Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

[Terry]

Vivek -
I need some help here on the distortion you are talking about in the second shot. I'm used to thinking about the barrel distortion in terms of non straight lines. When I look at the shot the lines around the little medal he's holding seem pretty straight. Are you talking about his hands being closer to the camera and looking proportionately larger than what you would expect? Isn't that a trait of all wide angle lenses even well corrected ones?
I didn't think that the firmware from 1.2 to 1.4 dealt with distortion.

 

[Vivek]

Terry, You are pointing to the perspective distortion. The barrel (2nd image)- has already been corrected manually (forgot to mention it).

Here is a (random pick in terms of a manual focus lens) shot through Fujinon-TV 25/1.4 (@f/1.4).

 

[Amin]

Sharpness, Bokeh, etc are easily trumped by a tinier 25/1.9 Schneider Xenoplan

I haven't tried the Xenoplan nor any of the manual focus lenses you've posted with, but I am very impressed with the Pana 20/1.7 compared to the other 35-50mm equivalent lenses I've purchased in the past couple of years (OM 40/2, ZM 50/2, M-Hexanon 50/2, OM 50/1.2, ZF 35/2, CV 35/1.4, Canon 50/1.4, Nikon 35/2, Nikon 35/1.8, M Zuiko 17/2.8, etc). None of those lenses easily trumps the Pana 20/1.7 in sharpness and bokeh from my standpoint (bokeh being subjective). Overall, considering all aspects of image quality, I'd say it stands with the best of them.

The M Zuiko 17/2.8 is a very nice lens, IMO. Plenty sharp for me, and I like having an available 35mm equivalent lens to shoot. However, I agree with the majority of others in this thread that the Lumix 20 is generally superior to the Olympus lens.

 

[s.agar]

I'm using the lens with GF1. There's no upgrade yet, and I assume that the present one includes a very effective correction. Did you try the lens with GF1 as well?

This also applies to the 14-45mm kit lens, which gives outstanding results with the GF1, and surprises me everytime I use it. I never expect much good from kit lenses in general. The "system concept" seems to be working great with the GF1.

(Note that on pixel basis, it's not the sharpest, but the overall quality, colors, distortions etc are all good)

Unfortunately I have no experience with G1 or GH1. I wonder if there's a major difference.

Seyhun

V1.2 firmware shows noticeable barrel from the Pana 20/1.7 while V1.4 shows minimal barrel distortions.

 

[Jonas]

Vivek, you didn't have a clue about what I was talking about. Did the link help?

If so I wonder if you can elaborate a little on how the tinier 25/1.9 Schneider Xenoplan easily trumps the Panny 20/1.7 with regards to Sharpness, Bokeh, etc.

Being underwhelmed is OK. Your statements need some clarifications.

/Jonas

 

[Vivek]

Seyhun, I don't have a GF-1 neither do I plan to buy one, ever.

 

[Vivek]

Vivek, you didn't have a clue about what I was talking about. Did the link help?

If so I wonder if you can elaborate a little on how the tinier 25/1.9 Schneider Xenoplan easily trumps the Panny 20/1.7 with regards to Sharpness, Bokeh, etc.

Being underwhelmed is OK. Your statements need some clarifications.

/Jonas

Jonas, I have that lens (in fact, I introduced it here, IIRC) and I am yet to see any swirls. Did you see Robert's (Monza's) post in your link and the image he reposted here? If you are thinking about your past experience with the 25/1.4 Pentax, let me clearly say that there are c-mount lenses that are far far better than that one.

I do not like the corrections on the lens through two aspherics (a bit over corrected is my feeling, I will check this out later if possible) and the in camera corrections.

Hence the "not overwhelming" statement.

BTW, the lens does need a hood. Lightsources even slightly outside the frame do show up.

The Oly-D 17/2.8 (anyone who own these two lenses, just look at the front and the rear elements) has a nice flat front side in addition to the restricted aperture which I mentioned earlier in this thread.

David, Yes, I agree.

 

[lambert]

According to DPREVIEW the 20/1.7 produces no distortion of note once corrected:

"Distortion is being corrected in software, with absolutely neutral results returned on both the G1 and E-P1."

Jonas, I have that lens (in fact, I introduced it here, IIRC) and I am yet to see any swirls. Did you see Robert's (Monza's) post in your link and the image he reposted here? If you are thinking about your past experience with the 25/1.4 Pentax, let me clearly say that there are c-mount lenses that are far far better than that one.

I do not like the corrections on the lens through two aspherics (a bit over corrected is my feeling, I will check this out later if possible) and the in camera corrections.

Hence the "not overwhelming" statement.

