Pana 20/1.7- not overwhelming

[Vivek]

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).

Thanks! Very useful!

 

[CVickery]

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)...

Thanks for this. I've been using the Contax GG-2 hood on the 20/1.7, but I never thought of even trying the GG-3. I just assumed that a hood that deep would cause significant vignetting.

 

[Audii-Dudii]

Thanks for this. I've been using the Contax GG-2 hood on the 20/1.7, but I never thought of even trying the GG-3. I just assumed that a hood that deep would cause significant vignetting.

I stand corrected: The GG-3 Contax replica hood I'm using measures 32mm in depth, not 18mm as I wrote above. I must admit that I'm surprised it works as well as it does...

 

[Jonas]

Hi Vivek,

let me return your s**t right back. I don't know what your freak'n problem is. Why is it you can't show us that your claims hold true? Why should I have to read replies from you like "I am afraid, I do not have a clue about what you are talking about Jonas.", also aftet having given you a link showing what I mean?

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.

As I said; I get some search results when searching for xenoplan but not the one for this particular xenoplan. I obviously spelled something the same way Schneider does.

Are you insinuating I don't know how to interprete a MTF chart, or do I just misunderstand you?

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

You don't understand that?
Because I don't like the idea of a forum where some people think they can post claims and then expect everybody should be happy and take their words for it. If the lens easily trumps another lens, and you have both of them, how hard would it be to show us the difference?

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?

Why the heck should you start that sentence with Why the heck? You don't need to know what pleases me, or what I understand. Regardless of that knowledge it would have been decent to show something at all, to give a link to the MTFs, to show bokeh samples and to explain what the heck, lol, "etc" is.

Then when actually having at least tried to back up your claims you could draw a conclusion about if that did please the readers, or if some of them understood anything.

All you have given me, or us, is a lame thing about never having seen the swirly bokeh and that the bokeh is fine for your personal use. Yada.

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

Or you stop posting threads like this one?

Now you know what pleases me. Tell me:


Do you want this to be a forum where anyone can post claims, and suggestions linked to those, without even being prepared for questions or opinions on this?

Or:

Do you want this to be a forum where one can post claims and/or opinions, but when doing so also be prepared to discuss, or show why?

/Jonas

 

[nostatic]

I like to say, "swirly bokeh."

It's fun. Swirly bokeh. Try it. Come on, you know you want to...

(just trying to lighten things up)

 

[pellicule]

Well,

to go back to the title - I also now find the 20 mm underwhelming - and also the GF1 sometimes leaves me feeling a little - hmmm. Maybe the worst part is not the camera but my post processing .. I cannot put my finger on exactly the issue - the high ISO is a disappointment, but I barley go over 400 anyway .. the ergonomics are ok, but i do keep hitting the click on the scroll wheel thus changing the Aperture control into an over/under exposure compensation. I have used and owned better lenses, but at the price it is nether bad or exceptional.
BUT.
I'll keep the both as the combination can be (and is) carried in my pocket as I leave the house and it has meant me taking pictures when otherwise my D700 would have been sitting on the shelf, or in my back pack ...
I have a Leicatime wrist strap from my M8, and I walk about with it dangling from my wrist, for that it is perfect, light, unobtrusive and low key.
I have tried my older AF-D prime lenses and I keep an eye out for a bargain fast wide prime, but whilst I generally prefer the old glass results - its the Panny 20 that keeps getting put back.

 

[ddk]

Because I don't like the idea of a forum where some people think they can post claims and then expect everybody should be happy and take their words for it. If the lens easily trumps another lens, and you have both of them, how hard would it be to show us the difference?
Jonas

There are times that you take another member's or reviewer's comments on faith based on their past posts. I guess its easier if you have common tastes or share a common understanding and philosophy when it comes to subjective matters.

IME side by side tests are limited and generally a waste to time and prove very little if anything without expanding the scope of the test to personal experience and opinion. Of course its all moot if you have no commonality with the person making the claims, with or without side by side examples.

 

[Vivek]

Jonas,

You have seen one post (by someone else and you had the audacity to link that person's image (presumably) without permission) on swirly bokeh and you are saying that my experience on bokeh of the said lens is yada. Nada. I am not prepared to discuss milapse's post or that shot.

Is the sample posted by Robert right here not visible to you?

If you can't find the MTF data on that Xenoplan there is little I can do. I was being charitable to give you hints to get some data.

I would repeat what I said in my first post:

My suggestion to those who have manual focus primes- hold on to them!


There is no Xenoplan (or as you think sometimes, "Zenoplan") in that sentence.

 

[Terry]

I'm going to echo Jonas' comments on this thread. The initial post basically says that the 20mm lens is outperformed by other lenses and there is noticeable barrel distortion and talks about the bokeh. When asked you haven't shown anything uncorrected from the 20mm lens. It would be nice if you are going to start a thread to have this discussion to show examples of what you are talking about. Show examples from the Schneider lens, show examples of the problems with the 20. Show why you think the 25mm Oly is better. I don't really feel any more enlighted 49 posts later.

terry

 

[Vivek]

All reposts for the benefit of the questioners (why not show what you have got- your own shots?):

Swirly bokeh?!

not sharp?!

Just for a good measure, (another repost), the lowly Computar-TV 25/1.3 (a lens that is capable of swirly bokeh in the right hands):

I can keep posting as I did a Fujinon-TV 25/1.4 sample above that has been conveniently overlooked to latch onto Xenoplan and Swirly bokeh.

 

[Vivek]

When asked you haven't shown anything uncorrected from the 20mm lens.

Perhaps, you do not have a G1 with the older version firmware. I will shoot some brick walls for you sometime in the near future and show you.

 

[Diane B]

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).

 

[Terry]

All reposts for the benefit of the questioners (why not show what you have got- your own shots?):

I only have the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 and the leica 21mm f2.8 elmarit. I haven't used the elmarit on the G series cameras because of reports of smeared corners. I am happy to post some shots from the 20mm lens when I get home.

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.

Thanks,
terry

 

[Terry]

Perhaps, you do not have a G1 with the older version firmware. I will shoot some brick walls for you sometime in the near future and show you.

The firmware version should have nothing to do with the distortion. It is the chosen RAW converter and whether or not it corrects for the distortion. I'm not sure what you are getting at? Are you saying that in the earlier firmware the 20mm lens files are different than the later firmware version?

 

[Vivek]

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.

Terry, Fair enough. I don't mind contentious posts- Jonas' included.

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]

The firmware version should have nothing to do with the distortion. It is the chosen RAW converter and whether or not it corrects for the distortion. I'm not sure what you are getting at? Are you saying that in the earlier firmware the 20mm lens files are different than the later firmware version?

Yes. The G1 (V1.2) liveview shows barrel which is minimal in V1.4 (I think I mentioned it somewhere in this thread IIRC).

This implies that better (a tad faster) focus is achieved after the barrel correction.

 

[Jack]

Yes. The G1 (V1.2) liveview shows barrel which is minimal in V1.4 (I think I mentioned it somewhere in this thread IIRC).

This implies that better (a tad faster) focus is achieved after the barrel correction.

Please show us exactly what you mean with actual image examples from the 20/1.7. Until you do that, this thread sounds more like a personal "bitch session" with no substantiation than it does a considered comment with veracity... IOW it's starting to sound more like a DPR thread than a GetDPI thread -- and I know you don't want that!

 

[Jonas]

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.

/Jonas

 

[nostatic]

I still like saying, "swirly bokeh."

 

[Jack]

I still like saying, "swirly bokeh."

:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL: :thumbs: