Perhaps there is a breakdown in communication here. I don't think anyone is disparaging the above lenses in any way, but are more curious about the comparison with the 20 since you brought it up in the first post--in particular with 2 lenses. To do it with same subject would be the only way to really judge, it seems. You also seem to prefer the 17 to the 20--which is certainly your prerogative, but you don't say or show why (other than perhaps FOV).
I think the entire point that Jonas and a few others are trying to make is quite simple. You've looked at the output from a number of different lenses and come to the conclusion that the 20mm is not as good as the hype or other fast lenses that you have access to. That may in fact be the case. All people have asked of you is to show what you think is good and bad on each lens.
For instance, in this post (that I am quoting from) you show shots from lenses that you never mentioned in your original post. For those of us who aren't intimately familiar with these different lenses, it is very hard to follow and understand the pros and cons of each lens.
I did indicate (somewhere here) that I feel that this lens is over corrected (for what and by how much is going to be a problem to figure out and is a major burden for me).
My intention is not to disparage the lens either (as I have indicated).
It is that "hype" factor you mention. Not overwhelming is my feeling based on my use.
Vivek, I find all this sad. I really thought you could back your claims. Now I see all is just about bickering and "I am smart - you are stupid!" and similar.
There was a simple question in yellow for you, not even that one you could reply.
I'll just bow out. My English is not good enough to keep this at a decent level.
One of the impressive things about the Lumix 20/1.7 is that the edge/corner sharpness shapes up very nicely by f/2.8. Even at f/1.7, there is quite a bit of detail throughout the frame.
I don't know how the various C-mount lenses do in terms of peripheral performance, but most of my older 35-50mm equivalent lenses take more stopping down to put in a good edge performance.
Here is the Lumix 20 at f/1.7:
Full-resolution is here: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2753/...86332487_o.jpg
Keeping in mind that the proximal region is outside the DOF, there is a lot of detail there for f/1.7. I don't think my Nikon AF 35/2 stopped down to f/4 would do as well at the edges as the Panasonic does wide open.
Last edited by Amin; 17th November 2009 at 17:03.
I posted my comments on the Schneider Xenoplan 25/1.9 earlier in the thread. Here's some images with this lens on the G1:
And....here's the swirly bokeh:
Don't mean to divert the thread but which lens on the m43 bodies is the "Master of Swirl" ?
I like the swirl. :-)
My vote for King of Swirl is the Cooke Kinic 1" f/1.5:
Swirling goes in the opposite direction south of the equator, right?
Compared to this, the Xeno is swirl-free.
I hope you're not going Swirly :-)
Great shots, love the portrait
The first few times I came here I thought this was a pleasantly productive forum that was a change from all of the others.
No more. We don't need, "my equipment is better than your equipment."
Get lives, guys. Be bitter somewhere else...
Try to enjoy photography, not rag/rage (your pick) on people needlessly.
I'm curious ... do you mean comparing a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera to what is produced by the 20mm on the G1?I don't know how the various C-mount lenses do in terms of peripheral performance, but most of my older 35-50mm equivalent lenses take more stopping down to put in a good edge performance.
perhaps you'd need to look at a 35 or 40mm lens on the 35mm frame to make a similar comparison?
are you comparing these both on the same body? (the Nikon 35mm f2 mounted on the Panasonic? If you're meaning how it looks on another camera by my reckoning you need to stop a 35mm format down 2 stops more to get the same DoFKeeping in mind that the proximal region is outside the DOF, there is a lot of detail there for f/1.7. I don't think my Nikon AF 35/2 stopped down to f/4 would do as well at the edges as the Panasonic does wide open.
Eg for equal Dof
20mm on 4/3rds @ 1.7 = 40mm on full frame @ f3.5
or did you mean something else?
interesting about the edge performance stuff ... I wonder what effects issus such as from this post have
I'm also unsure what effect it has that Nikon has a longer flange distance than other lenses and what effect this has on the image??This is not really about C and RX mount lenses and cameras. It's about lenses designed to image directly onto the sensor versus those designed to image onto sensors covered by 9.5mm of BK7 glass, and about cameras with uncovered sensors and those with sensors covered by 9.5mm of BK7 glass.
I really do need to compare a 21mm on full frame vs 35mm
Pellicle, I don't think this has anything to do with flange back distance or glass between sensor and lens. My point is simply that the Lumix 20/1.7 has good performance throughout the frame, whereas many other lenses are sharp in the middle with suspect edge performance.
The Canon 35mm primes (f/2 and f/1.4) seemed (in my experience) a bit better than the Nikon 35/2 when is comes to edge performance. Both of those Canons do very well in the periphery at f/4. However, wide open, no so great.
I've attached the SLRGear comparisons of the Lumix 20/1.7 and Canon 35L. As you can see, they are similar with the Lumix at f/2 and Canon at f/4. However, the Panasonic puts in a very high level of performance even at f/1.7, whereas the Canon improves dramatically with stopping down a couple stops.
but since that testing chart you posted is done on a 5D it suggests the data is over a wider area ... if I look at the central portion of the image it looks remarkably similar to the Lumix resultI've attached the SLRGear comparisons of the Lumix 20/1.7 and Canon 35L. As you can see, they are similar with the Lumix at f/2 and Canon at f/4. However, the Panasonic puts in a very high level of performance even at f/1.7, whereas the Canon improves dramatically with stopping down a couple stops.
the nikon lens you were mentioning before may have different responces to the EF35 L as well ... I don't know if the EF (or any of the canon line) are designed to take into account the sensor coverings on 5D (or more likely if at all the 1D series)
Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting that a MFT camera and Lumix 20 will outperform a 5D and 35L. I am just pointing out that the Lumix has a high performance at all selectable apertures, whereas the 35L needs to be stopped down a couple stops before the edges look great. That is no problem since the 5D has way better (~2 stops in the case of the Mk II) high ISO performance, but I think it's nevertheless an admirable performance for the little Panasonic.
In a more apples-to-apples comparison, the SLR Gear tool nicely demonstrates that the Panasonic lens at f/2 has equal or better sharpness throughout the frame compared to the M Zuiko 17/2.8 at f/5.6, which is its best setting:
Last edited by Amin; 18th November 2009 at 02:41.
irrespective of the density of the sensor (and I was tempted to get into that) the angle of view is central to this question because you are using that lens (the one which is measured on the 5D) on the smaller sensor and so only the central portion of the image will be seen by the sensor.
in your earlier post you clarified you were using a 35mm focal length lens on a nikon digital camera (not 4/3) and comparing that to the results from the 20mm on the 4/3
1. Lenses giving the same FOV on different platforms (e.g. a 17 or 20mm on m-4/3, vs. a 35 or 40mm on full-frame).
2. Lenses with the same focal length, both on the same platform (e.g. comparing the Pansonic 20mm vs. an adapted Nikon or Canon or C-mount 20mm).
The first comparison is a "relative" one, but still useful, I think. It may be especially useful to those with experience in another format. For example, I may know that if I want good corner sharpness from my 35mm lens on full frame, that I will use f/4 or f/5.6. It is helpful to know that I can expect the same "relative" corner sharpness at f/2 with the 20mm, and f/4 on the Olympus 17mm.
The second comparison is more practical for a given sensor format. But I think it can be dangerous to extrapolate from test data taken from two different platforms (e.g. cropping the graph from a full-frame camera test to approximate a 4/3 camera). In theory, most full-frame lenses should kick a** on m4/3, because only the sharpest portion of the lens is being used, and because the increased DOF may give an appearance of better sharpness. In practice, the results vary.
If Vivek or someone else can provide side by side pictures taken with the Panasonic 20mm with those from another lens of the same focal length, we might better "see" differences in sharpness and bokeh. In my experience, however, two people can come to dramatically different conclusions when looking at the same image.
My personal favorites are the ones that deliver twin parallel lines throughout the bokeh (eg Pentax 50/1.8 screw mount)
These shots were done with the Schneider Xenoplan 25 1.9, the lens that was mentioned at the very beginning of the thread. The thread went off in a few different directions, but to bring it full circle: I don't own the Panasonic 20 1.7 yet...I think the Xenoplan is a very fine lens, but the results I've seen show the Panasonic to be better: better bokeh, better color rendition, and with the advantage of auto-focus.
[QUOTE=woodmancy;157128]Abbazz, you are hiding stuff from the bokeh thread - this one should be definitely be there (I can't remember seeing it).
If you take a trip north or south, could you check which way the bokeh swirls - we are doing a research project over in the thread.
Is that the Coriolis effect?