Panny pancake 14/2.5 review

[marlof]

How about raws? Does LR3 apply any action on cross-brand combos? What exactly?

I use two Panasonic lenses on my Olympus camera bodies (20 1.7 and 45 2.8). Geometric distortions are corrected in software, both in camera and in ACR. What's not corrected (alas!) is chromatic aberration. A Panasonic body will correct that with a Panasonic lens, but an Olympus body won't with the same lens. Also RAW developing software will not correct that automatically, since I believe the ORF file doens't contain any CA information.

 

[Jonas]

I have (or had) two lenses that were so much better in the center than any other lens I tried; the Pentax C-mount 25/1.4 C22525KP, and the Kern Switar 26/1.1. If we don't count for the mount they have one thing in common and that is heavy distortion.

Seeing modern lenses costing a lot of money never reaching the IMA-test values, or per pixel definition, as those two lenses it is pretty clear to me that optical correction doesn't come for free. The price seem to be decreased resolution, stretched corners, weight and money.

Sometimes one can see comments like "optical corrections perfectly performed" when the new µ4/3 take on the lens and the camera as a system is discussed.

There are some arguments I agree with; Panasonic shouldn't ask all that money for their products, the lenses could have been a either a notch better or a little bigger and faster. There are limits to how what software correction can achieve and now that it is in use I would like to see either 0% of CA and 0% of distortion, or much less LoCA or something else showing the system was taken to its limit, for the photographers to benefit from in image quality.

Bashing either optical or software correction tricks doesn't seem very productive.

/Jonas

 

[Vivek]

There are some arguments I agree with; Panasonic shouldn't ask all that money for their products, the lenses could have been a either a notch better or a little bigger and faster.
/Jonas

That is my major issue with Pana/Oly. Look at the prices of the 17/2.8 now.
That should have been the case in the beginning.

I will wait for the 14/2.5 to reach ~$200 mark.

These are lenses that can not be focused manually (without battery power from the cam) nor do they have a manually adjustable aperture. Had these two things been different, I will not have any problems with the asking prices.

If they want to cut costs (and weight!), they can chuck the electronics out and start making real lenses.

 

[Terry]

If they want to cut costs (and weight!), they can chuck the electronics out and start making real lenses.

Who makes new "real" lenses today other than Leica, Voigtlander, Zeiss (not all), Pentax (limited primes)?

 

[Vivek]

AFAIK, none of them and only Cosina have made one lens (25/0.95).

There is a 35/1.7 "lens magic" as well.

 

[Jonas]

(...)
These are lenses that can not be focused manually (without battery power from the cam) nor do they have a manually adjustable aperture. Had these two things been different, I will not have any problems with the asking prices.

I recall a thread about "better" lenses, a year ago, here.

Then you had this opinion:

(...)
So, save the trouble and churn out more zooms and concentrate on the colors of the cameras and matching accessories.

Just sayin' ...

Anyway, it's a year later and I still would like to see Panasonic and Olympus making a series of premium lenses for those so inclined.

/Jonas

 

[Vivek]

Selective reading (a trait of yours?) always is a problem.

What i said then, AFAIC, does not conflict with what I look for now either.

I have several dozen manual focus lenses (most c-mount) that I use on my G1s and only two plastic primes from Oly and Pana.

I wrecked the kitzooms from both Pana and Oly and they stay wrecked.

 

[Jonas]

Selective reading (a trait of yours?) always is a problem.

What i said then, AFAIC, does not conflict with what I look for now either.
(...)

Haha. Yes it is. So are a lot of things. What goes around comes around.
A good thing is there was a link to your post.

Anyway, I'm happy to see there are more people wanting this sort of "better" lenses than it was back then.

 

[Vivek]

Realistically, is there any chance of that? I do not think so, not from Pana or Oly. It took nearly 2 years for Pana to come up with the $400 wonder.

 

[Jonas]

I don't expect Panasonic to do this, no.

