix 20mm f/1.7, which is slow-focusing but optically very good.

May 25, 2021permalink

And very small, being a pancake. I bet that the image from the 20mm, when cropped to give the same image as the 50mm, will still look better, while providing a wider view when needed.

May 26, 2021permalink

Winmeister

I have TWO of these lenses.. not impressed at all. Stepping down to either f2.8, f4 etc, Oly 12-40 pro is much sharper. F1.7 and 2 are poor in the corners with the pair that I own. Maybe using as portrait is about OK. Wanted to like it but I don't unfortunately.

May 23, 2021*permalink

I had this lens twice and there was definitely a lot of difference in their performance - the second one was a lot better. It seems there is a great deal of sample variation.

I slightly prefer the 20mm which they didn't bother to compare it to (or even mention).

11 months agopermalink

Street_Photography

Weird this old lens is only being reviewed now. I had it and the Olympus 25mm f1.8 and both were miles behind the Sigma 30mm f1.4. I tried keeping the Oly for when I wanted something lighter but the IQ difference was too big. For $£€100-150 this Panny is OK, otherwise invest in the Sigma - which is more of a competitor to the f1.4 and f1.2 25mm lenses, for much less money.

May 23, 2021*permalink

Archiver

I've had the Olympus f1.8 counterpart for years and have always been impressed with its performance. The Panasonic looks much the same.

May 21, 2021permalink

https://www.flickr.com/photos/huha/38632695930

They are definitely very different.

11 months agopermalink

rreichar

I paid $145 new for mine a couple of years ago. For that price it awesome. I use it occasionally for indoor family photos in relatively low light. Zero complaints in that scenario.

May 21, 2021permalink

Teuchter G

I got the 30mm Sigma but it is huge and heavy by comparison. Nice IQ but on a rangefinder body like my GX80 it's just too chunky so I'm probably buying this to replace it. I bought into MFT for "small and light", this seems to meet the spec.

May 20, 2021permalink

Stefan Hundhammer

For a compact prime, check out the Panasonic 20 f/1.7. I believe it's even sharper than this 25 f/1.7.

My favourite MFT set is the GX9 + PanaLeica 15 f/1.7 + Sigma 56 f/1.4: Great IQ and still very compact.

May 21, 2021*permalink

y0chang

I had this lens and while it was ok, it had a weird focal length (with the 4/3 field of view it was more like a 55mm/60mm, and the rendering was so so and the bokeh was very nervous. I ended up selling it and getting the older 20mm which I liked a lot more.

May 20, 2021permalink

58mm lenses were fairly popular in the "good old days". I think the quality of these cheap M43 25mm is the real problem. They are not special at all 😉. They are not WR. They are not that fast either for a prime, and need stopping down anyway for decent images.

What is interesting is why DPR wanted to review this old uninteresting lens that used to sell for much less, around $150 to $200.

May 26, 2021*permalink

tedolf

I got mine for $99.00 when it was first introduced. It is great for 3/4 and full body portraiture. love it.

Tedolph

11 months agopermalink

Foveonite

no Olympus Pro lens to compare?

May 20, 2021permalink

Teuchter G

Is it even worth comparing a $250 lens to a $1200 one? Maybe the f1.4 at $700 is comparable but not a budget option.

May 20, 2021permalink

Jer81

I like this "Field review" format. Would like to see more.

May 19, 2021permalink

Foveonite

I miss their old lens review format with distortion graph, sharpness chart. after a joint venture with DXOMark then don't know what happened to their relationship, lens review has less technical data.

May 20, 2021permalink

DrewRick

For this type of lens, I'd love to see the reviewer put this on a tripod and take a waist-up self portrait (during covid-19 or in the absence of a model) to see subject separation at people distances. Seeing the bokeh from a close-up of a light bulb doesn't tell me anything about that.

May 20, 2021*permalink

Claudio NC

Anyone interested in this lens, as an alternative to the similar Olympus for aerial shooting with drones, where one of the first and most important specifications, necessarily is the weight?
Soon afterwards, the behavior of the lens against the sun could be decisive.

