The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Panny pancake 14/2.5 review

PeterB666

Member
I think the amount of distortion from this lens is unforgivable. While it is corrected, it effectively changes the focal length to a less generous one. For a prime lens, distorsion levels of 6% are unheard of unless you are shooting through the bottom of a coke bottle. It is about the double the worst you get with most zooms at their very worst focal length. What were the designers of this lens doing?

I trust the designers of the forthcoming 12mm Olympus lens won't cut corners and produce a poorly designed lens lite this one. Anyone looking for conservatively wide lens may was well get the Olympus 17mm or wait for the 12mm lens and see what that is like.

For those not in need of a compact lens, stick with the kit zoom's 14mm. You only lose around 1 stop and it will cost you nothing.
 

monza

Active member
It's pretty clear what they are doing...maximizing profit. It's a lot cheaper to correct via software than to correct in the glass... ;)
 

Terry

New member
I think the amount of distortion from this lens is unforgivable. While it is corrected, it effectively changes the focal length to a less generous one. For a prime lens, distorsion levels of 6% are unheard of unless you are shooting through the bottom of a coke bottle. It is about the double the worst you get with most zooms at their very worst focal length. What were the designers of this lens doing?

I trust the designers of the forthcoming 12mm Olympus lens won't cut corners and produce a poorly designed lens lite this one. Anyone looking for conservatively wide lens may was well get the Olympus 17mm or wait for the 12mm lens and see what that is like.

For those not in need of a compact lens, stick with the kit zoom's 14mm. You only lose around 1 stop and it will cost you nothing.
I'm not defending the 14mm lens don't own it and don't have plans to buy it but. A couple of things:

A)I thought the 17mm lens had it's fair share of distortion and nor did it fare that well when tested.
B)They obviously were aiming for very small - the lens is tiny
C)I'm now pretty sure that it has been shown that after corrections the field of view is the correct field of view for the indicated focal length.
 

Jerry_R

New member
Many people look on uncorrected results and based on this - put negative opinion. But the corrections give immediately much more better results - in JPG, RAW, VIDEO.

The point is - if that end result would be crap - then fine, we can laugh from the lens. But it isn't.
It isn't as sharp as 20mm, but is much more sharper than I expected.

PS: and I am not interested in vigneting, distortions, sharpness - in area - that is ALWAYS NOT VISIBLE in LCD, EVF, JPG, RAW, VIDEO.

PPS: http://m43photo.blogspot.com/2010/11/lumix-14mm-distortion-correction.html
 
Last edited:

pellicle

New member
Hi

I was about to inject exactly this point ... so thanks for taking the heat for me there :)

However, are we talking about a photograph or a lens that costs $400/- here?
While on the photographs being produced by whatever means (gear wise) I also wonder why any online photos have to give details of any lens/gear used.
actually I bet you don't wonder so much as suspect ;-)

our problem is that we are clearly not late [middle aged | semi retired | dual income no kids] folks who have nothing much else to splash money on and think that $400 represents not much at all.
 

pellicle

New member
Hi

I appreciate my wide combo of Oly-D17/2.8 plus the Ricoh 0.75X even more now.
I see on the tests by the same site, that the Oly 17mm obtains about 45mm to 50mm (with the center to edge performance remaining close to each other after f4), would this not then make that lens about equal to the 14mm, particularly when taking into account the 0.75x converter?
 

Riley

New member
I like the fact that Lenstip assesses the uncorrected optics, because not everyone has a workflow which includes the intended software corrections. However, it would be better if they were to qualify their conclusions with a statement indicating that the massive distortion and vignetting are largely addressed by in-camera corrections (for JPEG shooters) as well as most of the popular RAW converters.
hard to disagree with that, but the they failed to make one very positive remark about the centre resolution of this lens which is way outside normal parameters

70 lpmm is even quite beyond the 50+ lpmm for Zuiko SHG glass

14/2.5 Panasonic
http://www.lenstip.com/273.4-Lens_review-Panasonic_LUMIX_G_14_mm_f_2.5_ASPH._Image_resolution.html

14/35-2 SHG Zuiko
http://lenstip.com/260.4-Lens_revie...l_ED_14-35_mm_f_2.0_SWD_Image_resolution.html

50/2 macro ED Zuiko
http://lenstip.com/185.4-Lens_revie...al_50_mm_f_2.0_Macro_ED_Image_resolution.html
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Hi



I see on the tests by the same, that the Oly 17mm obtains about 45mm to 50mm (with the center to edge performance remaining close to each other after f4), would this not then make that lens about equal to the 14mm, particularly when taking into account the 0.75x converter?
Hi,

Had not noticed that. These are from 1.5 years ago (Barcelona).