OTOH, Pentax had some success with their limited primes. I believe it is their build quality making people rave about them more than their optical performance (which is not bad but also not the best ever). Photographers using other brands are also looking at those limiteds with the "want-to-have" look on their faces.

So, it all depends on what way the responsible folks at Panasonic look at this. By now they should be used to the fact that their G series of cameras actually are used for serious photography (as opposed to the commercials showing the three shopping Tokyo ladies).

 

[Terry]

I thought I read that Panasonic was going back over their lens lineup to add more primes. Now when we get good ones like the 45 macro people again scream about price.

 

[Vivek]

Now when we get good ones like the 45 macro people again scream about price.

There is nothing I have seen that compelled me to consider buying one. Besides, but for the Leica label, they would not even have considered such a price tag.

 

[Terry]

There is nothing I have seen that compelled me to consider buying one. Besides, but for the Leica label, they would not even have considered such a price tag.

We have different taste in lenses (which is fine). I thought it rendered beautifully.

 

[Vivek]

Terry, For a fly-by-wire focus lens with a 45mm FL, it was alright.

That FL region is easy covered by literally thousands of old manual focus lenses some of which will have most aspects of that Pana lens.

It is a tough sell for Pana.

FWIW, The pen F 38/3.5 Macro always gave not very pleasant bokeh on film (high contrast lens). On G1s (with so much glass over the sensor- the effect of which was discussed somewhere in this forum.), the bokeh became very creamy. That convinced me that it is far too easy get smooth OOF backgrounds with the m4/3rds with any lens.

 

[Jack]

Realize this is OT, but I think it warrants discussion: I respectfully disagree with you Vivek; I am in Terry's camp on the 45 macro.

While there are certainly a lot of prime options in the 40 to 50mm range, they are all manual focus. Right there is a limitation. Fine if *YOU* can live with it, but not everybody can. I can, but I prefer not to if I don't have to

Would I prefer a faster, non-macro AF lens? Yes I would. A 40mm f1.4 would be very sweet. Would I use a manual focus 40mm f1.4 over an AF f2.8 just to gain the 2 stops? Nope.

So, different strokes -- and 'aint it grand!

 

[Vivek]

Jack, Actually I did not disagree with Terry.

Yes, my personal preferences for a macro lens are different and the fact is that I am one of the few lucky ones who has at his disposal, literally over a hundred macro lenses, including some of the very best optics ever made. In addition, I have focus helicoids and such doodahs to go with those lenses.

So, a macro lens in 45/2.8 was out of the question for me. Those who do own that might use it for portraits and such but there again, much faster (tiny in size and weight) manual primes come in handy for me.

Wide primes are a difficult area to tackle, especially for a tiny format.

I would welcome any high quality (fast as well) normal, portrait (yes 40-45mm f/1.4 would be great), etc primes, preferrably compact and definitely unlike the 4/3rds PanaLeica 25/1.4

 

[Jack]

Okay got it -- we are in the same camp

 

[pellicle]

Realistically, is there any chance of that? I do not think so, not from Pana or Oly. It took nearly 2 years for Pana to come up with the $400 wonder.

well ... we all know how hard it is to develop a lens these days:
* occupational health and safety
* environmental vision statement
* marketing plan
* risk assessment

;-)

 

[Vivek]

Well, some of us are addressing the environment question in a very positive way by using discarded lenses (particularly the machine vision variety) and sticking to the old and still functional G1.

Some of us are also belligerent to the marketing onslaught from "review" outfits.

 

[Riley]

You know, they didn't use the same film/sensor for those tests.

(EDIT: Nugat posted while I typed my little reply, sorry for repeating)

Yeah I got all that and it was understood from the beginning, despite this these are impressive scores (for the centre at least)

and as Vivek sorta implies, what happens when they get hold of an E5, or 'like' technology makes its way to mFT (assuming it hasnt already), b/se it seems from the outside that the sensors arent all that different within the same generation or timespan

be worth Oly's while to provide Lenstip with a box of goodies with retesting lenses in mind. The differences might make interesting reading