May 19, 2021permalink

Dale108

It is a nice little lens that performs well on both Panny and Oly bodies.

May 19, 2021permalink

The Jimmy 86

Great lens for the price. I do wish it had optical stabilization, but that would likely ruin the small size.
As far as a nifty fifty goes, it's fantastic and a great starter lens.

May 19, 2021permalink

Yes, but which price? It was introduced several years ago at $99, but the review tells us that it is "available now" for only $249.

11 months agopermalink

I owned this lens and thought it was pretty bad. Sold it and kept my Olympus 25mm f/1.8 and Panasonic 25mm f/1.4.

May 19, 2021permalink

Daniil L.

25mm 1.4 is a dream. Only Nocticron is better

May 19, 2021permalink

brice06

Admin could you pursue this interesting field review of affordable M43 lenses with the tiny Pana 35-100mm F.4-5,6,as this little gem deserves more consideration !

May 19, 2021permalink

Pete_W

Thank you for a well balanced review and one that keeps within the context of the micro fourt-thirds segment.

May 19, 2021permalink

This is, just like the Olympic 25mm f/1.8, a very forgettable MFT lens. The FL is boring, neither here or there. The performance is for a prime lens also very ordinary, beaten by even zoom lenses like the popular 12-35mm and the 12-40mm. There is little reason to buy the cheapest prime lenses from either maker in this common FL range. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is much more interesting, if low price is the main consideration. The Panasonic 20mm while more expensive is a good choice, if size is so important. IMO, a prime lens with mediocre optical performance is a waste of time.

May 18, 2021permalink

buratino

Sergey, could you elaborate on Oly 25 f1.8? It looks like quite a nice lens without obvious faults—and seems to be better than the Pana of interest. I admit, 50mm (FF eq) is not my focal length. Strangely enough, it did work for me for 6x4.5 (with 75mm focal length).

May 18, 2021permalink

@buratino. I bought the Olympus 25mm f/1.8 about 5 years ago and have only used it 3 times. Nothing special. It's however very cheap (at least at that time), small and it even came with a free lens hood unlike other Olympus lenses before it. Somehow i did not find reason to use it because the images from the 12-40mm are clearly sharper and usually more pleasing. I suppose it can blur backgrounds better, but then again the FL is not what I would use for blurring. A longer lens would be much better, eg the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or the even the cheap Sigma 60mm f/2.8. The latter produces extraordinarily sharp images to contrast with the blurred background and had a longer FL to compensate for the slower speed when used to blur backgrounds. In short, after all these years my 25mm f/1.8 is as good as new. ;-) 😄

May 19, 2021permalink

Raist3d

Boring depends on each photographer. 50mm Ff equivalent focal length is one of my favorite focal.

May 19, 2021*permalink

Zabalint

12-35 and 12-40 are much larger and much more expensive, so I don't think that it's a fair comparison.

May 20, 2021permalink

Not only are they much larger, they're also more than a stop slower. The main reason to buy a prime is speed so you can keep your ISO down.

May 20, 2021*permalink

Raist3d

@NZ Scoot- to quip- you mean one of the potential reasons to buy a prime. Some primes are designed to be small over fast, still pretty high quality too.

May 20, 2021permalink

Raist3d: Sure. Sometimes I shoot with a little prime because I can't be bothered lugging my 12-35 f/2.8. But usually it's because I need the speed.

May 21, 2021permalink

amtberg

Henri-Cartier Bresson mainly shot with a 50mm lens, but what did he know? Booooring.

May 22, 2021permalink

timo

I don't think you can criticise a lens because you think the focal length is 'boring'. That's not a quality judgement. Just buy a lens with a different focal length.

May 25, 2021permalink

The 50mm was ONLY fast lens available for a reasonable price, size and weight in those days. I'm sure Mr Bresson could do just as well or maybe take even more interesting photos with a 35mm with the same speed, .. all else being equal.