Untitled by Vivek Iyer, on Flickr


Untitled by Vivek Iyer, on Flickr

It (17/2.8 +0.75 Ricoh) works well for me and will not cost me $400/-. When it (14mm price) comes down to ~$200 or so, I will rethink this. ;)

The "reviews" don't work for me. Their efforts are wasted, I am sorry to say.
 

nugat

New member
hard to disagree with that, but the they failed to make one very positive remark about the centre resolution of this lens which is way outside normal parameters

70 lpmm is even quite beyond the 50+ lpmm for Zuiko SHG glass

14/2.5 Panasonic
http://www.lenstip.com/273.4-Lens_review-Panasonic_LUMIX_G_14_mm_f_2.5_ASPH._Image_resolution.html

14/35-2 SHG Zuiko
http://lenstip.com/260.4-Lens_revie...l_ED_14-35_mm_f_2.0_SWD_Image_resolution.html

50/2 macro ED Zuiko
http://lenstip.com/185.4-Lens_revie...al_50_mm_f_2.0_Macro_ED_Image_resolution.html
Wrong.
Lenstip.com changed test bodies recently and their resolution tests' figures for (m)43 jumped almost double. You cannot compare Imatest figures from different bodies, but most test sites frequently do so. Check the bodies used at Lenstip.
To me the only integral method for resolution comparisons (for the lack of standards) is the visual appraisal of test patterns, or resolution trumpets. From those Leica glass on film bodies resolves 100lp/mm and the same glass on M9 (18Mpix FF)--63lp/mm (Nyquist at 73lp/mm, imx.nl). 24Mpix best FF systems resolve 2700lw/ph or 56lp/mm, Nyquist at 83lp/mm (dpreview.com resolution trumpet, not "widgets"). (m)43 with Zuiko 50/2 and the 12Mpix sensor gets 2400lw/ph, or 92 lp/mm (dpreview, me).
I haven't seen tests with SHG on E5, but hope to conduct them next week.
One caveat with the visual/resolution trumpet method is contrast. It should be consistent between tests.
(Traditional visual method was like 30% contrast, while with current Imatest based reviews MTF50 is more popular).
Additionally one should look at lens integrity across the frame, in the corners.
It is wrong to extrapolate center resolution into lw/ph figure when edges are fuzzy.
Finally, on digital bodies we always test the resolution of the whole system: lens, AA filter, sensor, electronics, algorithms.
 
Last edited:
V

Vivek

Guest
I would suspect, given the small sizes of the lens elements (I am still not sure all of it is glass or there is some plastic involved), one could expect sample variations as the tolerances demand much more stricter control.

Even very large surfaced current Leica glass (for the S2) shows problems related to aspheric surfaces (see: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4730, shots posted by XPIXEL there).

What I wonder is, given all the huge light fall off and the not so stellar sharpness, why in the world would Pana make such a complicated lens design?

Wouldn't a triplet do the job? It did not stop them making the stereo toy lens.
 
IQ issues aside, I don't understand the choice of 14mm focal length. Panasonic already has three other optics covering 14mm (14-45mm, 7-14mm, 14-140mm) and now they have four. Had this lens been a 12mm f/2.5 with good IQ, it would have been a lot more useful. A fast prime system consisting of 12mm/f2.5, 20mm/f1.7 and 45mm/f2.8 would be a great road warrior kit (and not very heavy).

Paul
 
Last edited:

nugat

New member
who needs a 12mm/f2.5 panny...

