Menu
What's new
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

V

Vivek

Guest
Piotr (that is the name, isn't it?), Thanks for the link!

It is an interesting site, I like the way they address the factors related to a lens. The start page: http://www.lenstip.com/273.1-Lens_review-Panasonic_LUMIX_G_14_mm_f_2.5_ASPH._Introduction.html

On vignetting:

Taking into account the small size of the 4/3 sensor, which makes it easier to design vignetting-free optics, it is a quite significant slip-up indeed. At the maximum relative aperture the lens loses as much as 49% of light in the frame corners (-1.97 EV).
Click to expand...

I appreciate the plain :)thumbs: i really applaud this approach, totally non dp revs ;) ) language:

To all intends and purposes the autofocus in this lens can be treated just as a gadget.
Click to expand...
I am looking at other options. I will know how that pans out in a week.
 
N

nugat

New member
TEBnewyork said:
There is a very long thread about this review at DPReview. The lens reviewer (Andy Westlake) at DPReview disagrees with lenstips handling of m4/3 reviews. There are a lot of very good points on this thread especially dealing with the FOV.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=36939963
Click to expand...
There is a long standing war between dpreview and lenstip.
They exchange public accusations and deride methodologies.
I think both have some skeletons in their editorial drawers.
DPreview for a couple of years published all lens reviews with the wrong units; they gave resolution in lp/ph and should have in lw/ph. The resultant resolution was 2x overshot and many systems exceeded the Nyquist limit.
They had a funny note about that sending to Imatest for explanations.
When lenstip pointed that above-Nyquist is non-physical, they suddenly (a month ago) changed the units to lw/ph and removed the Nyquist lines from their "widgets". Only after some persistent inquiries they apologized and explained.
Lenstip on the other hand persisted in claims that their methodology using lp/mm from Imatest and non-sharpened raws from dcraw is best. They did not want to acknowledge that in fact they are testing system resolutions (convolutions of MTFs from lens, AA filter, sensor, electronics and algorithms) and insisted that lp/mm is the only objective figure.
But recently they changed the test bodies and suddenly 4/3 lenses gained in resolution from 40lp/mm to 75lp/mm (summilux 25/1.4 vs panny 20/1.7).
Funny, funny, funny--both.
That's what I mean do not trust fully manufacturers claims, photo reviews and insurance salesmen.
Peter/Piotr
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Piotr,

Both of them (almost all of the "review" outfits for that matter) have one thing in common- they are pseudo advertisers for these companies and get privileges like "production" samples or "pre-production" samples.

What would Amazon do without them. :ROTFL:
 
seakayaker

seakayaker

Active 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.


Life is Grand!

Dan
~ ;)
 
M

monza

Active member
So true. I have yet to see any good (or bad) photograph that has anything to do with lp/mm, lp/ph, or lw/ph. :)
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Sagely :angel: posts. :)

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.
 
Amin

Amin

Active 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.
 
Terry

Terry

New member
Amin said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think the problem in this case goes deeper.

Lenstip have apparently concluded that the lens FOV is not that of a 28mm but after corrections of a 31mm. The dispute centers around what they used as a starting point. In the linked DPReview thread they show that after corrections the lens does indeed have the correct FOV for a 28mm lens. It is pretty well known that the m4/3 lenses are wider than indicated to take into account the reduction in FOV for the corrections.
 
M

monza

Active member
Vivek said:
Sagely :angel: posts. :)

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.
Click to expand...
What is a lens useful for? :)

Resolution is pretty much at the bottom of the list of what I look for in a lens.

Online photographs don't really show resolution anyway, unless severely cropped, which means it's a lens test, not a photograph.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
No problems there Robert but the review Piotr linked talks about flare with samples (that dprevs do not know much about- remember their claim "flare is virtually absent with the 20/1.7"), distortions, light fall off.

The point about NyQuist frequency and lens performance that Piotr mentioned, I remember that clearly. Bob (moderator) pointed that out in one thread here and it got changed within an hour.

I don't know for whom lens tips are advertising unlike Amazon's dp revs.;)
 
Last edited:
seakayaker

seakayaker

Active member
Vivek said:
Sagely :angel: posts. :)

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.
Click to expand...
I enjoy knowing what combination produced a particular shot. I have bought a few lenses based on seeing output of others (and not all of these lenses were expensive and I may have overlooked them), and I am considering a camera body based on the results of what some folks have posted.

. . . . . so for me when someone adds the camera, lens, and information about the photograph, I appreciate the information provided.

Life is Grand!

Dan
~ ;)
 
Jack

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I was hopeful for this lens, but given the images I've seen I am not so enthused currently. Firstly, when I shoot my wider lenses I tend to shoot for DoF and thus am frequently using f5.6 - f8, so my need for a sharp 14 at f2.8 is limited --- and for now my 14-45 zoom suffices quite admirably. This new lens isn't very sharp wide open from what I've seen, but if it performed like it's bigger brother the 20/1.7 I suspect I'd be all over it.
 
biglouis

biglouis

Well-known member
So far, the test images I have seen, albeit jpegs and not raw images, are average to good. Certainly nowhere near as good as the results from 20/1.7.

What we need is a damn good 17/1.4, or even 18/2. Don't care if it is a pancake or not.

LouisB
 
Jack

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
What I'd prefer is another 14 that is as good as the 20 -- and even f3.5 would be fine. I agree size is less relevant than IQ...
 
V

Vivek

Guest
I appreciate my wide combo of Oly-D17/2.8 plus the Ricoh 0.75X even more now.

While definitely not as compact as the Pana 14/2.5, it works very well for me (auto focuses faster than the 17/2.8 on its own !) and I don't have to shell out $400/- on a dud.
 
Jack

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I hear you. I'm appreciating my Oly 9-18 collapsable a lot more too ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top