For this discussion, at this time, we are talking about how good a lens is for the general photographer, not for just a super talented photographer. Realise that we now have much better choices in fast, cheap and good quality lenses in other FLs.

Also, with better resolution, high ISO performance, as well as amazing PP software nowadays, we can't assume that Mr Bresson wouldn't choose a 35mm f/1.4 or a 40mm instead, given the choices we now have. (Taking shots from the same distance, a wider lens can produce the same image of a 50mm by cropping.) He probably would use a short zoom too. I'm afraid your reference to what past masters use is not relevant. Should all landscape users still use big view cameras like Adam Ansel?

May 26, 2021permalink

Sergey: A better question might be: Is 50mm an inherently boring focal length, or is this just the opinion of one person?

May 26, 2021permalink

The 50mm lens IS boring. The 35 and 40mm are better and can show better the effect of being there, near the action, as you can get closer with them. Being able to show a little more of the surroundings is also interesting as an option for the street photog. As explained, used at the same distance as the 50mm, they can provide the same image as the 50mm, aided by the higher resolution nowadays even at high ISO. So, again, we are not talking about the value of a lens FL popular half a century ago. One reason it was popular then was that all cameras came standard with a 50mm because it could be made fast and cheap and therefore mass produced. That was at a time when few people could afford a decent camera. Nowadays, most fixed lens cameras come with a 35mm or even 28mm because they are more interesting and flexible and can replace the 50mm, given the high resolution and hence croppability of the modern images. And, i haven't talked about the huge improvement of general purpose zooms.

May 26, 2021*permalink

If you think 25mm is a useless in-between focal length, why do you think 30mm is less so?

11 months agopermalink

BG454

Once again the old "zoom with your feet" myth rears it's ugly head.

Anyone who imparts such advice, clearly does not understand the rule of perspective.

May 18, 2021permalink

TomCodyPleasedToMeetYa

And they rolled out "nifty fifty". Again. I can't believe people use such stupid terms.

May 19, 2021permalink

MichailK

I am pretty sure the offer of the kit 50mm lens was based on minimum costs associated with designing a lens that had to conform with the flange distance dictated by the mirror box presence behind the mount - to offer a wider kit lens they would have to use a more expensive retro focus design hence the universal 50mm kit offer. Or so me thinks...

May 19, 2021permalink

The Jimmy 86

I HATE that horrid myth. It simply doesn't make any sense at all.
I deliberately choose my focal length, it's a part of the creative process. If I want to compress depth and maintain a stand off distance, I will shoot that way with a longer focal length - 'zooming with my feet' won't give me the look that I want.

There's certainly an argument to be made for primes in the creative process, and I do shoot on them regularly, but for ENG work - my holy trinity of zooms can't be replaced.

May 19, 2021permalink

Zabalint

And it's also funny to zoom back through the wall, if there is one behind you :-)

May 20, 2021permalink

BJN

Okay, I'll avoid reading clueless debates about whether f/1.7 is really f/1.7 (it is). I've owned this lens for quite a while, but don't use it much. Why post a field review at this late date? Anyway, I don't think a lens with unavoidable internal reflection artifacts when the sun is in the frame qualifies for a gold ranking. "Hey, let's build some traffic with Micro Four Thirds equivalent wars."

May 18, 2021permalink

So you think this is a conspiracy?
Also, I like your trolling strawman about f/1.7 being f/1.7 though..

May 18, 2021permalink

brendon1000

Of course it is. My phone has a f1.6 sensor and its even brighter than this lens.

May 19, 2021permalink

Brendon: Your phone has a f1.6 sensor?

May 26, 2021permalink

brendon1000

f1.6 lens. Typo

May 26, 2021permalink

It might be f1.6, brendon1000, but it isn't brighter than this lens.

May 27, 2021permalink

Tulaev

"...an equivalent maximum aperture of F3.4. This lens is a great choice for general-purpose photography, including low-light work."

Is it a joke?

May 18, 2021permalink

Since it is still f1.7 as far as light gathering is concerned, I think DPR needs to rephrase that as equivalent depth of field instead of equivalent aperture.