BTW, the lens does need a hood. Lightsources even slightly outside the frame do show up.

The Oly-D 17/2.8 (anyone who own these two lenses, just look at the front and the rear elements) has a nice flat front side in addition to the restricted aperture which I mentioned earlier in this thread.

David, Yes, I agree.

 

[henningw]

My experience parllels that of most others in this thread. The 20 Pana lens is substantially better than the Olympus 17, and not easily bettered by various Leica lenses (certainly not in that focal length range). I find the performance of the 20/1.7 more than the sensor can make use of, if anything.

I haven't noticed flare to any degree, but I'll check. I got a nice little hood from heavystar, but as much to keep my fingers and rain off as anything.

On the G1 I didn't notice any difference in distortion going from 1.2 to 1.4. That's one area I'm usually quite fussy about as it impacts my work.

 

[retnull]

I also own the Schneider Xenoplan 1.9. The resolution is impressive: in my tests it outresolved the G1 14-45 lens in the center of the frame. The lens has only a hint of vignetting on the G1.

But...(and this is where it gets subjective)....the Xenoplan bokeh is the least pleasing of any lens I own (which include Leica, Angenieux, and Panasonic). Also: the Xenoplan's color rendition seems very cool, cooler than any lens I've ever used. Caucasian skin tones seem pale or almost bluish.

I do not own the Panasonic 20 1.7, but will get it soon. There are definitely times when having auto-focus is a huge advantage. I don't feel that using manual focus exclusively, as a matter of principle, would make me a better person. Manual focus won't get me into heaven. Really, who cares about the tools, it's all about the image.

 

[Streetshooter]

Maybe I just have a lucky copy of the 17 but I love this lens.
The 20 is nice but the FOV is no good for me.
I tried my friends 20 and it's nice.
What I see is the resolution is just a tad better than the 17 but the contrast more pleasing on the 17. Color rendition is slightly more natural on the 17 and that with the contrast lends itself to nice B&W conversions.

I don't claim to be any more than a shooter but my eyes see what they see and that's how I see it.
With the IS on the Pen, the 2.8 works fine.
Shooter

 

[terryc]

My experience parllels that of most others in this thread. The 20 Pana lens is substantially better than the Olympus 17, and not easily bettered by various Leica lenses (certainly not in that focal length range). I find the performance of the 20/1.7 more than the sensor can make use of, if anything.

I haven't noticed flare to any degree, but I'll check. I got a nice little hood from heavystar, but as much to keep my fingers and rain off as anything.

On the G1 I didn't notice any difference in distortion going from 1.2 to 1.4. That's one area I'm usually quite fussy about as it impacts my work.

Henning, 'substantially better' implies you have or had the Olympus 17 for a period of time to make this definitive evaluation. I am confused I thought from previous posts you have stayed away from Olympus and are firmly a Panasonic m4/3 user. Interesting as all this is I think the Panny 20mm is getting a little overblown in terms of what it can delivery. For what it is worth I have both.

Best regards, Terry.

 

[Y.B.Hudson III]

my thoughts...talk (typing on t' worLd wiDe web) is just that, hearsay, with out supporting visual evidence...as evidenced by Monza and Vivek's posts...thank you guys...



regards Hudson

 

[Godfrey]

Jonas, I have that lens (in fact, I introduced it here, IIRC) and I am yet to see any swirls.

I see lots of weird swirls in the photo you posted just above this.

 

[henningw]

Henning, 'substantially better' implies you have or had the Olympus 17 for a period of time to make this definitive evaluation. I am confused I thought from previous posts you have stayed away from Olympus and are firmly a Panasonic m4/3 user. Interesting as all this is I think the Panny 20mm is getting a little overblown in terms of what it can delivery. For what it is worth I have both.

Best regards, Terry.

Hi Terry,

I'm not anti-Olympus or pro-Panasonic. As you know I'm a long time Leica user and will probably continue to use it's products for the rest of my life, but with respect to other equipment I'm fairly agnostic. I'm happy to try almost anything to see if it works for me. So far the EP-1 and its lenses haven't swayed me (like the Pen F and FT did when they came out). I'd love to have a camera body with sensor based IS, but the EP-1 isn't it for me.

I had the 17 for nearly a week to try. 'Substantially better' means that I can see the difference pretty consistently. That's partly because the cameras I was using (G1 and GF1) keep the lens wide open mostly on program, and when not in program, in the last while wide open has been the most useful aperture . I'm not sure the 20 is getting overblown; this is a discussion about technical lens quality and in that regard it wins over the 17 as far as I can tell. As I said I don't have any other lenses in this range which are really comparable, but it provides enough resolution to provoke moiré at times, which indicates quite high performance.