...when a 10mm/1.8 Schneider is available...:grin:
 
Last edited:

Jonas

Active member
(...)
Wouldn't a triplet do the job? It did not stop them making the stereo toy lens.
You know more than I do about those things... Would a 14mm triplet (something I guess is a pretty simple lens construction) be able to make an image without border smear with our stack of glass in front of the sensor?

IQ issues aside, I don't understand the choice of 14mm focal length.
(...)
A fast prime system consisting of 12mm/f2.5, 20mm/f1.7 and 45mm/f2.8 would be a great road warrior kit (and not very heavy).
I don't think a 12/2.5, or 45/2.8 are really "fast".
But I like the focal lengths in your proposed series, and if the IQ could be a notch better I wouldn't mind the lenses to be a tad bigger. Let's hope Olympus (for once) make a real good 12mm lens. Unlike Peter I don't trust in Olympus.

/Jonas
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
. . . . . then in the end, some photographer picks up a lens that has been trashed by all the reviewers and produces a beautiful photograph . . . . .

. . . . . then in the end, some photographer picks up a lens that has been top rated by all the reviewers and produces a terrible photograph . . . . .

I enjoy the reviews but I know at times it is sometimes like reading a movie review, the critic gets it all so wrong, after seeing the movie myself.
Equipment reviews I read as pure infotainment. :)
Like most of the news media these days, sadly.

I expect the 14mm is quite a nice lens. I'm at a crossroads deciding whether to keep a Micro-FourThirds body in my kit; if I do, I'll buy one.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
You know more than I do about those things... Would a 14mm triplet (something I guess is a pretty simple lens construction) be able to make an image without border smear with our stack of glass in front of the sensor?

/Jonas

I actually found a 20mm Tessar that does amazingly well on a G1 (more than full coverage and acceptable light fall off, no CA). I am yet to mount it permanently so, can't give more details. Overall thickness including the mount would be ~1cm.

Still striving for wider lenses and I am confident that I would find one soon. I am more focused on APS-C coverage nowadays (on a slim hope that Sony's NEX would get better and become a usable camera system).
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I don't think a 12/2.5, or 45/2.8 are really "fast".
But I like the focal lengths in your proposed series, and if the IQ could be a notch better I wouldn't mind the lenses to be a tad bigger. Let's hope Olympus (for once) make a real good 12mm lens. Unlike Peter I don't trust in Olympus.

/Jonas
I think the point is that those are "reasonable" goals especially given the 45/2.8 already exists. But your point is taken -- it would be awesome if we could get a 12mm f2 and 40 - 50mm f1.4 AF options...
 

Jerry_R

New member
I still think of that software corrections in u43.

All u43 native lenses - give wider picture on the 4000x3000 sensor.
Then it is being corrected, what means cutting off external sections.

It means loosing resolution from pixels closer to borders, what remains is smaller than 4000x3000.
But it must be interpolated - as RAW opened in LR shows full 4000 x 3000.
(at least ofr Lumix G)


http://m43photo.blogspot.com/2010/11/lumix-14mm-distortion-correction.html

So, having heard that - people would expect mediocre sharpness and quality.
But it is not a case... What you think?

We all know 14-45mm kit as excelent kit. Much more better, sharper than C, N or S kits.
Photozone.de wrote that it is weak in fact, but after corrections it behaves quite well.
What you think?

From real life - me and Nugat made some tests not long ago.
We compared sharpness of new clinic Leica lens attached to GF1 vs 20mm f/1.7.
Then we opened RAWs in LR and simply could not find any significant difference.

It would mean that software corrections are perfectly designed and done.
Aren't they?
 

Riley

New member
Im not so sure anymore about incamera correction
maybe it depends on how well its done

from where I sit optical correction costs resolution too
those stretchy corners are not a good look

and hey it saves buying PTLens
 

nugat

New member
Although m43 is supposedly one platform, using cross-brand combos is no certain thing. Is there an official statement from 43.org on what is exactly corrected in jpegs by Oly bodies with Panny lenses? And the other way round?
How about raws? Does LR3 apply any action on cross-brand combos? What exactly?
 
Top