May 18, 2021permalink

Alex Hanin

@DarnGoodPhotos

Not really: a FF f1.7 lens would gather 4x the light. I think you mean "light intensity", which is pretty much irrelevant when comparing formats.

May 18, 2021permalink

You are correct in theory. If you take the same photo with m4/3 and FF, both with an f1.7 lens, the full frame photo is not 4 stops brighter. So this lens gathers the same amount of light as an f1.7 full frame lens in the way that actually matters to photography. However, just saying that it is f3.4 equivalent implies that any photo taken will be a little more than two stops darker than a photo taken with an f1.7 full frame lens.

May 18, 2021*permalink

DarnGoodPhotos

What about ISO?
iSO200 on m43 is the same as ISO800 on full frame
So if you use these values, the full frame at f/3.4 iso800 takes the same exact image as f/1.7 iso200 on m43 for this same field of view. If both sensors have the same number of pixels, the amount of light reaching each pixel for the same image is exactly the same.

The full frame pixels in that example will be bigger so the image will appear darker but it just needs a the values to be rescaled and you will have the same image with the same noise performance.

That is equivalence.

Equivalent exposure is meaningless across different size formats for IQ purposes. Otherwise an f/1.7 cell phone would have the same IQ as an f/1.7 full frame lens.... So your suppositions easily disproven by contradiction.

May 18, 2021permalink

We are discussing the lens, not the amount of sensor noise. m4/3 does not need iSO3200 to get the same image brightness as ISO800 on full frame.

May 18, 2021*permalink

The lens is made for a certain sized sensor. It's completely relevant in this context.

M43 does not need ISO3200. ISO800 on M43 = ISO3200 on Full Frame.

ISO is a unit-area quantity because it is used for exposure. But when you're talking about IQ, equal numbers do not have equal results across formats. We could fix this whole equivalence debate by either getting rid of f/numbers and just using aperture diameters or by getting rid of exposure-based ISO and just using a more absolute measure of sensitivity.

Again, think about my example. We have a [hypothetical] 24MP 3:2 m43 sensor and a 24MP fullframe sensor. This means the pixel areas of FF are each exactly 4x the m43 sensor. The diagonals are exactly 2x the m43 sensor. Now if we take an image with an f/3.4 lens on Full Frame with the same field of view as the f/1.7 lens on Micro Four thirds, every single pixel will see the same amount of light because they both have equal aperture diameters. This is equivalence....

May 18, 2021permalink

DPR has been pretty clear in past articles that equivalence applies to light gathered as well, looking those up will be more useful than quibbling about it here tbh. s1oth and Alex are right tho.

Either way, f1.7 is about as bright as you're gonna get for a lightweight prime on M4/3 (with the exception of the PL25/1.4, 56/1.4, and maybe 30/1.4), so yeah this will be about as good as it gets for the average M4/3 user that isn't springing for an f1.2 Pro, manual Voigtlander, etc.

May 18, 2021*permalink

s1oth1ovechunk:

You are completely wrong.

In fact, f1.7 on M43 is equivalent to f3.4 on full-frame when ISO is THE SAME.

May 19, 2021permalink

Nz Scott. No. To get equal exposure you need equal f number and iso(and shutter speed). If you want the same image and you have different f/number you can't have the same ISO. As I said repeatedly, this different iso is actually equal IQ (not number), but that's not what you are saying because I repeatedly said this and you are "correcting" me.

May 19, 2021*permalink

DrewRick

"intensity" is the key word, which implies the same exposure. Of course exposing a smaller area results in more noise and longer dof, as discussed perennially ad nauseam. I was going to write "previously" but the autocorrect version works too lol

May 20, 2021permalink

image365

Hand held light meters have never been calibrated for different film/sensor sizes, as f1.7, or f8 for that matter, is the the same value when set on any lens.

May 20, 2021permalink

s1oth1ovechunk: No.

An exposure at ISO 100 f/1.7 1/100 sec on m43 is exactly the same as an exposure taken at ISO 100 f/3.4 1/100 sec on full frame.