I generally prefer the focal length of the 17, but in other respects I like the 20 better. Now if a fast 12mm lens were available....

Regards, Henning

 

[Jonas]

Jonas, I have that lens (in fact, I introduced it here, IIRC) and I am yet to see any swirls. Did you see Robert's (Monza's) post in your link and the image he reposted here?

Yes, I saw his image, then and now again. It is nice.
But you have yet to see any swirly bokeh? milapse's first image in the same link is this one, reposted here (too many links already, I hope milapse understand):

That's swirly bokeh to me.

If you are thinking about your past experience with the 25/1.4 Pentax, let me clearly say that there are c-mount lenses that are far far better than that one.

I quote myself here about the Pentax lens. Why do you mention that lens in this context?

I decided to give the Pentax 25/1.4 a try:
(...)
It is too small, fun, sharp in the center, smeary at the borders, badly corrected, does pretty well with a hood attached, nice bokeh, cheap, vignettes and doesn't really cover the sensor.

I do not like the corrections on the lens through two aspherics (a bit over corrected is my feeling, I will check this out later if possible) and the in camera corrections.

Hence the "not overwhelming" statement.

As I said, I don't mind the topic title. Anyone having tried, or used for longer periods, many lenses isn't easily impressed.

My problem Vivek is that you started the thread with a couple of bold claims:
Sharpness, Bokeh, etc are easily trumped by a tinier 25/1.9 Schneider Xenoplan
than this. Heck, even the slower Zuiko 25/2.8 (Olympus pen F) is not bad.

I have asked for clarifications on this. In what way(s) does the Schneider, with ease, beat the Panny with regards to "sharpness". In what way(s) does the Schneider, with ease, trump the Panny with regards to bokeh? In what way(s) is the Schneider better than the Panny with regards to "etc"?

Please note, I am not saying the Pannycake is a super lens. I just think it is a good lens and in many ways it makes good sense for most µ4/3 owners to buy it if the price doesn't put them off. That's the context here and you have to be prepared to stand behind your words. Starting with "yet see any swirls" is a start but doesn't cover your claims.

regards,

/Jonas

 

[Vivek]

Jonas, As I said, I have been using this lens (actually it precedes the G1s in my possession) and in my use, I do not have any problems with "swirly" bokehs.

Schneider has full data on this lens including MTF data at f/1.9, f/4 and f8 (unlike Oly-D or Pana 20/1.7 which do not state what those MTFs are for).

Check it out.

 

[Jonas]

Jonas, As I said, I have been using this lens (actually it precedes the G1s in my possession) and in my use, I do not have any problems with "swirly" bokehs.

I didn't say you had. I just commented on your claim that the Xenoplan easily trumps the Panny.

Schneider has full data on this lens including MTF data at f/1.9, f/4 and f8 (unlike Oly-D or Pana 20/1.7 which do not state what those MTFs are for).

Check it out.

I tried. Not available. I tried at their American and their German sites, found some other MTF curves but not for this lens.

Maybe it is you that should be prepared to back up your first post rather than send out repliers for endless searches. Maybe you have the MTF sheet available somewhere. Or maybe it doesn't matter if you find the MTF hard to compare.

Why? Because you posted something you should have been prepared to get a few comments on. When a lens is said to easily beat the new and very well received prime of a system we all use it is something people will read and think about. If it then, in the end, is nothing but personal preferences one can question the point with starting the thread.

This far I have seen nothing showing us much better bokeh, much better "sharpness" or much better etc from the Schneider lens. I don't doubt it is better in one aspect or another (and I guess we aren't talking handling now), but in what way and how?

/Jonas

 

[Audii-Dudii]

BTW, the lens does need a hood. Lightsources even slightly outside the frame do show up.

I second this! To that end, below is the photo I promised a while back showing the extent of vignetting that occurs at f/2.8 (as far as I could open the lens given the E-P1's max shutter speed!) when using the 18mm deep Contax GG-3 lens hood originally intended for use with the G1's 90mm lens. IMO, for most situations, this is acceptable to me and using a hood this deep really, really helps when you're photographing in the bright Arizona sunlight (or at night, under streetlights).

 

[Vivek]

Jonas, I don't know what your problems are. I can not teach you how to spell Xenoplan nor can I assist you in finding and interpreting MTF graphs available on the web.

Even if you latch on to some selective words and phrases in my posts, I ask, so what?

Why the heck should I back up my words to your satisfaction without knowing what pleases you or what you understand or do not understand?

If you are very curious, seek (elsewhere) and ye shall find.