The same amount of light is gathered. The FF photo will look darker at default settings, but when you lift it two stops in post it will be identical to the m43 photo, including noise levels and DOF.

May 27, 2021*permalink

Olivier GALLEN

Check the experts: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care
(NZ Scott: you don't want a darker image, that's why ISO is adjusted)

May 29, 2021permalink

Nz Scott. Stop correcting me. You don't know what you're talking about.

Look up SNR of iso100 on full frame vs iso100 on m43. You are wrong. Educate yourself. Just like f/number iso cannot be compared across different sensor sizes because it's a per unit area quantity and has nothing to do with the signal of the image. Otherwise iso100 on a cell phone would be as clean as iso100 on a FF camera.

As far as same amount of light, the sensor sensitivity does not change the amount of light it's getting. So that's a completely separate issue.

May 29, 2021permalink

It's elementary stuff, mate. Get an education yourself.

11 months agopermalink

rockjano

Yeah I also have it but it is an old lens no??, Why they review it now???
The 42,5 1,7 is even better by the way

May 18, 2021permalink

Rolandigital

You know they are different focal lenghts, right? For portraiture, yes, 43/1.7 is better with much nicer DoF. But the FoV is almost twice narrower, which starts to limit it's use. CA also was a big problem, at least on my copy, and FL was a bit too long for me. Sold 43/1.7 and got 25/1.4II.

May 18, 2021permalink

LJ - Eljot

And compared to type 120 Roll film with a 6x9 exposure it is equivalent to a 116mm with an aperture of only f/7.9 (14.7mm).

May 18, 2021permalink

Andrey K

Let's compare all the 35mm (aka "full frame", aka "small format") lenses to 4x5 inch format lenses.

May 19, 2021permalink

LJ - Eljot

Yes, why not? That is about the same as comparing everything to 35mm.
Yes, that was the most common format, but focal length itself is not very interesting.

May 19, 2021permalink

Istina

Such a lovely lens for the price, doesn't have the rich rendering and magic of the 1.4 but for the price it's outstanding, light and reliable at any aperture

May 18, 2021permalink

Tom Wuergler

Absolutely. Want to get it. Will get it.

May 18, 2021permalink

Idaho_X

I sometimes don't understand your "awards". You gave this lens a gold award with no weather sealing, distracting CAs and not very nice sunstars.
But I guess that's due to the price/value ...

May 18, 2021permalink

brendon1000

Of course price plays a very important role in the awards. And overall sharpness also plays a big part in the rating. One lens might have great sunstars but it it's soft it's not of great use to a lot of people

May 19, 2021permalink

Which price? It was introduced several years ago at $99, but the review tells us that it is "available now" for only $249.

11 months agopermalink

beavertown

Seriously underrated lens.

May 18, 2021permalink

(unknown member)

They sold it for $99 for a reason.

May 18, 2021permalink

TorsteinH

I'm not sure I agree to this statement:
"For folks desiring the absolute best 50mm equiv. output for Panasonic Micro Four Thirds cameras, the Panasonic Leica DG 25mm F1.4 II is the ticket."
You could always go the better 25mm f/1.2 from Olympus.

May 18, 2021permalink

The Mad Kiwi

Yeah the Olympus crushes it.

May 18, 2021permalink

Istina

1) The Olympus is... an Olympus lens
2) I have the mark I version of the Panaleica 25mm and while on the charts it may be inferior to the Olympus I absolutely love the smooth rendering and the rich tonality. Wide open is just magic.

But I get some people prefer the Oly, while being heavier.

May 18, 2021permalink

Rolandigital

Yep, it's true. I tried 25/1.7 but didn't liked it. Got 25/1.4II instead. And loving it.

May 18, 2021*permalink

Devvy

My copy suffered from severe focus shifting, meaning the sharpness actually decreased when stopping down from F1.7 to F2.8. And I was not the only one experiencing this, there is at least one YouTube video explaining the issue.
Using a 20 F1.7 now for years and would not consider going back to the 25 F1.7 even if the focus shifting is gone - mainly because of the size.

May 18, 2021permalink

thedarknight87

The focus shifting issue can be worked around by setting Constant Preview to ON in Panasonic models. This will ensure the lens will AF at the set aperture, thereby working around this issue. The bigger problem is the LOCA, IMO.

May 19, 2021permalink

tr33man

Constant preview does not solve it, when you press focus button camera opens aperture all the way to f/1.7 to get more light. It needs to be in full manual exposure mode + constant preview and that is a pain to use.

May 19, 2021permalink

thedarknight87

I always shoot in manual, so I did not know that it does not work in other modes. I have been exclusively using manual mode around a month since I became an enthusiast photographer, four years ago. I have no idea why I would want to lose control over the aperture or shutter speed, both are important to the image.

May 19, 2021permalink

lnsmr

With many cell phone cameras picking up 1" sensors now, the MFT platform is really facing some pressure. MFT is certainly competitive for long focal lens, but I would love to see and buy an LX100 with a lens like this one.

May 18, 2021permalink

Jer81

The entire dedicated camera market is really facing some pressure. Has been for years now.

MFT is under the same kind of pressure as APS-C or FF is.

May 18, 2021permalink

Ilia Snopchenko

When there's a phone with an interchangeable mount and at least a 4/3 sensor, then we might be really talking about pressure. :)

May 18, 2021permalink

Yannis1976

Many cell phones with 1" sensor camera?? I have only seen one lately and that is only sold in Japan...

May 18, 2021permalink

rockjano

And even the 1" is a lot smaller than M4/3

May 18, 2021permalink

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/05/wide-angle-micro-43-imatest-results/

Many???? I think you meant "One current"

May 18, 2021permalink

lnsmr

Interesting that on forums like this, we have a tendency to argue on the details and ignore the message. Sony has been leading cellphone CIS production and the next one is 1" that big Asia makers are all getting (Xiaomi, Huawei, Opp, etc). The point is really that cellphone makers are closing the gap on the sensor size. MFT is double the area of 1", but it is also only 1/4 of the FF area. Where do you draw the line as the sweet spot? It is better than cellphone but better ergonomic compared to FF or even APS-C? Panasonic LX-100 for me is a good camera that used to carry often, but I also have Sony RX1 and Leica Q2. At least for me, the pressure from smart phones is computational photography. If Panasonic or Olympus can somehow embedded the AI from the newest Pixel or iPhone, I would buy that camera right away, MFT or FF. I would not be surprised if Xiaomi do just that.

May 18, 2021permalink

Jer81

Interesting that on a camera gear website every now and than someone comes with a snobby comment about how good smartphones are and that the camera market is going to die.

May 18, 2021permalink

AsterAstraAsteria

Just think about the pathetic size of lenses... the first surface of the first element has to be no more than 1/2 sensor diagonal (i.e. 8mm) away from the imaging plane. How many lenses have ever met that criterion?

May 19, 2021permalink

Franky Lankie

agreed

the top 10-15 photos that i like, that i've taken in the last 12-18 months, were using my dslr/mirrorless

the top 10-15 photos that OTHER people like, that i've taken in the last 12-18 months, were using my smartphone

May 19, 2021permalink

Disdain

I wouldn't say so. Mobile phones are stacking too many pixels in sensors that too small for them. They don't have variable aperture lenses either. The lenses are poor and always soft in the corners as the sensors get larger. So even if we get a f1.8 1" sensor, it'll be soft in the corners. The only thing they do well is the auto HDR processing. The fake bokeh looks awful.

May 20, 2021permalink

DARKR00M

For the cost, size, and weight, the Lumix G 25mm/1.7 is one of, if not the first lens any micro four thirds user should own. This lens plus camera, is the best economical choice, and a rewarding experience as well…
.
.

May 18, 2021permalink

cosinaphile

i love the 25 1.4 the first prime i bought for m43 which ive been using the last few days on my pen f .. been my take out camera for a few days .. ive also bee n sing the 80mm contax g 2.8 with customized by focal l stabilization of amazing ability

the 25 1.4 is sharp and snappy looking love the contrast with bw tg

this 1.7 looks great if you wanna shed almost 1\2 the weight over the 1.4 not to mention cost

May 18, 2021*permalink

zakk9

Bought this lens a few years ago, and didn't like it to start with. It has grown on me though, and now I never go anywhere without it. It's part of my 3-lens prime kit, Zuiko 12mm f/2, Panasonic 25mm f/1.7 and PL 45mm f/2.8 Macro. The PL Macro replaced the Zuiko 45mm f/1.8 that was ultra sharp and contrasty, too sharp and contrasty to my taste.

May 18, 2021permalink

sbszine

This is a great value little lens, and you can often get it in promo bundles with a new camera. If full RRP is your only option and you have the money it's probably worth spending the extra to get the Olympus 25 / 1.8.

May 18, 2021permalink

mmarian

I might try it. I use Oly lenses on my Inspire2 drone with x5s camera on it. My only concern would be how well it would balance on the x5s gimbal. I do have Oly 25 f1.8 which balances perfectly with the hood attached but the lens has ( broadly known and reported) decentering issue. I believe that this is manufacturing defect. I tried 5 different coppies with far appart S/N and they all suffered from the same issue. Sharp in the middle and right but very soft near the left edge at all apertures. Obviously this is worst wide open and it only gets better and sort of acceptable at f5.6.

May 18, 2021*permalink

sbszine

My Pana 25 / 1.7 is a bit decentred as well, also with a soft left side. It's fine once you stop down a bit.

May 18, 2021permalink

Photoman

Use to have this lens on a Panasonic G9. I can't fault this lens
and would always go back to it, if I was a 4/3 user again
(I have bought in and left it 4 times now!)

May 18, 2021*permalink

AGSchnozz

A 50mm (or equivalent) is one of my lesser used focal lengths, but it's good to always have one in the bag. The price (I purchased mine for $99 USD) and quality of this lens fits the task. It's inexpensive, small, light, very usable, and just does the job. Are there better lenses? Probably, but I can honestly say that it's literally "good enough" for everything I need it for. It meets and exceeds my requirements. It's a lens that goes everywhere and doesn't guilt-trip you if you don't happen to actually use it on that outing. I do generally use it one stop down, instead of wide-open, but I do that with most lenses anyway.

May 17, 2021permalink

loafer

There is a reason 50mm were included with the many SLR cameras at a low price. They really make you want to get the right prime for the job. The gallery is filled with shots screaming for a short macro and the landscapes and people shots could be done nicely a bit wider. Portraits are typically longer - so they toss this one in cheap and hook you on the macro and portrait lens.

May 17, 2021permalink

deep7

When I sold off most of my m4/3 gear, this was one of only two lenses in that mount I kept. My friend uses it regularly on my old EP1 and the photos it produces completely belie the price. Wonderful little thing.

May 17, 2021permalink

tedolf

I love mine, especially since I got it for $99.00.

What's not to like?

Tedolph

May 17, 2021permalink

24thWanderer

I've moved from Micro Four Thirds but I used to use this lens quite a bit. It was the first prime I bought when I got my GX85. It was cheaper a few years ago. But even at the price now, I would find it a pretty addition to most M43 kits. The only areas where it really feel flat for me was when I was shooting against stage lights. The flare and fringing was prominent on those scenarios. But as a whole, I enjoyed using it. Its small size also makes a great lens to keep on those smaller bodies and use for all sorts of situations.

May 17, 2021permalink

Boss of Sony

I sold mine, because it wasn't a step up in IQ from the excellent Panasonic 14-45mm. In fact, the 14-45mm is at least as sharp. For street photography or night-time shots, the 25mm f1.7 would obviously be more useful, but in my experience, it doesn't hold up well for night photography, especially long exposures. For that, a better prime lens is needed.

May 17, 2021permalink

Henry Richardson

You may recall that Lenrentals and dpreview's own Roger Cicala went through 6 copies of the well loved, often lauded Panasonic Leica 25mm f1.4, but it gets beat by the Panasonic 14mm f2.5, Panasonic 20mm f1.7, Olympus 12mm f2, Panasonic 7-14mm f4, Voigtlander 17.5mm f0.95, and Voigtlander 25mm f0.95.

Wide-Angle Micro 4/3 Imatest Results

"Panasonic-Leica results on this test are the average of 6 copies. The average numbers at f/4 are slightly lower than the first version of this article, which reported only one copy, but the difference is not really significant. The Panasonic/Leica 25mm disappointed a bit: it was good but I had expected it to be THE best of the bunch and it’s not."

May 17, 2021*permalink

Carol T

I think the variability was horrible on these, and m4/3 lenses in general were not very impressive, sadly. Was a big disappointment to me. :(

That said, the PL25/1.4 is my favorite and most-used lens. I don't use it for absolute sharpness, though, I use it because I love the rendering. And honestly on my old E-M1 original, it is as sharp as I need it to be. :)

May 17, 2021permalink

Context is key, and Roger provided a good deal of it so taking his numbers out of context to reach a singular conclusion kinda does them a disservice.

The PL25 gets beat by a *very* small margin when stopped down, and by a larger margin when wide open when compared to slower lenses (and no, the wide open Voigtlanders f0.95 don't beat it, those are even softer wide open and about the same at f2.8). Roger also didn't test the PL25 between f1.4 & f2.8...

May 17, 2021*permalink

(continued)

I do think my 20/1.7 is sharper across the frame and it would be my pick (well, the 17/1.2 would be but I'm selling it) for landscapes and stuff where sharpness matters more, but the rendering of the PL25 is still nicer in some ways and I've actually enjoyed using it for environmental portraits a lot. Even Roger will tell you sharpness isn't everything... I would be surprised if people could tell a lens is 50lp/ih shaper in isolation and possibly even with side by side testing.

That's precisely the difference (or less) between the PL25 and the other lenses when stopped down to f2.8. Some eke out a bit more at F4 but it's still marginal. The biggest difference is wide open, where it's not much shaper than a decent kit lens. His numbers don't say anything about how it does at f1.7 or f2.

May 17, 2021*permalink

FWIW I got the PL25 II for the pretty unique balance of speed, weather sealing, size, rendering qualities and performance... The only other lens faster than f1.7 which tows that line so well is the 56/1.4 IMO. If you want something fast and free of compromise you end up with the Oly Pros. If you don't need sealing and are fine with f1.7 then there's plenty of options, like this similarly sized 25/1.7.

May 17, 2021permalink

Osa25

The PL 25mm 1.4 is an epic lens and going through my catalogue of images it was notable that a great deal of my most loved images were from that lens. It’s gear value to buy a used one, which I what I did

The Panasonic 25mm1.7 is competent but just not got that character at all. Only reason to get it is video.

I eventually moved to the 20mm f1.7 to get a bid wider FOV. This one is also got more character than the 25mm 1.7 but a small step below the PL.

May 18, 2021permalink

four under

I must have had a "bad" copy of the PL 25mm 1.4. I was not impressed with it.

May 18, 2021permalink

dr8

were the last few lens reviews shot at an active volcano, the lenses seem to be covered with ash...

May 17, 2021permalink

Satyaa

There are several 25mm options. What does this lens do more/better than its peers, or ground-breaking, to get a Gold?

I don't know about the lens itself but am trying to understand the award. I have read in the past that a product being good does not automatically get a gold. It has to do something the others don't do, or do it better than them.

Thanks.

May 17, 2021*permalink

It's at least $100 if not $200+ cheaper than most other options, while still being solid optically. It's not for me but at the low end of the budget spectrum the price alone makes it stand out.

May 17, 2021permalink

Osa25

I agree.

Smells like commercial reasons, hailing a product that’s cheaper and easier to sell.

May 18, 2021permalink

Gesture

How could it have 2K reviews already on Amazon.
OEMs: enough already with green/purple fringing.

May 17, 2021permalink